601. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225228 by J Mac on August 6, 2008 at 10:56 am

but to be serious for a second. this is a bit scary. until recently i thought this was refined to the states. i mean, appologies to many US folks here, but we have always known has a very high ratio of nutters to normal people, particularly sub-mason-dixie :P ....maybe i was very wrong...:`(

As an American I take no offense; because sadly you are right. This nation is under complete control of the fundies. This news troubles me yet, because I was hoping to move over to your little island of sanity in a couple years.

602. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225225 by J Mac on August 6, 2008 at 10:53 am

Mr Storey said that his personal view was that it would be "ideal" if evolution was not taught at all, although he was not demanding its removal from the curriculum.

Well it's my personal view that Mr Storey should take his bible and shove it up his ass. And since we seem to be going with personal views here... If he abides by my personal view I'd be fine with his - hell I'd TEACH a creation class.

"The issue for the current Education Minister (Caitriona Ruane] is that she tells us she's all for equality �" surely if that is the case, you can't have one set of interpretations being taught at the expense of others.

Those bastards, you mean they are only teaching the TRUTH?! How dare they not spend equal time on complete nonsense.

603. Brainwashed by a parasite

Comment #224959 by J Mac on August 6, 2008 at 4:01 am

Fungus puts mushrooms on our pizza and alcohol in our beer.

All the religious memes got us were some thin tasteless jesus crackers.

604. Brainwashed by a parasite

Comment #224843 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 6:48 pm

So the entire clade evolved just to mess with other organisms heads?

And I thought the comparisons between shrinks and fungus were only metaphorical.

605. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #224831 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Money is no object.... to those who have it.

Sex is not important... to those who get it.

The irony is you can get one with the other, but if you lack both you are screwed.

Well no, I should say NOT screwed.

606. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #224824 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 5:27 pm

I think Lewis Black said it best:

Lewis Black

607. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #224823 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 5:18 pm

I don't blame the beer or the food. I blame all of you.

I spend too much time on this damn computer.

608. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #224818 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Coco, it does sound like you have a good man. And he subscribes to a view that is taught (preached?) in many areas of social science.

However all that "culture and society" programming stuff... well... there's no PG-rated way of putting how I feel about that social science mumbo-jumbo.

If you're interested there is an AMAZING book about sex differences and human nature by Matt Ridley called "The Red Queen."

609. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #224809 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Ok Coco, you should see now that it is equal opportunity here.

Sadly there is actually MORE talk about man boobs than women.

I'm gonna go throw up and try to get rid of that visual.

610. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #224807 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 4:56 pm

I had friends who were journalist majors in college, a degree for the weak minded. Everytime I ask myself, "where do they get these people?", I just remember those former J. students and say, "oh yeah, I remember now".

An acquaintance of mine failed out of his first year of a journalism major. So he went online, got ordained, and now he's a pastor TEACHING others what to believe.

611. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #224805 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 4:51 pm

and dirty single young women that positively want to be stared at.

Where?! :o)

612. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #224801 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 4:45 pm

As a (fairly) young man I'd say you either have a great husband (or a lier).

I do understand what he is saying about emotional attachment, but their seem to be two drastically different overreactions. One is that of your first post: men as mouth-frothing horning things that have no respect for women or emotional attachments.

The other is the idea that men can be in a committed relationship without having the slightest bit of attraction to other women.

I'd be the last man on earth to cheat if/when I am in a relationship. If I am in love with one woman, I like your husband am not interested in other women. But to say I am not interested doesn't mean I don't notice the good looking ones.

Depending upon how "sexual attraction" is defined would determine if I agree with your husband or not. When I am in a good relationship I have no interest in sex with another woman. But I can still see the models and actresses on tv as very attractive.

I'd also say that men have gotten used to denying our nature because it gets us in trouble with our women: "Do you think she is pretty?" Of course the only response a man can have to that is "who? I didn't see anyone."

