There Is No Such Animal as a Wise Theologian!
Why: Take into consideration what Theology is, I've provided some relevant definitions, but essentially it is the study of god(s) (Theos).
And Wisdom is essentially taking a position and making decisions based on valid truth and highly accurate knowledge.
A person (S) is considered wise if:
S has extensive factual and theoretical knowledge.
S knows how to live well.
S is successful at living well.
S has very few unjustified beliefs.
Deep Rationality Theory (DRT):
S is wise if:
Theology: Knowledge of a mythical (Invalid) entity (god) and basing concepts, doctrines and decisions on such unjustified beliefs and knowledge, knocks out points 1. and 4. from the first (Hybrid Theory of Wisdom) and destroys all points in the Deep Rational Theory of Wisdom.
Thus basing knowledge and decisions on Theology cannot possibly ever be Wise.
Because to apply Theology is to base concepts and decisions on invalid and unjustified epistemology (basis of knowledge), which is definitely Never Wise.
noun, plural theologies.
Word Origin and History for theology
n. mid-14c., from Old French theologie "philosophical treatment of Christian doctrine"(14c.), from Latin theologia, from Greek theologia "an account of the gods," fromtheologos "one discoursing on the gods," from theos "god" (see Thea ) + -logos"treating of."
Essentially Theology is the study of or understanding of god(s).
having the power of discerning and judging properly as to what is true or right; Posessing discernment, judgment, or discretion.
Bertrand Russell evidently supported the Deep Rational Theory of Wisdom, as do I.
Essentially, what it boils down to is the old argument of Faith vs Rational Scepticism, which offers more truth (wisdom), the answer is of course, obviously the Rational Scepticism wins, by an infinite margin, as they go in completely opposite directions. Faith heads towards anti-knowledge or anti-truth, while Rational Sceptical Inquiry heads towards more discernible/plausible/practical knowledge and truth.
Theology is completely Faith based and thus Non-Rational, and has no genuine measure of Truthfulness.
Wise Decisions and thus Wisdom, requires the decision to be the one with the highest degree of Truthfulness, which cannot be obtained with Faith based decisions, thus they cannot be considered as Wise Decisions in any mode of thinking.
So to base any decisions on Theology is to throw Wisdom (rational) out the window, in favour of Anti-Wisdom (irrational).
Demonstrating clearly that there can Never be any Wisdom in Theology.
Thus Theologians cannot ever be considered as Wise.
Because a Theologian's entire method of knowing (Epistemology) has no valid nor discernable Truth (Wisdom).
Here is an interesting discussion on Faith vs Rational Belief.
Wisdom, we know, can never be associated with theology. Any proposition, based on reasoning beyond our mental capabilities, has to be understood to be speculation. This is where theology becomes inconsistent with reality and faith has to be appealed to so that religious notions can hold their own against hard facts. The only knowledge it's possible to gain from history is the confirmation or refutation of events by modern methods of enquiry. Religious truth has failed every question that's ever been asked of it. Theology is imagined wisdom, based on misconceived ideas of what's real and what's not, leading to a worldview totally at odds with the world people actually inhabit and instilling fear and mistrust where there should be open-minded understanding. Theology and wisdom just don't belong in the same category.
I agree with both you and Gerald, but you can't tell a theist these things. I've had one telling me all week that I have a "diseased imagination" and that I cannot think clearly. She tells me that evolution is the "crutch" of atheism and that the bible "proves" its own divinity. (It's hard enough to believe that people are devine and now books are too.) This woman believes in a dirt man a rib woman, and a talking snake and then tells me that the bible has the most convincing story of how we got here and where we came from.
My remarks to her is that we have many things we do not know and will never know. If evolution was declared invalid tomorrow it would not prove a god, My atheism does not hinge upon evolution at all. To believe that way (as she does) her belief system has 2 choices only. It's like buying a car but saying it has to be a Ford or a Chevy. Then she tells me that I don't know how to think properly.
Hey, lady. I'm not the one who believes in a talking snake.
One thing you should inform your ignorant friend is that the majority of atheists, especially the ones here in Australia, don't know anything about evolution. They have no interest, nor real knowledge of science, most are farmers, accountants, lawyers and IT workers.
Their interest in and affect of evolution on them is absolutely zero.
Get her to explain their atheism?
Most either simply are not interested in religion or they simply didn't like it.
Whether a person is religious or not is often simply a matter of taste, like sweets.
Some don't like things too sweet and others love sweet things.
Same goes for religion,
If the flavour of religion doesn't suit you, then you will naturally be atheist.
If you cannot believe that a supernatural being exists you will naturally be atheist.
If you studied history and realize religions are man made, you will naturally be atheist.
Thus, atheism is definitely just Natural and she will have to accept that, Natural things exist.
Such as weather, tides, dogs, cats, rocks, atheists, etc..
This gal even claimed that she was an atheist for a time and then got to thinking that evolution could not be right so she became a theist again. This is probably where she came to ideas of evolution being the "crutch" of atheism because she thinks evolution "holds atheism up" and vice versa. This puts her at a point of thinking she only has 2 choices in this "struggle" for how we got here, and also puts her into the realm of "having all the answers." Now that she has all the answers again you become stupid for NOT beleiving in a talking snake.
Imagine her prayers. "Oh, my most high god, I'm so sorry for not believing in you. Save me my god, and I will be a beacon against those terrible atheists." How could you even live with yourself? My point is that if you were atheist and went back to being a theist, you had to have been the most ill informed atheist. I've said this before and might have even coined the phrase -- "once you have seen behind the curtain you can no longer believe in the Wizard of Oz."
Some of the stupidity seems to be in each side thinking they now have all the answers to life and how we got here, etc. Do I have all the answers? Yes, I do. It's perfctly OK to say:
I don't know.
We don't know.
I doubt if we will ever know.
The alternative would be to say you had found a book originally composed of 66 books and written over a large time frame by Bronze Age sheep and goat herders that explained everything! In the mysteries of this book we find impossible things happening, but with proper training, you can stand in front of others and claim that the book holds the secret of everything including modern day science. It becomes worse when all this can be said without even a smirk upon ones face!
She is a liar then, since she is borrowing Lee Strobel's story of his fake conversion from atheism through disbelief in evolution.
That's just dumb.
Borrowing fake excuses and expecting you to believe her.
That is just trying to con you by pushing others lies.
She's a Fraud!
I told her that everything evolves. Humans, cars, inventions. My example was that when Ben Franklin built his first stove the smoke drove him out of the house. He quickly learned that he needed a pipe to carry the smoke out of his house. Now get ready for this. She asked me what Ben Franklin had to do with it!
People are just not very smart. They don't get it that their magic man in the sky story is something you have left behind some time ago. A female theist on Bill Maher's program tried to explain it to him once and she starts out "let's suppose that you are hungry." Bill stopped her in her tracks when he replied "yes, but I'm not hungry." That was the end of trying to convert Bill.
Maybe she should be asked to start secondary education at a decent school all over again to learn what she has missed out on.
She sounds like either a real dunce or a grade 3 student.
If she brings up the subject, as a similar girl did to me some years ago.
When she started on saying:
"Don't you think the world is a nicer place now, thanks to Jesus Christ?"
I just replied with: "I don't believe in Santa Claus either!"
Which was a red herring, but it confused her and shut her up at the same time.