Hail, Oh Infallible Science!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But the degree a scientist gets is a "Doctor of Philosophy". It's a "sophy" not an "ology".

In most cases, though, said scientist has specialized in some field that ends in the named suffix (with notable exceptions, of course).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In most cases, though, said scientist has specialized in some field that ends in the named suffix (with notable exceptions, of course).

Such as Plant Science? Or should my certificate read "plant sciencology"?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For example, "faith" said that the Sun and the planets all revolved around the Earth.
This was the faith of who, exactly? I seem to recall that it was the accepted scientific stance at one point. In fact, it was an accepted scientific fact that the solar system was sun-based, there for awhile, as well. That faith was wrongly place, it appears.[/b]

The ancient greeks would, of course, disagree.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What's it got for 'theology,' pray tell?

Theology is the study of God or Gods. Not the "scientific" study of god or gods, due to a lack of empirical evidence, of course. Both are subsets of Philosophy, since they both rely on logic. You do not require any belief in god to study theology. Belief in god or gods is referred to by a different term - religion.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]"Faith" has been consistently shown to lead to wrong conclusions, however.
Wrongly placed, of course.

For example, "faith" said that the Sun and the planets all revolved around the Earth.
This was the faith of who, exactly? I seem to recall that it was the accepted scientific stance at one point. In fact, it was an accepted scientific ...[text shortened]... things are still hidden. I am not willing to risk my eternal state on hidden things.[/b]

Wrongly placed, of course.

And how does one determine what the "right" faith is?

This was the faith of who, exactly? I seem to recall that it was the accepted scientific stance at one point.

I suppose one could say it was the accepted scientific stance at one point. However science showed it incorrect and the model was revised; "faith" insisted it must be correct - the faith of Christians who felt their holy book was in disagreement with this model. That was what I was referring to; I don't describe scientists as having "faith" in their scientific models.

Eh? How so?

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

This is the definition I am referring to; the one that leads to Christianity which assumes the existence of a supernatural world and supernatural entitities for which there is no evidence or logical proof.

What hypothesis has Christianity (or theology) offered which might show it to be incorrect and was then vindicated via experiment?

The word, revealed infers somethings are still hidden.

No it doesn't. If it did, this sentence would be paradoxical:

"Someday, all will be revealed to man".

In addition, it implies that there is a "revealer" which I imagine is the real reason you chose that word.

Are you a Christian because you are concerned about your eternal self and think the best bet for a good eternity is to be Christian? Isn't such selfishness considered unChristian? If so, why are you talking about your eternal state and under what circumstances you choose or do not choose to risk it?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Theology is the study of God or Gods. Not the "scientific" study of god or gods, due to a lack of empirical evidence, of course. Both are subsets of Philosophy, since they both rely on logic. You do not require any belief in god to study theology. Belief in god or gods is referred to by a different term - religion.

Theology is an exacting science, requiring more advanced schooling than most degrees to be considered accomplished.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Theology is an exacting science, requiring more advanced schooling than most degrees to be considered accomplished.

Is Scientology a science? It has an -ology name, and it requires extensive schooling to be considered an "accomplished" Scientologist. Of course, only other Scientologists would consider this person accomplished in science, kind of like how only other religious people (yes, Christianity is a religion) consider theologians accomplished in science.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Wrongly placed, of course.

And how does one determine what the "right" faith is?

This was the faith of who, exactly? I seem to recall that it was the accepted scientific stance at one point.

I suppose one could say it was the accepted scientific stance at one point. However science showed it incorrect and the model was revised; "f ...[text shortened]... eternal state and under what circumstances you choose or do not choose to risk it?[/b]

And how does one determine what the "right" faith is?
Every man must determine for himself what he chooses to trust.

the faith of Christians who felt their holy book was in disagreement with this model.
Their faith, like those in the scientific community, was ill-placed. The Bible did not support their beliefs, just as it does not support some of the positions taken today by Christians.

the one that leads to Christianity which assumes the existence of a supernatural world and supernatural entitities for which there is no evidence or logical proof.
Oh, you mean the one that evolution produced for our temporary benefit.

What hypothesis has Christianity (or theology) offered which might show it to be incorrect and was then vindicated via experiment?
Where to begin? How about in the beginning? When the man's seed was cursed to carry the sin nature, yet the woman was promised an untainted offspring would spring forth from her seed, who knew about oogenesis and polar bodies?

"Someday, all will be revealed to man".
Wait a tic. I said the word revealed infers that some things are still hidden. You object, using this sentence? I don't get it. The sentence you used indirectly states that not all is revealed right now, but 'someday' it will be. Is it just too late at night for me to get it, or did you mean to say something else?