To often if we say "yes she is," suddenly were considered philandering scum.

There is a middle ground. Men ARE attracted to women, no matter what their relationship status. Mens hormones drive them to seek out as many women as they can get. But that in no way means they should. And it in no way excuses such behavior if they engage in it.

But denying that one has such urges is purely political.

613. Is our universe fine-tuned for life?

Comment #224791 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Somehow I suspect the odds of life in such alternate universes is MUCH higher than the odds of this information every sinking into the skulls of creationists and IDers.

614. Douglas Adams Memorial Lecture 2008

Comment #224776 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Pinker is an amazing author. Every one of his books should be required reading. I have been through all of them hardly able to put them down.

However this did not seem to be as enthralling of a speech.

615. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #224760 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Well said Goldy.

Though I have to admit a bit of queasiness whenever someone says nature VERSUS nurture. Its a debate that has been long closed in the minds of anyone educated on it.

We cannot separate traits into two categories of nature or nurture. Everything is affected by both.

And your speculation is one of the most reasonable mechanisms proposed for religious belief. There has been some study on that type of mechanism, though it is still a wide open question.

616. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #224749 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 1:51 pm

It would be surprising if it were genetic, but it could be developmental

I'm curious how that could be. Development is under the direction of genetic instructions. Unless you suspect it is exposure to some odd toxin during development that would make one "religious." But even then the toxin would have to be interacting with something, some mechanism that is already in place.

617. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #224746 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 1:45 pm

I think there are some odd misconceptions here.

Earlier MRA commented that if religion was "organic" then it couldn't be helped.

Religion certainly is part of human nature. But one can still reject it.

Genetic does not imply genetic determinism. One can have genes for being tall but based on their nutrition they could be short, or vice versa. But there are still genes for height.

And there is most likely not A GENE for religion; but the aspects of our psychological mechanisms that allow for or create religion are programmed by a genetic blue print.

618. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #224714 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 12:32 pm

It seems lines are being drawn based on whether a position is a choice or determined (genetically?)

I don't think that is necessarily justified. Once upon a time as a student I applied for a job at Fed Ex. One of their requirements was an ability to lift 70lb boxes repeatedly. Is that descrimination against weak people? Or if they had high shelving they could require someone be at least 5 foot 10. Is that height discrimination?

The (U.S.) navy has height restrictions the other way for being posted to a sub. If you are too tall you cant get the job. That's not unlawful discrimination. Its common sense. If you are unable or unwilling to do the job it should not matter WHY (religion, genetics) you don't get the job or you loose the job. PERIOD.

And it is not racial discrimination to refuse to cast a black person for a role in a play or movie if the character is white (and must be for some reason.) Or vice versa, if I wrote a play about MLK Jr I sure as hell would be justified in refusing white people the opportunity to play the role.

The job, and the job requirements, are what delineate what factors can/should be considered. NOTHING should be globally off-limits for consideration, not height, weight, race, and definitely not religion.

619. Review interview: Richard Dawkins

Comment #224669 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 10:25 am

a young lady drinks and screws a bit too much

To show that atheists DO care about others I will gladly volunteer my time to help her through this tough time.

:o)

620. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #224601 by J Mac on August 5, 2008 at 7:58 am

Anyway, I agree with people who say that one does not choose one's religion. I didn't "choose" not to believe; I simply don't. I don't think I can force myself to believe - I can't even imagine what it would be like to be the sort of person who *does* believe!

I certainly agree, but your missing the point about choice. It doesn't need to be honest.

Imagine all religious laws were suddenly put above national laws. Your damn right I'd believe in the FSM and not go to work on fridays!

Hell, I'd even make a new religion that says I need to make a 7 figure income. And I'd sure believe it.

One cannot choose sincerity, but they can choose to declare whatever religion they wish.

