What is happening in the religious world?
For sometime I have been asked to answer a series of questions about where theology is headed and how religion—principally Christianity—is plotting a fresh course. Some of these inquiries come as “gotcha” questions, and for sometime I have refused to dive down into that sort of non-dialogue. But others have been honest efforts to inquire as to where religion is moving. Over the next few weeks I will try and deal with the serious questions that have been raised, realizing that I may be accused of lecturing. I’ll take the risk and try to ignore the rocks, because I take seriously many of the questioners and the issues they raise. Those who continually state that all religion is irrational and superstitious will probably maintain their attacks, but I am not talking to them, nor will I respond. There is no discussion with a closed mind and an angry spirit. My purpose is not to convince anyone or convert anyone, but to shed some light on what is happening in the religious world, both in the academy and throughout the church.
In this initial reply I want to examine why so many find it difficult to accept the fact that theology changes, and thus find it hard even to hear about what is currently going on in religious circles. There are good reasons for this hesitation.
Most members of American churches are steeped in the old style of looking at their faith and the theology behind it. It is an approach which is both arcane and fading. It defies serious thought. It may border on superstition. For them God is still a person, a He, an omnipotent superman in the sky who looks down with both kindness and judgment. The Bible is taken literally. Supernaturalism controls God’s activities and nature. Only their religion is valid. Everyone else is wrong and subject to the hellfire prescribed for unbelievers. Science is an enemy if it contradicts the Bible or church doctrine. Women are second-class. Homosexuals are condemned and ancient tribal laws are honored. And there is more—much more.
When progressives, atheists, agnostics and the “nons” look at Christianity, this is what they see because there is so much of it. Thus they assume that this is what religion really is about. What is more, they are convinced that there is no other way to explain religion, or to talk about God. The mistake they make is holding that religion is exactly what traditional fundamentalists hold. While they reject fundamentalism—as they should—they cannot get by believing that this is all there is on the religious horizon. God is omnipotent, unmovable and unmoved. Religion is written in stone forever. Rejecting fundamentalism but insisting on defining all religion as fundamentalist do is a circular approach which allows no light or no new insight. All serious disciplines would be ground to a halt if that concept were universally accepted. Thankfully intelligent people are always open to what is being discovered and thought. I would not want to encounter a scientist or a physician or industrialist who thought otherwise.
In my next string I’ll try to explain why both religion and anti-religion have arrive at this place. It has to do with what we all assume is the final word about rationality uttered in the Enlightenment, and how is has defined both religion and its critics.
Obviously I have not yet addressed any of the questions, but just suggested why we have come to this impasse.
= new reply since forum marked as read
have to misrepresent other people's positions to make your arguments? NO ONE on this board has said that it is "difficult to accept the fact that theology changes". I defy you to point to one post that has stated this. In fact, as has been pointed out over and over on this board, by the very people you refer to, theology has evolved and diverged constantly throughout history. We ALL realize that, and with almost uncountable denominations and splinter groups just within Christianity, how could any rational and intelligent person think otherwise?
The issue, which you have constantly refused to address in an honest and substantial fashion, is what makes one "theology" any better, any more real, any more true, any more of an accurate reflection and understanding of the nature, intentions and wishes of god than any other?
If you're going to start even more threads in which you refuse to answer direct questions (instead, calling everything that upsets your agenda "gotcha"
, why should anyone take what you say seriously?
Any logical system complex enough to contain number theory (which includes e.g. irrational and transcendental and imaginary numbers ) contains propositions or "a priori truths" that cannot be proven within a finite set of axioms.
The Gödel's proof of unprovability and other related issues of logical undecidables are of course not irrational statements, but rational understanding of them needs to look at them in a wider context than binary opposition between rational and irrational. And in this day and age world view that refuses to accept e.g. Gödel's proof of unprovability cannot be considered rational, but more like wishfull thinking and denial.
And analogically to theism, antitheism and atheism the "leap of faith"/"satori" etc. would seem to point to arational instead of rational or irrational. And the number theorical set of transcendental numbers is the mathematical area of arationals, in some sense.
I was going to go down the path that Gödel's theory was related to mathematics and not related to philosophical matters but really didn’t want to engage you on it. It is nice of you to take Gödel out of context. I have come to the conclusion that you are more into word games, verbal masterbation and obfuscation rather than meaningful dialogue.
so you have serious background . I've been a professional translator and done also technical writing, but also poetry with interest and academic background in many things, among them general linguistics and philosophy of language.
It seems obvious that linguistic communication (including internal dialogue of conscious thinking) gives form and shape to our deeper sensations and thoughts and "knowing by heart", as the English expression says, and thus also restricts the scope and variety of meaning (in terms of general linguistics, morphology and syntax restrict the scope and variety of semantics and pragmatics).
We approach dialogue and communication with different backgrounds and expectations, and your criticism is a good remainder to be more consciouss about them. I see playfull and creative attitude to linguistic communication a good antidote against dogmatic belief in propositional sentences - whether those propositional sentences represent belief systems of biblical literalism or pseudoskeptic scientism.
Propositional sentences are good servants in right context (e.g. technical manuals) but bad masters as ideological constructs and hierarchical power systems, and I like and try to be critical and skeptical of all belief systems based on propositional sentences aka 'literalism', regardless of the specifics of the belief system. This criticism is more general and not allways easy to express clearly, especially as people or persons tend to identify with their belief systems of propositional sentences and be very emotional about them.
***
Gödel's proof is not unrelated in this context, as it put the end to the dream that all of math could be derived from propositional logic. Gödel's proof is also not unrelated to his philosophy of mathematical Platonism - that math is deeper and more fundamental than classical physics and neurology. In terms of logic, mathematics and rationalism in general it is not an exaggeration to speak about pre- and post-Gödelian eras, though in many minds the pre-era ideas and attitudes still prevail. Change is usually a slow and gradual process, and AFAIK what is taught in schools about math etc. is still pre-Gödelian to great extent.
II would rather see us working together for better understanding than fight. Sometimes we will have disagreements and we all need to accept that.
I have a mixed background. I first started off as a theater major and ended up in the sciences. During college I had a run in with a low draft number and no way to get a deferment (Viet Nam era) and ended up in the service. After my encounter with the military I went back to school and majored in the sciences but took literature classes and some liberal arts classes. I was able to do this because of the GI bill. We all come into this thing with varied backgrounds. Sometimes it is difficult to assess the situation on the "internets" and can cause confusion to all parties involved so I like to be a clear in my writings as humanly possible.
By the way I still disagree with you on the math thingy! 
Peace!!!!
[img]
[/img]
according to current physical theories, energy is not a "thing" at least in the basic meaning of 3D-object but something more fundamental, and 4 or 3 basic forces are not either "the same thing", but according to some theories they are different low-temperature manifestations of same unified force. A "Theory Of All" that would exclude consciousness, intention and attention from nature (and/or consider them supernatural) would not be a theory of All but just a theory of some... err... things
Also "physics" as a personified subject of a sentence is just a figure of speech, which as we know can easily deceive. To my understanding theoretical physics is not an invitation to stop thinking and accept current theories (with their all known limitations) as the Word of Authority - on the contrary! That's what some religions do, and that's what general consensus on this forum does not like about those religions.
he might respond to you. 
Edited to add: you big anti-religious heathen.
Re-Edited to add: for any particular juries, I'm joking with the person I'm replying to and he's aware of that.
your re-edit might not be sufficient in this forum. 
You got me.
Ad TMO has already shown that hypocrisy is a concept that he feels does not apply to him, so...,