Hail, Oh Infallible Science!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
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...

Both you and twhitehead are quoting the Wik, which I am sure you have both noticed that the site is 'open to suggestion,' as it were, by any and all passersby.

There is a reason that theology is still the premier science, and it goes to the core of why a PhD is a doctorate of philosophy: theology is the study of the nature of the Being who is the Source of all nature.

While some theologians make for lousy scientists, so do some scientists. Shame on all of them.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There is a reason that theology is still the premier science, and it goes to the core of why a PhD is a doctorate of philosophy: theology is the study of the nature of the Being who is the Source of all nature.

Theology is not the premier science at all. It is a self-determined process, which does nothing to shed any light on the 'source of all nature'; being, as it is, presupposed by the acceptance of a final outcome. Neither does it go to the core of why a PhD is a doctorate of philosophy, since philosophy is at the core of this; theology being only one of the many divisions therein.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Both you and twhitehead are quoting the Wik, which I am sure you have both noticed that the site is 'open to suggestion,' as it were, by any and all passersby.

There is a reason that theology is still the premier science, and it goes to the core of why a PhD is a doctorate of philosophy: theology is the study of the nature of the Being who is the Source ...[text shortened]... hile some theologians make for lousy scientists, so do some scientists. Shame on all of them.

As I said, you just dont know what science is. And I dont see you quoting anything as evidence for your claim.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Both you and twhitehead are quoting the Wik, which I am sure you have both noticed that the site is 'open to suggestion,' as it were, by any and all passersby.

You didn't answer the question why theology is no longer regarded as the Queen of the Sciences (an incontestable fact).

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
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? W ...[text shortened]... l anything beyond the general revelation.[/b]

What is "the general revelation"?[/b]

Science offers models which can be tested and which apply to everyone. There aren't different models for different people.
Science is all about finding the rules of nature, how and why it works, predicting outcomes, etc. Application is speculative and often times arbitrary. Case in point, the recent 142-page report put together by the National Research Council at the behest of our fine government, for the purpose of reconciling the global warming issue.

Surface Temperature Reconsctruction for the Last 2,000 Years goes to great lengths using proxy evidence and 'other indicators' to prove that things are warmer (you can read more at The National Acadamies Press http://www.nap.edu) now than before. Great. What does that mean? Good? Bad?

Huh? Evolution produced a definition for a word? What are you talking about?
According to some, evolution produced religion for man's temporary benefit. Something about helping the herd, or some such nonsense.

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?
I'd say that is pretty compelling, given the 'hidden' nature of the process until recently 'revealed' in scientific studies. Peer reviewed? Depends on who is involved (yuck-yuck-yuck), but it is readily duplicated under controlled circumstances, in addition to occurring everyday.

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.
Again, I don't think you're looking at the sentence completely.
"Someday," not presently, but at a future date.
"It/all," the item(s) being considered, possible candidate: knowledge.
"Will be," existence, in this case, future.
"Revealed," describing the action that will apply to the 'it/all,' that is not applied presently. Once revealed, whatever 'it/all' was will no longer be hidden.

That doesn't answer my questions.
Sure it does. You asked if I became a Christian based upon a wager in my mind relative to the eventual outcome for my soul. I responded in the negative, instead 'revealing' a desire for a relationship with the Creator as my motivation. The rest (heaven) is gravy.

What is "the general revelation"?
That which can be discerned via empricism or rationalism.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You didn't answer the question why theology is no longer regarded as the Queen of the Sciences (an incontestable fact).

Regarded by...?

Originally posted by Starrman
Theology is not the premier science at all. It is a self-determined process, which does nothing to shed any light on the 'source of all nature'; being, as it is, presupposed by the acceptance of a final outcome. Neither does it go to the core of why a PhD is a doctorate of philosophy, since philosophy is at the core of this; theology being only one of the many divisions therein.

And what is philosophy, again?

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I said, you just dont know what science is. And I dont see you quoting anything as evidence for your claim.

Thanks for playing. Here's some parting gifts.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And what is philosophy, again?

The rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics.

Originally posted by Starrman
The rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics.

the logical investigation...?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Regarded by...?

Your tactic is succeeding. I'll give it one last shot:
Why does theology not occupy the prestigious position it did in the Middle Ages, when it was regarded by academics and the general population as the highest discipline, aka the "Queen of the sciences"?

Originally posted by googlefudge
the logical investigation...?

Induction is not a logical process, but is a key process of philosophy.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Your tactic is succeeding. I'll give it one last shot:
Why does theology not occupy the prestigious position it did in the Middle Ages, when it was regarded by academics and the general population as the highest discipline, aka the "Queen of the sciences"?

because they discovered physics was actually usefull.

Originally posted by Starrman
Induction is not a logical process, but is a kay process of philosophy.

the rational investigation using logic then.

Originally posted by googlefudge
the rational investigation using logic then.

Logic is one of the formal processes, of which there are a number.