621. Do they really think the earth is flat?

Comment #224389 by J Mac on August 4, 2008 at 8:29 pm

Hmm, Antarctica is the perimeter, the north pole is the center?

One word for them: Gravity.

If I drop a ball it doesn't fall NORTH.

622. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #224388 by J Mac on August 4, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Seems just so silly to me that one group of people can choose not to do something sensible to protect their heads, while the rest of us cannot.

Clearly they don't have as much to protect.

623. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #224209 by J Mac on August 4, 2008 at 9:59 am

Calvin & Hobbes:

Hobbes

Not sure if thats the one you're referring to though.

624. Review interview: Richard Dawkins

Comment #224206 by J Mac on August 4, 2008 at 9:55 am

I should clarify: YOUR statement of natural selection is a tautology and is faulty. Natural selection proposed by Darwin, and evolutionary biologists is not a tautology.

625. Review interview: Richard Dawkins

Comment #224166 by J Mac on August 4, 2008 at 8:52 am

Is natural selection ('those who survive are the fittest, and the fittest survive') a tautology?

Yes as a matter of fact it is. And that has been a criticism of evolution. Luckily that criticism comes from people who do not actually understand evolution as that is NOT a correct statement.

Gould responds to such criticisms:

My defense of Darwin is neither startling, novel, nor profound. I merely assert that Darwin was justified in analogizing natural selection with animal breeding. In artificial selection, a breeder's desire represents a “change of environment” for a population. In this new environment, certain traits are superior a priori; (they surive and spread by our breeder's choice, but this is a result of their fitness, not a definition of it). In nature, Darwinian evolution is also a response to changing environments. Now, the key point: certain morphological, physiological and behvioral traits should be superior a priori as designs for living in new environments. These traits confer fitness by an engineer's criterion of good design, not by the empirical fact of their survival and spread. It got colder before the wooly mammoth evolved its shaggy coat.

But, meme tautological issues aside; memetics is not a foundation of evolutionary psychology.

BTW: Memes are also not mentioned in Cosmides and Tooby's Primer on Evolutionary Psychology.

626. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223959 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Abiogenesis may, in retrospect, be a poor example.

Life on other planets may be better. There is no empirical evidence. So it is utterly pointless to make any claims of truth. But we can start thinking of possibilities.

Alternative biology/biochemistry is a very small field addressing this. If there is life somewhere else, there is no reason to assume it will be anything like us. There is no reason to assume it would be carbon based. So why not explore ideas of what could be possible and not possible logically?

627. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223958 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 8:01 pm

No, I am not saying anyone should try to answer without empirical evidence the questions of abiogenesis. But someone should be considering the implications of each possibility.


Its like a chess game, good players are always looking many moves ahead. I can think "If he moves his queen there where will that leave me, what can I do. Then if he moves his queen here, and I move my rook, what likely responses will he have, and how can I respond to them." All that thought process can and should be going on long before the opponent moves ANYWHERE.

There is no reason to wait for the evidence to start making CONDITIONAL ideas: IF we find evidence that self replicating RNA molecules were the predecessor of DNA where do we go with that, what does that mean.

628. Review interview: Richard Dawkins

Comment #223956 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 7:55 pm

BTW I just double checked. Memes are not mentioned in the Buss text.

629. Review interview: Richard Dawkins

Comment #223955 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 7:54 pm

It's almost as if the man who invented one of the foundations of evolutionary psychology (namely, memetics)...

I agree with most of your post, but this statement struck me as quite off.

Have you read a book on evolutionary psychology? Memetics is barely significant, not mentioned in most texts, and certainly not foundational to the field. In fact when Dawkins asked David Buss about his view on memes (Buss being the author of the most widely used introductory evolutionary psychology text) Buss quite politely deflected the question while downplaying the idea of memes.

Memes are an interesting concept, but they aren't all that useful. The idea is essentially a tautology: those ideas that are good at getting transmitted and remembered are transmitted and remembered.

