Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
It's phlogiston!
PZ's got a good post up wherein he discusses yet another critique of his Courtier's Reply (also see the Wiki entry). If you're not familiar with the term, look at those links, but basically it is saying that there is an assumption that only those well-versed in Theology have the subtle understanding necessary to question the existence of God - and that someone like PZ, or Richard Dawkins, or any of the rest of us uppity atheists are just plain too ignorant to be listened to. PZ, et al, say that's nonsense - first you come up with some evidence for God, then you can debate the finer points of the theological implications.
And reading through that thread, a comparison occurred to me, drawn straight from history. That's the theory of phlogiston, used to explain why and how things burned/oxidized. For a scientist living in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, an understanding of phlogiston was necessary to be considered educated, and those without an understanding of this arcane knowledge were presumably ignored. For about a hundred years this theory held dominance, until something more akin to modern chemistry was developed.
Then it was seen that all the intricacies of phlogiston theory were pointless. Phlogiston didn't exist, and whether or not some early scientist had developed detailed explanations for how it worked in given situations did not matter, regardless of how well phrased or poetically written.
The same is true of the theosophers: without an actual God, it does not matter how beautiful their theories are, how serene their meditations, or sophisticated their explanations. There is no there, there. Theological philosophy is, simply, pointless.
Just a thought.
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
If it smells like it...
I agree. Theology is just an attempt to legitimise and intellectualise bullshit.
Phlogiston! That's what
Phlogiston! That's what that element was called! I knew the theory, but didn't know the name.... Laugh at me all you want, but that's something that has bugged me for years.
Ok, so I'll get a little philosophical with you. Phlogiston was a theory that was renounced. But it was a stepping stone to a true understanding of how fire works, and now we don't have to remember phlogiston. Does that mean that it was pointless?
I guess I was with you right up until:
For me, it is pointless now.... but all that philosophy got me to where I am.
Aether theories, too.
A fair point, that. I picked Phlogiston, but could have just as easily gone with the Aether Theories, et cetera. My intent was to show that while science can get into these little twisted cul-de-sacs, it eventually gets out again, with *real* hard data to show for it - data which was responsible for change in the theoretical model. But that isn't what happens with theology - it's all just debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, with no evidence anywhere that there really are angels to begin with.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
An insult to phlogiston
You have a great point there. While phlogiston was a false theory, it was a theory which led to the making of testable claims which could be falsified. Theology, otoh, is nothing but air castles, and will never lead to anything remotely resembling truth.
But what are we talking
But what are we talking about? Philosophy, theological philosophy, or theology?
Because I would argue that theology is total crap that tries to tell you not to think, while philosophy tries to take an honest approach to thinking. I would consider philosophy to be the beginning of thinking scientifically.
Post new comment