Could an eventual discovery in physics "discover" god?

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
You know what's funny to me? Whenever a truly devout religious nutcase happens to have a heart attack, do you know where they go? They go to the hospital. They don't care if the doctor is atheist, gay, whatever. They pray to God, if only to relieve their overwhelming anxiety that they are about to die.

[/ QUOTE ]
Prove this.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You will be surprised to know, that it is technically the "science of theology." It's only recently that everydayspeak has confined "sciences" to labs and test tubes.

[/ QUOTE ]
In what sense is theology science? It may have been called science once, but it doesnt seem to fit the concept too well imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, which is why I used "everydayspeak" to refer to that pesky vernacular we all use in our daily lives. It's why fundies think "theory" means "guess." It doesn't. In science, theory is an explanation of obervable or predictable phenomena. The theory of aerodynamics doesn't mean "maybe things can fly." It is the explanation of that - as well as other things. "Theory of evolution" doesn't mean "hey we think maybe stuff might have evolved." Evolution is an obervable and predictable phenomenon, the "theory of it" just explains how it happens, imperfectly as of now, but we're getting there.

Now, as to "science." Like "theory" it has a basic meaning beyond everday useage. In the vernacular "science" connotes the lab/test tube, complicated equations on a blackboard image.

But in my dictionary, that very narrow definition is second to the basic and longest-understood definition:

"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws."

It's interesting, don't you think, that this definition says "facts or truths." A theologian is definitely an expert in the science of theology. He or she will know the basic tenets of many religions and philosophies, read and write multiple languages, including one or two ancient ones, be as much linguist, archeologist and cultural anthropologist as religionist. Like any other doctor of any science, they may be a generalist or they will specialize. Because the field is so immense, most specialize and become intensely familiar with one religion or one subset of a religion, or one aspect of one subset -

True theology is science and has been considered such for hundreds of years, long before any so-called "hard" sciences were ever included in the curricula of colleges. So, BTW, is Philosophy. Also, if you decide to become a librarian, you will need a Master's degree in Library Science.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You will be surprised to know, that it is technically the "science of theology." It's only recently that everydayspeak has confined "sciences" to labs and test tubes.

[/ QUOTE ]
In what sense is theology science? It may have been called science once, but it doesnt seem to fit the concept too well imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, which is why I used "everydayspeak" to refer to that pesky vernacular we all use in our daily lives. It's why fundies think "theory" means "guess." It doesn't. In science, theory is an explanation of obervable or predictable phenomena. The theory of aerodynamics doesn't mean "maybe things can fly." It is the explanation of that - as well as other things. "Theory of evolution" doesn't mean "hey we think maybe stuff might have evolved." Evolution is an obervable and predictable phenomenon, the "theory of it" just explains how it happens, imperfectly as of now, but we're getting there.

Now, as to "science." Like "theory" it has a basic meaning beyond everday useage. In the vernacular "science" connotes the lab/test tube, complicated equations on a blackboard image.

But in my dictionary, that very narrow definition is second to the basic and longest-understood definition:

"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws."

It's interesting, don't you think, that this definition says "facts or truths." A theologian is definitely an expert in the science of theology. He or she will know the basic tenets of many religions and philosophies, read and write multiple languages, including one or two ancient ones, be as much linguist, archeologist and cultural anthropologist as religionist. Like any other doctor of any science, they may be a generalist or they will specialize. Because the field is so immense, most specialize and become intensely familiar with one religion or one subset of a religion, or one aspect of one subset -

True theology is science and has been considered such for hundreds of years, long before any so-called "hard" sciences were ever included in the curricula of colleges. So, BTW, is Philosophy. Also, if you decide to become a librarian, you will need a Master's degree in Library Science.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

you're taking two concepts and treating them as one.
The 'science of sleeping in a hammock' does not make sleepin g in one 'science'. It means the study of it done 'scientifically'.
'Science of Theology' works the same way. Theology remains theology, but it can be studied scientifically just as hammock-dosing can. Science does not become part of the theology nor does studying an ant scientifically make me an ant or it a scientist.

luckyme

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]

you're taking two concepts and treating them as one.
The 'science of sleeping in a hammock' does not make sleepin g in one 'science'. It means the study of it done 'scientifically'.
'Science of Theology' works the same way. Theology remains theology, but it can be studied scientifically just as hammock-dosing can. Science does not become part of the theology nor does studying an ant scientifically make me an ant or it a scientist.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
1. The part you bolded, the definition, copied right from the dictionary.
2. "Science" has been defined this way for at least a couple hundred years.
3. Read for comprehension, please.

[MaxWeiss]

No, those answers only answer "how" whereas religion claims to know "why" and then thrown in a bunch of "how" mumbo-jumbo to try and make itself look legit. But even without the "how" part of religion, people would still want to find meaning where there is none.

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there isn't even a word that combines science and theology

[/ QUOTE ]

You will be surprised to know, that it is technically the "science of theology." It's only recently that everydayspeak has confined "sciences" to labs and test tubes.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is bogus... cults leeching credibility

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

you're taking two concepts and treating them as one.
The 'science of sleeping in a hammock' does not make sleepin g in one 'science'. It means the study of it done 'scientifically'.
'Science of Theology' works the same way. Theology remains theology, but it can be studied scientifically just as hammock-dosing can. Science does not become part of the theology nor does studying an ant scientifically make me an ant or it a scientist.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
1. The part you bolded, the definition, copied right from the dictionary.
2. "Science" has been defined this way for at least a couple hundred years.
3. Read for comprehension, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The bolding was in your original.
2) The Art of Physics ... doesn't mean we pull it from the science dept.
I wasn't disagreeing with that specific definition of the word 'science', I was pointing out that it's an equivocation fallacy to use the word 'science' in the two different ways you were in your claims.

What you're doing is claiming that my joyfulness shows that I prefer the same sex.

[ QUOTE ]
True theology is science ..

[/ QUOTE ] going to the 'no real scotsman' for help.

If we allow your selected definition of a method of study turn the endeavor under examination to the category of 'science' in the sense that physics is, then all endeavors are science. It's irrelevant whether theology is 'science' or not, your proof was what I questioned.

sorry my analogy wasn't clearer,

luckyme