But what makes different ideas good at being remembered or transmitted. That is still the wiring of the brain of the individual organisms.

630. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #223950 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 7:38 pm

Layla,

I actually do agree with you ... I was just making trouble. And I wanted to highlight how foolish it is even if it is true.

I was raised christian, in a very christian environment. I don't think I ever met anyone who wasn't christian until high school, and even there non-christians were a vanishing minority.

I certainly did have to make a conscious choice to reject my faith. I was quite thoroughly brainwashed. In a way though I am grateful, I know I am rejecting something with a full and complete understanding of what it is I am rejecting.

I'm actually discussing a mildly related idea on another thread. It is how I have some value for educated theology. If we can face the best reasons FOR god and still find reasons to reject it I think it makes our position stronger.

631. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223948 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Essentially it is the logical argument for the sake of honing argument that is valuable.

Often much of what is debated or argued has so much overwhelming empirical evidence that no argument is needed (ie evolution in the current day.)

But when you approach issues that don't have evidence no one wants to touch them.

One example of course is abiogenesis. There are a number of vague IDEAS currently circulating, but as of yet there is no evidence. Most scientists are content to just wait it out until there is evidence. That is absolutely fine.

But are philosophers hashing it over? Are philosophers evaluating the implications of any of the alternate ideas of abiogenesis? If they start developing the ideas now we will have a head start on future exploration when the evidence comes in.

632. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223944 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 7:26 pm

My own views actually are that theology is of little use. And I could agree it should go. I have been playing a bit of devils advocate here. However there is one significant and important aspect of theology which is often overlooked.

I've heard rumors of these "camp quest" camps and one of their activities having something to do with constructing arguments about an invisible pink unicorn. Clearly a non-subject if there ever was one. But also quite worthwhile in that the construction of the arguments themselves is what is valued.

This is something that philosophy classes certainly COULD do, but unfortunately I don't know that they DO.

I keep thinking of debate classes, they may touch on this, as often students are assigned to argue for the side they are personally against, ie the conservative christian would be assigned to argue in favor of abortion, the liberal would have to argue against it.

If we loose the ability to construct the best possible argument for an opposing view we will never have the best possible argument for our own view.

633. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223940 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Now, that theology assumes the conclusion, was certainly the case in the time of Anselm of Canterbury, and that standard was preserved, universally, for many centuries.

You do have a good point there. However I was hoping to make a distinction between the field in general, and any individual member of the field. Theologians have conclusions (and you are free to reject all of them) theology does not.

meta-physics is limited to speculation (and some say is a dead subject).

I am surprised to hear that. However, given that statement I'd say your critiques of theology could be fair. Often atheists have a fit about theology just because they see it as "all about religious stuff," which I think is a sad misconception.

If you place theology in the same boat as meta-physics you are welcome to let them both sink. I just worry about those who would say subjects such as meta-physics is worthwhile and theology is not.

You do understand the difference between an "unproven premise" and an "unfalsifiable premise," don't you?

Yes of course, and that was a bad choice of words on my part. The premise of gods existence certainly can be given support or refutation through logical argument. This is what I was referring to.

Yes, it is true that someone in a theology department can stand up and make a proper argument of ontology which does not start from the conclusion, but that argument is the actual foundation business (ontology in general) of the philosophy department.

Is the fact that they have some of the same business grounds for eliminating one of them? If so how would you choose which is to go? (Obviously no one here has a great love for theology, but I'm speaking generally; two fields can have similar subject matter and coexist.)

The "Department for the Study of Something that Doesn't Exist"? I think I would rather go down the hall to the "Department of Being Hit Over the Head Lessons."

In many ways I agree with this sentiment. I am a biologist after all not a theologian. However there is no harm in exploring ideas thoroughly if for no other reason than to become better at demonstrating their falsehood. It is easy for an atheist to think that atheism should be the default until there is evidence of a god. I certainly agree from a logical standpoint. However, historically theism HAS BEEN the default position. It is in our nature (generally) to conjure up deities. It is a human universal that such claims are made. It is worth exploring the truth value, or lack-there-of of such claims.

