Truth, and truth creation.

[2ndRateMind]

I like to think that philosophical truth, and scientific truth, and theological truth, are all fundamentally reconcilable. Do you?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #1]

I like to think that philosophical truth, and scientific truth, and theological truth, are all fundamentally reconcilable. Do you?

Elaborate on the meaning of "theological truth." This implies that there is something demonstrably "true" about a theology.

[Miles]

I like to think that philosophical truth, and scientific truth, and theological truth, are all fundamentally reconcilable. Do you?

Nope.

Scientific "truth" relies on evidence and reason.
Theological truth relies on faith and need.
Philosophical truth relies on logic.

.

[2ndRateMind]

I like to think that philosophical truth, and scientific truth, and theological truth, are all fundamentally reconcilable. Do you?

Nope.

Scientific "truth" relies on evidence and reason.
Theological truth relies on faith and need.
Philosophical truth relies on logic.

.

So, lets take some contention. Call it C. If C is illogical, (philosophically speaking) C can't be true. If there is evidence for counter-C, or C is irrational, (scientifically speaking) C cannot be true. If there is some conflict with some fundamental religious principle (theologically speaking), C cannot be true. But if C passes these tests, C could be true, across these domains of learning.

What do you think?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #1]

I like to think that philosophical truth, and scientific truth, and theological truth, are all fundamentally reconcilable. Do you?

Elaborate on the meaning of "theological truth." This implies that there is something demonstrably "true" about a theology.

So, you need first to get onboard with the idea that God exists, and loves us all, and wants only the best for each of us.

Then, you might be able to consider the following syllogism sympathetically:

Premise 1) God is good.
Premise 2) Justice is good.
Conclusion: God is just.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Miles]

I like to think that philosophical truth, and scientific truth, and theological truth, are all fundamentally reconcilable. Do you?

Nope.

Scientific "truth" relies on evidence and reason.
Theological truth relies on faith and need.
Philosophical truth relies on logic.

.

So, lets take some contention. Call it C. If C is illogical, (philosophically speaking) C can't be true. If there is evidence for counter-C, or C is irrational, (scientifically speaking) C cannot be true. If there is some conflict with some fundamental religious principle (theologically speaking), C cannot be true. But if C passes these tests, C could be true, across these domains of learning.

What do you think?

Best wishes, 2RM.

The real sticking point is with theology. Governed by the vagaries of faith and need its truth will waver depending on whose theology one is working with. So the three may or may not be true across these domains of learning.

.

[brunumb]

So, you need first to get onboard with the idea that God exists, and loves us all, and wants only the best for each of us.

Unfortunately there is no sign that any one of those things is true.

[nobspeople]

I like to think that philosophical truth, and scientific truth, and theological truth, are all fundamentally reconcilable. Do you?

I think there's different kinds of truths, depending on whom you're talking to and how 'truth' is defined.
With several billion people on the planet, it seems there are (possibly) thousands of truths.
I have a relative that lies so much he believes the lies as truth and will argue with you all day about it, twisting proofs and evidence to suit his needs (and he's not even a Christian ).
It's all in what someone believes and convinces themselves of I guess. It's possible that someone can believe 1+1=fish. The human mind is capable of strange and wonderous things.

[EarthScienceguy]

What kind of survey is this?

Christians do not doubt science is a tool to examine the natural world. In fact, the Bible states that we can see the hand of God the creation He made. This is why science most of the early great scientists were Christians to see the hand of God in creation.

Science is not mutually exclusive to religion and philosophy. Science is a study of something different than what religion and philosophy study. Although there is an overlap.

Science is the study of the physical world only. Science is the study of things that can be observed in real-time or at the present time.

Religion and philosophy can study and interpret things that can be observed in real-time or at the present time. But Religion and philosophy go beyond the physical they can go into the "ta meta ta phusika". It is the "ta meta ta phusika" that gives meaning and context to the physical world.

Like for example:
Discussions on origins is actually a theological vs. philosophical debate. Science actually does not have a horse in this race. Secular philosophy puts forward the belief that the universe and life were made from nothing and random chance. Philosophers use scientific observations to support their argument. Theologians believe that a Creator God made the universe and life and use scientific observations to support their belief. Since science can only examine the present and make observations in the present time, science needs the context of philosophers and theologians to extrapolate their observations back in time.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #9]

Theologians believe that a Creator God made the universe and life and use scientific observations to support their belief.

Give an example of any scientific observation that supports this belief. That is, the actual existence of a Creator God. I don't know of even one such observation that has stood up to scientific scrutiny. You are correct that theologians believe that a Creator God exists, but to my knowledge a belief (faith) is as far as it goes.