Theology and Sociology

[SimpleCaveman]

Glad you found it pocaracas. Hope you’ve been doing well.

I would have thought that how people came up with gods would also be part of sociology, under the heading of human behaviour.

Yeah, we’re probably getting into distinctions that are beyond me. I’m just saying what I think sounds right. I could be wrong.

I guess I’d make the distinction between how they came to think that gods exist (Oh, look at the stars) and the logic they used to think about those gods (the big star must be a god because …). I may or may not have said it well before. Assuming I’m saying it well now.

You guys spoke about truth seeming to be ever improving, but then would that mean that Islam is a superior truth to Christianity?

See this post in response to The Grand Nudger. I would not truth improves in the way I take you to mean.

I dislike it when religions use the word truth... More so when the capitalize it, as though there's a grand truth that only the religion is privy to.
Reality is a good word to represent the real, as opposition to the imaginary.
Truth, to me is simply a classification of a statement, or collection of statements, as accurately representing reality... or as accurately as we humans can.

Interesting. Yes, I think I would agree with your definition of Truth (italicized above). Yes, if a religion says that they have the truth and others can’t know it, then it’s probably a scam. The things that a religion says are true representations of reality should be evaluated with our Reason. We should use logic, science, philosophy, agreed upon assumptions (just throwing things out that make sense to me) to evaluate what is said.

So, if reality includes a god, then I'd like to know that.

Yes! Those who don’t even care about the question, baffle me. Some of them are in my family. Personally, I think they’re just lazy. (my family, that is)

If belief is required (ignoring solipsism for practicality) then that accuracy of any statement made about the divine cannot be ascertained. Thus far, all claims of existing divinities that I've come across rely on belief, so I'm tempted to exclude them from the realm of reality, and thus include them in the realm of the imaginary.

Yeah, this is a tough one. Sometimes the crux of the matter, or the greatest stumbling block. There are parts of Catholicism that I assent to because of authority and not by reason of their intrinsic evidence. (the definition of belief) Frankly, that’s true of a lot of things. I believe the authority that tells me that there’s a horrible war going on in the Sudan, even though I do not have intrinsic evidence.

There are many other parts of Catholicism that I assent to because I do have evidence, be that intrinsic, logical, or experiential. (may be others. Not sure)

Contrary to what some may think I’m not here to convince anyone that Catholicism is true. I doubt it would work. Certainly, I have no authority and the Church certainly doesn’t seem to have authority. I am here for the fun of engaging in these kinds of conversations. If I can explain things about the Church or related topics (there’s a lot of confusion out there), and can learn about things myself (there’s a lot of confusion in here), then all the better.

To sum up my thoughts on this last part, I think using reason to evaluate claims is the right way to decide whether it is true or not. I think that including all those claims in the realm of the imaginary just because there is a component that isn’t evaluable at first is to throw out the baby with the bath water.