In a way it is like aesthetics. One painting may not actually BE more beautiful than the other, but it is intriguing to study why people may rule in favor of one or the other.

Agreed! That is why any philosopher worth his/her salt is in the philosophy department.

Ha. Perhaps this is the changing times and you are correct. But if you get the opportunity I'd encourage you to go hang out at a mainline seminary sometime and strike up a conversation with the professors. I think you may be quite surprised. Not that I think any of your views would change, but they would be challenged - you would in fact be playing chess, rather than tic-tac-toe.

634. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #223926 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Religious belief is (still) so widespread in so much of the world that at some point, since you do come into contact with it so much, you kind of have to make a conscious choice to not believe.

Well, I'm sitting hear drinking a cup of tea. And there is a fork left on the table from dinner. I suppose one COULD say that I am making a conscious choice not to pick up the fork and stab it into my eye. But it would be an odd observation.

No one would have to make a conscious choice not to believe if there weren't others trying to .... stick the fork in their eye for them.

635. Embracing goodness, without God

Comment #223924 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 6:15 pm

I've never much liked the term atheist myself, but not because of any negative association or connotation. I couldn't care less who other people wish to lump me with. My aversion to "atheist" is that it carries no meaning. It has only a negative definition.

For various reasons negative definitions just piss me off. On a good day they're slightly less useful than squirrel shit.

"Rationalist" is a term I like, as it actually says what someone DOES support.

But rationalist doesn't quite address the activism which I would put into my rejection of religious beliefs.

Elsewhere, where a "religion" field was to be filled in, I put a line by Thomas Jefferson: "Eternal hostility towards all forms of tyranny over the minds of man."

While not so concise, that best expresses my feeling.

636. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223913 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 5:19 pm

That last point is why I get such a good laugh at the creationist side of the evolution debates. Quite simply they are idiots in every sense. Of course most people here would disagree with their conclusion, but I mean they are idiots because they can't even make a half decent case.

It's like training with the worlds greatest chess players for years on end in preparation for one match. But when you get there its in an elementary school yard and your opponents are all playing tic-tac-toe.

637. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223912 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 5:12 pm

You also commented on changing the name to "religious studies"... well we can change the name if you like, but thats just semantics. I suspect it is not just the name you wish to change but the content, and so that is the assertion to which I will respond.

Religious studies generally refers to something along the lines of comparative religions. It is a means of studying what some people believe. It teaches ABOUT the customs and traditions, and maybe just maybe ABOUT the arguments for and against any given deity. It is rare however that a religious studies class would have students CONSTRUCT arguments for and against various deities.

The "art" of constructing such arguments IS the field of theology.

Any philosopher worth their salt should also know that forcing oneself to construct a reasonable argument for something they don't believe, or against something they do believe, is a very valuable exercise. Both as a means to challenge ones own perceptions, and as a means of sharpening one's logical teeth.

638. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223908 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 5:00 pm

"God does not exist" could be, and has been, the conclusion of some theological arguments.

Would you think that they assumed that conclusion before starting?

639. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223907 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 4:59 pm

While I already disagreed with the "assumes the conclusion" statement on the assumption part, the conclusion part is also wrong.

There is no conclusion to assume.

You may argue that a certain (inadequate) theologian has assumed god existed then concluded that god exists (sadly this is common in the most vocal theists.)

But to say the whole field of study has a conclusion is just nonsense. The field of study is a means of constructing arguments for or against different ideas. Each argument has a conclusion, the field does not.

640. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223906 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 4:56 pm

assumes its own conclusion at the start

I will agree that, unfortunately, this is true at most modern "bible colleges" or "evangelical colleges." But it certainly is not true at legitimate mainline seminaries. (Or at least it wasn't in the recent past).

