My God can beat up your God

[karlhenning]

This is a common mistake. What characterizes science is not the study of matter and energy, but the methods that are used, which are empirical and logical. The idea that what science can't find must exist "somewhere else" is just aprioristic nonsense, an attempt to preserve a belief from examination.

Ernie, you're pulling a pink harp on us, trotting out nonsense as if the point hasn't been discussed several times before, and pretending that your assertion is The Way It Is.

It's not worthy of you.  You can be so sensible when you're not in your cups on an anti-religion rant.

[drogulus]

Ernie, you're pulling a pink harp on us, trotting out nonsense as if the point hasn't been discussed several times before, and pretending that your assertion is The Way It Is.

It's not worthy of you.  You can be so sensible when you're not in your cups on an anti-religion rant.

     I would say that for better or worse it's exactly worthy of me. It's my goal to produce the perfect rant.

I'm sorry, but this is either a deliberate strawman or a result of inattentive reading of my post.

Nobody denied that a scientific discipline (including theology) is "scientific" in the sense of the concept of επιστήμη/episteme/scientia. What I did point out (and which passed over your head despite the fact that you quoted it) is the fundamental distinction between theology (as well as the other disciplines collectively known as human sciences, Geisteswissenschaften) and physical science (natural sciences, Naturwissenschaften). Their subject matters, fields of study and methodologies do, as a matter of fact, differ; claiming otherwise would be disturbingly unscientific.

     If by human sciences you mean for example psychology, history, or anthropology, then you're wrong. The methodologies differ only to the extent that the subject requires them to, but the standards, including the central concept of verification by the most rigorous means available, are exactly the same. Apologetics are not acceptable in psychology or history any more than they are in physics. They are acceptable in theology because standards are so low. Low standards and apologetics are effectively the same thing.

[Wanderer]

If by human sciences you mean ...

The terms I mentioned are perfectly clear and there's no question of what I mean. Geisteswissenschaften include, among other disciplines, philosophy, theology and jurisprudence. Very conspicuous of you to ommit them. Their methodologies are set, fundamentally different from those of, say, physics or chemistry and statements like "the methodologies differ to the extent that the subject requires them to" and using "verification by the most rigorous means available" do apply to all.

However, you still use the word "standards" effectively to connote the methodology of physical sciences in regard to theology and other human sciences. This is unacceptable. A "standard" as you mean it is assigned to a physical property that can be quantified and measured. It's completely irrelevant to anything else than the study of physical or readily quantified phenomena.  On the other hand, "high standards" in a broad sense simply means that a given methodology is applied correctly; it doesn't mean applying the wrong methodology to the wrong discipline.

More importantly, since you're here to deliberately rant, as you yourself proudly admit, nothing of what anyone would say really matters. I'll leave you to it. You have already shown remarkable lack of intellectual subtlety to make any mention of low standards an intended pun.

[drogulus]

On the other hand, "high standards" in a broad sense simply means that a given methodology is applied correctly; it doesn't mean applying

   Very well, let's make comparisons with jurisprudence. Clearly the more scientific among the humanities don't really compare. In jurisprudence you study the history as well as the reasoning behind the law. This involves the study of what human beings think and have legislated. It's an inquiry into values as well as the history of their enactment, and it is not an inquiry into natural fact, so except in the narrow historical sense (still important) science is not an issue and its methods are irrelevant. The main issues fall on the value side of the ledger. I would say that you have a point in comparing law with theology for that reason. Both are concerned largely with precedent and not with the truth of beliefs. Apologetics is entirely devoted to the obliteration of the distinction here. Belief is truth for them, an idea so unscientific even you might notice the discrepancy if you weren't so ardent an apologist yourself.

    Do you really consider psychology, anthropology, and history to be hard rather than human sciences? I've never heard that before. Certainly you're correct to reject the comparison to theology in those cases. That is my point. Theology doesn't just fail to measure up to physics, it fails comparison with any real science including the human ones. So by all means stick with jurisprudence which is about opinions. Theologians do have those.

[Wanderer]

...the more scientific among the humanities...
...to be hard rather than human sciences...
So by all means stick with jurisprudence which is about opinions.

Your dogmatism is quite ironic. You show a ridiculous prejudice against those scientific disciplines that don't use the methodology of the physical sciences and have a less than absolute reliance on experimental, empirical and quantifiable data. That's the bottom line of everything that you've contributed here. By using the controversial distinction of hard versus the other sciences you put an unacceptable axiological label on what you and you solely consider to have more merit. Needless to say, this is arbitrary and unscientific prejudice. So, it's not a matter of jurisprudence, philosophy, theology, history, sociology etc. using the methodology of physical science or not but your belief that they have less value in the degree that they don't.

[Renfield]

    Do you really consider psychology, anthropology, and history to be hard rather than human sciences?

Psychology is a biological science, with a methodological extension towards quantification of observable behaviour through experiment.


(Apologies for being slightly off-topic, but this one caught my eye. Re God, comparisons of divinity, and science vs. religion, no comment.)