Are you a Christian because you are concerned about your eternal self and think the best bet for a good eternity is to be Christian?
My first query regarding God was just to know Him. I was too young to really value a soul, let alone put any type of weight to eternity. I just flat out wanted to know the Creator, if at all possible.

why are you talking about your eternal state and under what circumstances you choose or do not choose to risk it?
Empiricism and rationalism is placing one's trust in one's ability to measure and reason as well as reach right conclusions. Neither are able to reveal anything beyond the general revelation. If one is to perceive anything regarding outside of the general revelation, one necessarily requires help.

I place my trust in that Helper.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Is Scientology a science? It has an -ology name, and it requires extensive schooling to be considered an "accomplished" Scientologist. Of course, only other Scientologists would consider this person accomplished in science, kind of like how only other religious people (yes, Christianity is a religion) consider theologians accomplished in science.

Close (okay, not really: I'm just being nice), but no cigar.

Originally posted by Halitose
Science n.,

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

According to Wikipedia:
Theology (Greek θεος, theos, "God", + λογος, logos, "word" or "reason"😉 means "reasoned discourse" concerning religion, spirituality and God.

I see no similarity between science and theology other than that they both include study.

[edit] there are some greek letters in there.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Theology is an exacting science, requiring more advanced schooling than most degrees to be considered accomplished.

Why is theology no longer considered the "Queen of the Sciences"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why is theology no longer considered the "Queen of the Sciences"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology

Note that this was just before the start of the Age of Enlightenment described in wikipedia as "...leading the world toward progress and out of a long period of doubtful tradition, full of irrationality, superstition, and tyranny.."

Originally posted by twhitehead
Note that this was just before the start of the Age of Enlightenment described in wikipedia as "...leading the world toward progress and out of a long period of doubtful tradition, full of irrationality, superstition, and tyranny.."

There's plenty of all that around still. The middle ages weren't as primitive as they're made out to be--but they had no science worth speaking of either, thanks to the emphasis on tradition over direct observation.

Theology is a perfectly respectable discipline but is clearly not a science in the modern sense of the word. How would you perform repeatable, observable experiments on God...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]And how does one determine what the "right" faith is?
Every man must determine for himself what he chooses to trust.

the faith of Christians who felt their holy book was in disagreement with this model.
Their faith, like those in the scientific community, was ill-placed. The Bible did not support their beliefs, just as it does not suppo ...[text shortened]... general revelation, one necessarily requires help.

I place my trust in that Helper.[/b]

Every man must determine for himself what he chooses to trust.

Thus, it's not science. Science offers models which can be tested and which apply to everyone. There aren't different models for different people.

Oh, you mean the one that evolution produced for our temporary benefit.

Huh? Evolution produced a definition for a word? What are you talking about?

Where to begin? How about in the beginning? When the man's seed was cursed to carry the sin nature, yet the woman was promised an untainted offspring would spring forth from her seed, who knew about oogenesis and polar bodies?

That is the best you can do? Is this experiment repeatable? I'd like to verify the results of this "experiment". What was the procedure? Was the experiment peer reviewed?

You object, using this sentence? I don't get it. The sentence you used indirectly states...

It doesn't matter what the sentence says or whether it's true; what matters if it the sentence makes sense. If it does, then "revealed" does not imply that anything else is hidden.

My first query regarding God was just to know Him. I was too young to really value a soul, let alone put any type of weight to eternity. I just flat out wanted to know the Creator, if at all possible.

That doesn't answer my questions.

Neither are able to reveal anything beyond the general revelation.

What is "the general revelation"?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While some may use the name of Christianity in application to variously-held beliefs, I'm more of a traditionalist. I'll stick with God's definition of the term, and His criteria for the same.

Christianity is very much different from the world's religions, in that it is not a religion. In every religion on the face of the planet, human effort is rewar ...[text shortened]... istianity, access to God is granted only through faith.

Just a few points of information.

faith in god falls within the definition of religion. And as you seem to think that access to god is a good thing and that you gain this access after human effort (beleiving/having faith in god/behaving according to gods wishes), then I would say that by your own admission human effort is rewarded/punished.
Look at it from an atheists (mine) point of veiw. Looking at the whole issue from the outside, christianity is no different from any other religion. you have beliefs (faith) that you have no empirical proof for. I understand you will defend your particular faith, (subset of christianity) but there are others we could find (on this site letalone the wider world) who are equally religious (whether you admit to religiousness or not) but have a totally different veiw, as an athiest I am not going to give any more or less credit to their beleifs than yours.