pickledherring,
Building a relationship with God is not about imposing a set of morals on others. It is about understanding life and its purpose. I worry more that you want to impose your negative lifestyle and immoral values upon my children.

Christ never imposed morals upon people who rejected them, but they will reap the result of the life they sow.

Sells is right, of course. Technology and science are completely different. Technology says if something achieves your immediate purpose, then keep doing it. It may use principles and deductions that scientists have published but it does not aim to test them, modify them or produce new and better ones. It is applying given knowledge to everyday life.

Science is hypothetico-deductive. It studies known facts and theories, frames hypotheses based upon them, then sets out to test the hypotheses. As a result of such experiments it may confirm existing theories, modify them or abandon them.

This was not the approach before the renaissance, when what we now call science began.

Sells is also right to deplore the widespread attitude that holds the scientific method as the only rational approach to life. The approach of the humanities – especially literature and the arts – is terribly undervalued these days, much to our detriment. They are necessary if we are to grasp and understand reality more surely. And theology, as Sells says, is an essential, rational discipline which we ignore and deride at our peril. Dangerous fundamentalists of both the religious and atheistic varieties thrive where theology is shunned.

Peter, please maintain your efforts.

Sells: I asked:

As to whether there R theologians worth reading, I'm unqualified to say. But I do wonder how one makes such a judgement independent of one's religious affiliation (eg, how cd I, an atheist, make such a judgement if I read up in the field?). Good science, we know, is strictly testable. Good history, whatever else, must rely on all available source material - incl archaeology, etc - and avoid the imposition of a writer's prejudices (that's why there's less of it than there shd be). Good theology relies on...?

U haven't responded (unless I missed it: easy to do on so big a page, if so, apols to U).

But in any case maybe there's a simpler & more pertinent Q than that. Do U believe that an atheist can approach theology as (just) another humanities discipline like history, literature or philosophy? If not, why not?

About ten years ago we took in this poor stray kitten. Over the years she has grown into a smart cat with some cute causal theories of her own. Early on she found that if the back door was closed she would simply knock over a small metal sculpture we had near the door. She found that this had the effect of getting someone up out of a lounge or from elsewhere to come to the door and let her out. We thought this was really cute so we placed a similar little sculpture near the front door and she now applies her theory to the front door. We have placed the sculpture in other places away from doors and she is not interested in applying her theory. Just thought I'd mention our little pet who is able to comprehend cause and effect and seemingly have a scientific theory that can be applied elsewhere to open doors.

But people will respond with ....... this is just cat manipulation or cat instinct or cat frustration or whatever. As a theory it may have little to do with the physical causality of door movement but we are talking about a small cat who cannot possibly open a large door although she is able to put her paw on small kitchen cupboards and pop them open. However it is hard to dismiss the fact that here is a small cat that purposely investigates cause and effect and has some theory that works to open the back door and has applied this theory to the front door with success.

I would put our cat's theory ahead of some big theories like "the big bang theory", the theory that gravity is an attraction and that theory of duality. Note also that Dawkins and Dennet share a belief in "the big bang theory" and we don't have the "how" in place when it comes to gravity. To my mind gravity has always seemed a push but that's another story.

Mhoram
It is symptomatic of the neglect of the theological sciences that you ask this question. Theology is a science, it is about knowledge and it does conform to the usual rationality used in the other humanities. It cannot make unsustainable arguments. The subject matter of theology is historical and it relies on a witness to this history found in what is now known as the bible. Here we must give an explanation in that this history is not the modern empirical history of what actually happened but an account of events given from a specific theological perspective, that of the nation Israel. Theology seeks an object, God as revealed in this history. This separates the study of theology from natural science which deals with objects in the present that are perceivable and open to testing.

Just as scientific data must be interpreted to yield theory so history is interpreted to yield a knowledge of God, often referred to as systematic theology. This is essentially a theory of God derived from the specific history of Israel and Christ.

Theological study involves biblical research (the primary witness), church history (the secondary witness that include ourselves) and systematic theology that puts it all together into a theory of God.

As I have asserted above one does need to believe that theology is about something in order to engage in it just as one needs to believe that molecules exist before we embark on the study of chemistry. This does not mean that we suspend critical judgment, we must always start from a clean slate. We must always dispense with sentimentality, or the desire to be healed, or any other agenda before we can become clear eyed theologians.

The end result of doing theology is knowledge about ourselves. This is the point of the incarnation, we see who we were “meant” to be. But doing theology is more dangerous than doing chemistry because our whole world may be turned on its head. The object of our study is not passive.

This explanation of theology may be found in Karl Barth “Evangelical Theology”.

Philo, Ecuador's a basket case, full of religious sectarian conflict. A typical outcome resulting from forced morals and conversion by monotheists. Currently there a isn't country in the world, forcibly converted to monotheism, not in some form of civil conflict.

Philo, Christianity is about suppression and destruction, fact, history, the future, you name it, you'll wreck it in some way. Where's the kingdom of god, if not in its provable results. Show me a country thats been converted to monotheism, not subject to internal violent conflict.

Sells, in 100-1000 years, people will look back on how primitive we were in our understanding of science, just like they have throughout history. As lifes an evolutionary process, both materially and psychologically, advances in understanding always make predecessors look primitive. Technology is applied science, theology is applied fiction.

Monotheists dupe themselves, first relying on creation, with no proof, so can't argue that, so you try to capture science, which is an evolutionary process. Can't argue that, because it defeats your previous stand. So being in touch with god, you should have access to all of his creation and be able to provide us with the next scientific understanding to improve our lives and the world of god.

Why isn't that working for you, batteries dead in your god communicator, god on holidays. How come you can't understand the basics of history, progressive evolution, learning and understanding.

Keiran, I agree with you, animals are very intelligent, when you approach them from a humble caring attitude. Instead of abusing and devouring them for your own god given gluttony. The followers of god place these being below them and on their dinner table, They do the same with indigenous, calling them primitive. However the expression of monotheism, towards these carers of nature, is always psychologically and physically violent and in the end destructive.

When you consider its taken less than 200 years for the belief in god to destroy the in harmony lifestyles of the world, truly gods work in action