4 Answers

  1. It's always fun to see how engineers and biologists who consider themselves specialists in the study of religion run into discussions about religion. Perhaps, when they entered their departments, they made a mistake in the selection committee by a ridiculous accident: we went to the Department of Religious Studies, but got lost and ended up in another department. It is not surprising that they now often make ridiculous judgments in areas in which they are not experts.

    First of all, let's admit that it would be absurd to reduce science, especially in Russian, to an experimental method, given that in Russian the word “science “is much broader than the English”science”. However, not only for the humanities, which do not have to rely on experiment at all (although they often rely on other empirical methods – but, again, (a) not necessarily, and (b) there is still a big question of what exactly is considered “empirical”), but even in the field of sciences, the criterion of experimental verification often does not work.

    Tell me, for example, about the role of experiment in the varieties of theoretical mathematics constructed within the framework of formalist or intuitionistic approaches. It is ironic that the founder of modern formalism in mathematics, David Hilbert, once rejected a scientific article with the note: “This is not mathematics. This is theology.” Nevertheless, today it is unlikely that anyone will think of excluding Hilbert from the history of twentieth-century mathematics.�

    Of course, there is experimental mathematics, just as there is experimental philosophy, but neither of them exhausts their disciplines. And in natural science, the world did not converge in a wedge.

    Therefore, the discussion about scientific criteria has long since, about a hundred years ago, moved away from the idea of verifiability as a criterion of scientific character (this is exactly what they talk about at university in philosophy and philosophy of science classes) in favor of other criteria – falsifiability, economy (Occam's razor), logical correctness, universality (the Copernican principle), etc. etc.

    Having said all this, I am nevertheless inclined to believe that theology is not a science. Not because it is not experimental, however, but because science implies the pursuit of objectivity, the recognition of the value of rationality, and, more broadly, the construction of empirically adequate and practically useful models. Science implies the priority of rationality and the freedom to accept any conclusions obtained in the course of research. It implies the ability to work with various models, even those that are not accepted in the modern scientific community.

    What does Copernicus do, for example, when he writes his work, where he proposes a heliocentric model? He, in his own words, offers readers an interesting mathematical model of how the observed movements of celestial bodies could be described in a different way than is customary. And the whole point of science is precisely this: to try to build different models of describing reality, to freely express and discuss different positions, etc.

    It is at this point, in my opinion, that theology sinks – it suggests starting with dogma and ending with it, setting as its task not so much free research (no matter what methods), but structuring, rationalizing and apologizing for a particular teaching-a task that is more ideological than scientific. That is, the main problem with theology, which does not allow it to be considered a science, is that, unlike the physicist, chemist, biologist, historian, linguist, and even philosopher, who, in theory, should be skeptics, if not agnostics, the theologian already from the very beginning has the ability to do so.The truth. Therefore, what research tasks can he set for himself? What remains to be investigated ifHas the truth been discovered yet? The specific topics that theologians often choose, to the extent that they can be considered scientific, are completely exhausted by other disciplines – history, philology, religious studies, etc. A truly free theology ceases to be a theology and becomes a religious philosophy.

    This, however, does not mean that theology has no place at all in the university. The university has long ceased to be exclusively a scientific enterprise-journalists, copywriters, programmers, sports coaches, translators-none of them are scientists, but all are trained at universities. Nothing prevents us from training theologians at the university, but another question is that this raises a whole series of new questions: which religions are eligible for such programs, what we want from theologians, what programs we prepare them for, on the basis of what funding (public or private), etc. etc.

  2. For whom is theology not a science?

    Theology will obviously not be a science for someone who does not recognize the divine (presence of the divine, belief in the divine) as a well-defined phenomenon that can be observed, described, compared with the description, make verifiable conclusions, and generally work with it scientifically.�

    Some believe that one can believe in anything and in any way, that is, at the level of an individual, belief in the divine is assumed to be a purely arbitrary thing, respectively, not amenable to objectification and research. In general, they assume that it is possible to objectify only what can be independently and to a comparable extent simultaneously observed by two or more people. For example, in the case of faith, these are institutions of faith that have developed in a certain way, where two different religious scholars will be able to look at the same phenomenon and draw the same conclusions independently, while two theologians will be able to see and say what their heart desires. On that and burn, they say.�

    The approach to objectification described above has advantages in the form of solid ground and increased resistance to quackery and pseudoscience, but there are also disadvantages, since it makes it impossible for science to use the method of introspection (and with it, the consideration of any phenomena at the level of a single individual). In addition, understanding itself as a purely personal phenomenon is gradually being marginalized in such a science.

  3. Theology is not a science for all those who know at least approximately the meaning of the word “science”.

    And there is a good reason for this: theology is a continuous, continuous chatter.

    You can call yourself a theologian and say one thing, I can also call myself a theologian and say the opposite, and… and probably one of us is right and the other is wrong… but who?!?!?
    How do I find out whose idea corresponds to reality?
    Get an appointment with God and ask him? Or ask the third chatterbox in a beautiful hat for his authoritative opinion?
    So it turns out that in contrast to science, in which it is fundamentally possible to understand the correctness or infidelity of an idea (even if this requires devices that have not yet been invented), in theology it is fundamentally impossible to prove or refute anything.
    And any opinion, even the most idiotic, can be promoted to the level of official church doctrine. There would be money and desire.
    So what kind of mess can be considered science?

  4. According to the current criteria, science should use a scientific approach in obtaining new knowledge. Any scientific knowledge must be verified and confirmed experimentally. Theology has nothing to do with science. Its inclusion in the list of scientific disciplines of the Higher Attestation Commission is opportunistic and shameful.

    PS: modern evolutionary theory and creationism are not compatible. Somewhere at the level of personal views-whatever, at the level of science-no, neither now nor in the future. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Categories