Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:24 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:18 pm

No theology is any truer or falser than any other, except to a devotee of a particular theology.

Well, that's the Atheistic assumption...all theology is false...it's like "unicorn studies," or "fairyology." That's how they think.

And given that MW is trying to produce a definition to please everyone, including "devotees" of every creed and ideology, and Atheists as well, it has to just ignore the differences in views of God completely.

I would call it unbiased, rather than "ignoring the differences", which is what a dictionary should be.

It is certainly "unbiased." It takes no interest in the truth or falsehood of the statements involved in the "theology," and focuses only on the fact that some "statements" are being made. That's very unbiased.

We could use other adjectives, too: non-sectarian, disinterested, unhelpfully vague, unconcerned with veracity...lots of adjectives.

The sort of definition that cannot help us distinguish between Scientology and Mennonism, or between Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, Sufism and the Solar Temple Cult might be a little less than informative, wouldn't you think?

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:59 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:57 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:44 pm
Exactly right.

God's creation is so much bigger than I.C. and what I.C. thinks and believes.

The problem, of course, is the "ology" at the end of the word; it gives the impression -to some- that it should be taken seriously.

A bit like you

What on earth do you mean?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:00 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:24 pm
Well, that's the Atheistic assumption...all theology is false...it's like "unicorn studies," or "fairyology." That's how they think.

And given that MW is trying to produce a definition to please everyone, including "devotees" of every creed and ideology, and Atheists as well, it has to just ignore the differences in views of God completely.

I would call it unbiased, rather than "ignoring the differences", which is what a dictionary should be.

It is certainly "unbiased." It takes no interest in the truth or falsehood of the statements involved in the "theology," and focuses only on the fact that some "statements" are being made. That's very unbiased.

We could use other adjectives, too: non-sectarian, disinterested, unhelpfully vague, unconcerned with veracity...lots of adjectives.

The sort of definition that cannot help us distinguish between Scientology and Mennonism, or between Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, Sufism and the Solar Temple Cult might be a little less than informative, wouldn't you think?

So you think dictionaries should come in various versions according to what religion you are?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:24 pm So you think dictionaries should come in various versions according to what religion you are?

No. But I do think that you can't get a precise definition of some things from a general dictionary.

And if you know dictionaries, you know that's true. There are not just general dictionaries, like the MW or the Oxford; there are specialist dictionaries for particular disciplines, such as medicine, engineering, linguistics, and theology. And these provide the sorts of refined and precise definitions that a general dictionary cannot afford to specialize in.

What dictionaries include is decided by committee, with a view to the particular mandate the dictionary is designed to have. And those for the general public tend to stay at the thousand-foot level in their choices of wording, whereas specialist dictionaries tend to be more precise, and to include more words relevant to a specific area of knowledge (like medical terminology) and leave out those that are not relevant to the exact discipline. And all definitions are no more than the best efforts of fallible people to get things right.

I think it's quite ironic that some people (I'm not including you, of course) would bridle at any suggestion that the Bible comes from God, but would, at the same time, treat a single definition from Merriam-Webster or Collins as if it had fallen from the sky in perfect form.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:00 pm The sort of definition that cannot help us distinguish between Scientology and Mennonism, or between Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, Sufism and the Solar Temple Cult...

So, again, you acknowledge that theology encompasses varying beliefs.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:17 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:59 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:57 pm

The problem, of course, is the "ology" at the end of the word; it gives the impression -to some- that it should be taken seriously.

A bit like you

What on earth do you mean?

Harbology: The art of sucking up

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:44 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:00 pm The sort of definition that cannot help us distinguish between Scientology and Mennonism, or between Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, Sufism and the Solar Temple Cult...

So, again, you acknowledge that theology encompasses varying beliefs.

I acknowledge that a secular definition does. But that's only because secularism knows nothing about theology. It's not a stroke in its favour.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:44 pm Harbology: The art of sucking up

That is nonsense. Sucking up is the exact opposite of anything that Harbol does.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:44 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:17 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:59 pm

A bit like you

What on earth do you mean?

Harbology: The art of sucking up

You make me sound like a vacuum cleaner.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:35 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:24 pm So you think dictionaries should come in various versions according to what religion you are?

No. But I do think that you can't get a precise definition of some things from a general dictionary.

Here you go...

New Dictionary of Theology

This classic one-volume reference work has been appreciated for decades. It is now substantially expanded and revised to focus on a variety of theological themes, thinkers and movements. From African Christian Theology to Zionism, this volume of historical and systematic theology offers a wealth of information and insight for students, pastors and all thoughtful Christians.

https://www.ivpress.com/new-dictionary- ... logy-ebook

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 5:31 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 9:46 pm ...the world is crumbling in front of us and all those who tried to make it better obviously failed to make it better.

Lacewing wrote:So no one has ever made the world better? To your way of thinking, the current state you see negates all other states?

The world is what it is. We've all contributed to it.

Are you attempting to impose your crappy-ass attitude onto ultimate reality like a Christian who imposes their beliefs onto everyone?

It's my personal view. You're welcome to disagree. I'm pretty sure there are people out there who are fine with the world. I'm not one of them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:42 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:13 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 3:56 am
That's the sort of definition that will only satisfy somebody agnostic/Atheistic

It's the Merriam-Webster definition.

The MW is not premised on any belief that any "theology" is truthful. It's based on a sort of "uncommitted" stance on that, either way. Or, if you think I'm wrong, show me what theology the MW is committed to.

Next up, Hare Krishnas re-write the Oxford Dictionary to show more "commitment" to their views.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:28 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 5:31 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 9:46 pm ...the world is crumbling in front of us and all those who tried to make it better obviously failed to make it better.

The world is what it is. We've all contributed to it.

Are you attempting to impose your crappy-ass attitude onto ultimate reality like a Christian who imposes their beliefs onto everyone?

It's my personal view. You're welcome to disagree. I'm pretty sure there are people out there who are fine with the world. I'm not one of them.

Okay, good... as long as you know it's just your view.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:18 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:35 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:24 pm So you think dictionaries should come in various versions according to what religion you are?

No. But I do think that you can't get a precise definition of some things from a general dictionary.

Here you go...

You don't get it. But it doesn't matter so much whether or not you do. It's the truth...and there's always the truth, on the one hand, and all the other junk on the other. There may be a lot of it. And it may call itself all kinds of things. But it's still just the junk.

Immanuel Cant wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:24 pmWell, that's the Atheistic assumption...all theology is false...it's like "unicorn studies," or "fairyology." That's how they think.

Only unicorns and fairies don't bring human existence down to Heaven or Hell.

And many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...will insist that Christian theology is false.

Then [of course] back to those theologists of any particular denomination actually being able to demonstrate that their own God or religious path reflects the One True Path to immortality and salvation.

And then my own assumption: that given just how fundamentally important moral Commandments and immortality and salvation are to mere mortals, any God or religious path is better than an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence, moral nihilism and oblivion itself.