Assuming such a thing from the start IS a failure of logic that would not be allowed in theology any more than any other field.

Certainly there are forms of theological reasoning that take a certain form of god as an assumed premise, but that does not mean it is assumed true. In other words one can reason: IF god exists, and IF he conforms to the Christian view, what would be the implications. And much (but not all) theology is in that realm. But there is still much in the realm of establishing or refuting those premises.

Certainly there are many theologians who DO believe god is real. And certainly they'd like to be able to have it assumed in their argument. But they don't.

Theology has no more failures of logic than any other form of meta-physics.

Other fields of study work on unproven premises as well. Evolution is often foolishly faulted by creationists as not explaining the "origin of life." To which the only reasonable response is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather the diversification of life, or the origin of species.

The origin of life was a separate question. Only recently have we had workable ideas of abiogenesis, none of which yet have significant evidence. None of this stop evolutionists from studying evolution.

In theology there are groups that can study the implications of the existence of god apart from those that study whether or not god exist. Both are certainly important topics in theology.

641. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223899 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 4:20 pm

It was not my education in science that caused me to reject my faith, but rather my education in theology.

A legitimate education in theology is in fact the most effective way to convert a believer to an atheist.

Arguments AGAINST god certainly are fair game, and in fact are not rare, in professional theology.

642. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223898 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 4:17 pm

So, J Mac, is it your position that any argument against the content of the study does not necessarily apply to the validity of the study?

Not at all. But from the question it sounds as though you have an argument against the content of the study. I'm curious what that could be.

Note that arguments against the existence of god are not against the content of theology; they ARE the content of theology.

643. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223891 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Precisely.

644. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223886 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 3:45 pm

In fact, in depth studies of theology causes many "believers" to give up their faith. If not in its entirety at least to a bit of a deist "metaphorical" stance.

Theology forces individuals to think critically about their own beliefs and the consequences or implications of them. And as RD pointed out in the Four Horsemen (as well as in other discussions) the educated theologians don't believe most of the crap that is taught in the local churches. They don't buy into transubstantiation or the virgin birth.

The problem with theists is their ignorance of their own beliefs. Most of them never think them through to their logical conclusion. Theology is the means of doing just that.

One cannot carry the idea that god (in any meaningful sense) is real once they have logically deduced all the implications of that statement.

645. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223884 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Theology as an academic area is far different from any of the crap they teach in churches.

Although some "evangelical colleges" might label an aspect of their brainwashing as theology it most certainly is not.

646. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223883 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Theology is a subset of philosophy.

647. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223882 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 3:34 pm

He always loses my posts in the shuffle,

No, he doesn't loose anything. He just chooses not to answer the good questions.

648. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223880 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Theology classes are not particular to any god. But if they'd like to use the FSM as an aspect of their thinking, why not?

The whole concept of the FSM is essentially an exercise in theology. We have this deity, noodles and all, who created the world and heaven with beer volcanoes. Is that a coherent system? That is a theological question.

649. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223876 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 3:19 pm

That's an argument to not ADD theology to a school.

But the fact that I can combine other fields of study does not devalue them.

I could claim that archeology and political science already cover everything in history. So should we get rid of history?

650. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #223872 by J Mac on August 3, 2008 at 3:07 pm

I agree with most of this. However:

What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

Creative writing is a subject. It is a subject that has cured no disease, nor created no rocket ships (real ones at least). But no sane person would argue to have creative writing courses dropped from universities.

So what makes me think theology is a subject? The same thing that makes me think creative writing is a subject.

It is not a subject that answers questions, nor should anyone consider it as such. But that does not mean that the study of beliefs should not exist.

In fact, theology, in trying to create arguments for god, can prod science along.

Theology speculates on issues for which they have no data or evidence. Scientists can draw from that new areas of research. Questions precede answers, and for all its faults theology has always been good at posing some interesting big questions.