Theology is a conditional field, like complexity theory or mathematical logic (e.g. “assume P != NP, what follows?”). There are some smart theologists.
Scientologists claim mainstream psychiatry is divorced from reality. Mainstream psychiatry claim scientology is divorced from reality. If one isn’t sure who to trust, just look at the output. In terms of theology, is the entire output of the theology discipline useless? Are you sure you are willing to throw away Aquinas, et al.? Psychology is even less controversial, there is undoubtedly many valuable things produced in psychology. On the other hand, what have the critics (or the alternative the critics promote) produced?
Again, I don’t think that psychology or psychiatry is divorced from reality and agree with you that these disciplines have produced valuable knowledge. I was only pointing out that “current expert consensus” should be a non-expert’s prior when evaluating theories within the respective discipline, but is not useful when evaluating the merit of the discipline as a whole. Every discipline is conditional, at least in the practical sense: one doesn’t become a leading expert by critically examining the discipline’s axioms and absorbing a wide general knowledge of the fundamentals; rather, experts are specialists with detailed knowledge of a narrow sub-domain who have accepted the basic assumptions early in their professional career. Expertise could be acknowledged on the basis of practical achievements overreaching to other fields, or solely on the basis of one’s social status within the discipline (perhaps backed by some internal rules, such as number of publications or academic achievements). In the first case we needn’t worry about the discipline, but the second case is a reason to be careful, even if it doesn’t automatically mean that the discipline is worthless.
I am also not sure whether it is wise to demand that the critics have achievements better than the discipline they are criticising. All a person arguing that astrology is bunk needs is to show that the fundamental assumptions of astrology are implausible; he/she needn’t provide an alternative to astrology.
As for theology, I am probably willing to declare the discipline useless. That theologians are often smart doesn’t contradict that, and that sometimes they produce a true conditional statement doesn’t contradict that either. Even if all their conditionals were true (which aren’t by far) - there are many tautologies and not every single one is worth writing down.
On the one hand I have similar gut feelings, especially when it comes to anthropic reasoning. On the other hand I think that “things like that” are based on significantly more plausible assumptions and people around here, at least those who are seriously interested in “things like that”, tend to be more technical and precise than theologians use to be. Which still doesn’t mean much, as the assumptions of theology are standing really low on my plausibility hierarchy and I don’t have particularly high opinion of theological methods.
In terms of theology, is the entire output of the theology discipline useless? Are you sure you are willing to throw away Aquinas, et al.?
Are there any modern theologians you would throw Aquinas away in favor of? That is, is the output of modern theology, in your view, an improvement on the output of the theology of eight centuries ago?
In terms of theology, is the entire output of the theology discipline useless? Are you sure you are willing to throw away Aquinas, et al.?
Not that Aquinas wasn’t a pretty intelligent guy, but I’m curious as to why you would expect an answer other than “yes.” What useful outputs would you credit theology with?
Theology is a conditional field, like complexity theory or mathematical logic (e.g. “assume P != NP, what follows?”). There are some smart theologists.
Scientologists claim mainstream psychiatry is divorced from reality. Mainstream psychiatry claim scientology is divorced from reality. If one isn’t sure who to trust, just look at the output. In terms of theology, is the entire output of the theology discipline useless? Are you sure you are willing to throw away Aquinas, et al.? Psychology is even less controversial, there is undoubtedly many valuable things produced in psychology. On the other hand, what have the critics (or the alternative the critics promote) produced?
Again, I don’t think that psychology or psychiatry is divorced from reality and agree with you that these disciplines have produced valuable knowledge. I was only pointing out that “current expert consensus” should be a non-expert’s prior when evaluating theories within the respective discipline, but is not useful when evaluating the merit of the discipline as a whole. Every discipline is conditional, at least in the practical sense: one doesn’t become a leading expert by critically examining the discipline’s axioms and absorbing a wide general knowledge of the fundamentals; rather, experts are specialists with detailed knowledge of a narrow sub-domain who have accepted the basic assumptions early in their professional career. Expertise could be acknowledged on the basis of practical achievements overreaching to other fields, or solely on the basis of one’s social status within the discipline (perhaps backed by some internal rules, such as number of publications or academic achievements). In the first case we needn’t worry about the discipline, but the second case is a reason to be careful, even if it doesn’t automatically mean that the discipline is worthless.
I am also not sure whether it is wise to demand that the critics have achievements better than the discipline they are criticising. All a person arguing that astrology is bunk needs is to show that the fundamental assumptions of astrology are implausible; he/she needn’t provide an alternative to astrology.
As for theology, I am probably willing to declare the discipline useless. That theologians are often smart doesn’t contradict that, and that sometimes they produce a true conditional statement doesn’t contradict that either. Even if all their conditionals were true (which aren’t by far) - there are many tautologies and not every single one is worth writing down.
“As for theology, I am probably willing to declare the discipline useless.”
You know, some lesswrong folk are very concerned with “acausal trading,” future superintelligences, etc. How do you feel about concerns like that?
I tend to ignore that. How is it related to theology?
I think things like that have “the shape” of theology.
On the one hand I have similar gut feelings, especially when it comes to anthropic reasoning. On the other hand I think that “things like that” are based on significantly more plausible assumptions and people around here, at least those who are seriously interested in “things like that”, tend to be more technical and precise than theologians use to be. Which still doesn’t mean much, as the assumptions of theology are standing really low on my plausibility hierarchy and I don’t have particularly high opinion of theological methods.
Are there any modern theologians you would throw Aquinas away in favor of?
That is, is the output of modern theology, in your view, an improvement on the output of the theology of eight centuries ago?
Not that Aquinas wasn’t a pretty intelligent guy, but I’m curious as to why you would expect an answer other than “yes.” What useful outputs would you credit theology with?
If you mean it assumes some god and reasons from there, then lots of theology is concerned with proving things about gods without such assumptions.