I think there is value in listening to theologians on religion.
The annoying mistake is made when proponents of a religion cite theologians as evidence of their presupposition of god’s existence. Just because they can tell us about every nook and cranny of a particular religious tradition doesn’t mean they have anything useful to say about if said religious tradition relates to reality.
I agree, I hesitated about Theologians but it was the best counter-example I could find. I would probably believe Theologians rather than Internet Atheists about what a Holy Book claims, what positions a religion holds, how a book should be interpreted, etc. I’ll believe a biblical scholar or an ancient historian above both though.
Religion is a weird case, not least because there are a lot of different, mutually exclusive religions. On the question of any specific religion, the majority of people in the world will claim that it is false. As a wise guy once said, we’re all atheists, some people just disbelieve in more gods than others.
I guess it depends on how broadly you define “theologian”. My definition would begin with those who study a religion suspending judgement on the question of whether the presupposition of the particular god existing is true.
For instance, whether or not they believe it, I expect X Christian theologian to be able to clearly articulate the doctrine of Original Sin and Substitional Atonement.
I think non-scholarly Christian proponents often come along and cite X theologian as proof of the existence of Adam or the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It is a mistaken idea of what theologians, according to my definition and understanding, do.
There are people who make argument to support the presupposition of God...but I don’t know if they fall into the category of theology.
I think there is value in listening to theologians on religion.
The annoying mistake is made when proponents of a religion cite theologians as evidence of their presupposition of god’s existence. Just because they can tell us about every nook and cranny of a particular religious tradition doesn’t mean they have anything useful to say about if said religious tradition relates to reality.
I agree, I hesitated about Theologians but it was the best counter-example I could find. I would probably believe Theologians rather than Internet Atheists about what a Holy Book claims, what positions a religion holds, how a book should be interpreted, etc. I’ll believe a biblical scholar or an ancient historian above both though.
Do not mess with Internet Atheists. Ha. :)
Religion is a weird case, not least because there are a lot of different, mutually exclusive religions. On the question of any specific religion, the majority of people in the world will claim that it is false. As a wise guy once said, we’re all atheists, some people just disbelieve in more gods than others.
This seems to be a nonsequitur. If they’re citing theologians to make their argument, then they aren’t presupposing God’s existence at all?
I guess it depends on how broadly you define “theologian”. My definition would begin with those who study a religion suspending judgement on the question of whether the presupposition of the particular god existing is true.
For instance, whether or not they believe it, I expect X Christian theologian to be able to clearly articulate the doctrine of Original Sin and Substitional Atonement.
I think non-scholarly Christian proponents often come along and cite X theologian as proof of the existence of Adam or the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It is a mistaken idea of what theologians, according to my definition and understanding, do.
There are people who make argument to support the presupposition of God...but I don’t know if they fall into the category of theology.