The physical sciences keep making headlines…in physics, there are new discoveries made every day. You cannot pick up a newspaper without reading something interesting that has been learned about the world.
But what about theology? I mean we have had 2000 years of research into the nature of God and his relationship with the world-so, has anything new been learned? What revolutionary thought comes forth from the lips of theologians?
Or is it mostly just re-interpretations?
Is this a field that has promise? 
This thread is better suited for Great Debates. I’ll move it for you.
Cajun Man
for the SDMB
We’re waaaaaiiiitiiiiinnnngg!
Well, you might try this. It has a “What’s New” section, though I’m not sure if it quite fills you bill.
The late 20th century MOP was a significant theological breakthrough.
Uh-huh.
Well, it depends how you define the term “breakthrough.” Theology is not a hard science - you don’t make a theory, do a few dozen experiments, and release the findings in a journal. Theological “breakthroughs” happen every day as people realize new things that happen in their relationship with their god. With fields like theology and philosophy, you don’t get breakthroughs - you get social revolutions.
I am not a theologist, and I don’t know much about the recent changes to the Christian churches, much less internationally, but I suppose the greatest theological breakthroughs in more recent times have been more along the lines of “new age” thinking. Namely, that all of the gods of mankind are the essence of the same god, or worship from home. This is a huge “breakthrough” from the old theology of “man belongs to church, chuch belongs to god,” which I’m sure even you mocking hard science people can appreciate as a striking social revolution.
You ask if nothing new in the past 2000 years has been learned? First of all, that is a strickingly Western-biased opinion you have. Second of all, do you know nothing about history? The dozens of social and political revolutions brought about by theology alone? I mean, I know scientists have their blinders on, but that’s kinda ridiculous.
Another question you may be asking yourself is, “what breakthroughs have hard sciences made recently that directly affect the lives of billions of people.” Last thing I can think of is the personal computer. The discovery of Sedna is hardly shaking my world.
I find it funny that you generalize all scientists as “having their blinders on”, when 1) I’d guess that most scientists are theists, considering such a microscopic portion of society is atheist, and 2) scientists by definition have to observe, rather than just trust in blind faith.
That made me giggle, since the gravitational effects of the Earth on Sedna (and vice versa) are undoubtedly nearly nothing… but they aren’t truly nothing… so you might say “Sedna is hardly shaking my world” with a strictly scientific meaning 
However, let’s see… ever heard of DNA fingerprinting? Do you have cable? Do you ever have a microwave snack, and don’t they seem to taste better now than they did when you first got your microwave? Do you have any friends with AIDS who are still alive despite being diagnosed over a year ago? Do you have any friends who have survived a bought with cancer? Those are just a few that came to mind without really giving it any thought.
Frankly, I think crowing about the achievements of science while ridiculing those of religion is a bit jejune. The technological ability to feed all the hungry people on earth is a fine thing, but the good heart that actually does so is better.
- You just contradicted yourself, 2) Religion is based on observation, as well. It is observation of emotion and feeling, not something that can be measured and calculated. Many religions are based on the observation of their god and his/her/its effect on humans. 3) Religion isn’t about blind faith. Elements of Christianity may be, but you are just showing how tightly your social blinders really are on by assuming that religion does not contain observation. I thought science was about finding the truths behind things? How can you do that when you are so blatantly biased that you let your presumptions get in the way of your observation? You call that good science?
That’s OK, scientists are known for having bad senses of humor.
Yes, as a matter of fact. Gimme a call when it does something other than failing to convict OJ.
The pinnacle of American society? While that may be where you and the majority of Americans get your “art” from, I prefer to read books, go to museums and performances, and listen to music. I don’t even own a television.
Wouldn’t know. I tend to cook stuff.
I have friends who have died from HIV, yes. Good job on that one.
I have a handful who have died from a bought with cancer.
Would you like me to go into some of the ills that technology has done, or are you happier living in a bubble world where you can cherrypick what is right and wrong?
I never claimed that science never made breakthroughs. I claimed that it is both stupid and unscientific to claim that theology never made any breakthroughs, especially when theology never claimed to be able to. You sit back smugly mocking people who DARE to have a belief system different than your own. I am quite a big fan of science - I am not a big fan of atheists preaching their religion of nothing or moutning poorly thought out attacks on theology.
Surely, you’re not saying you have to be religious to have a good heart.
The good hearts get nowhere without the technology and the giving can be done with the prime motive being the tax writeoff.
First of all, I just realized this, a little belatedly. Jon the Geek, did you seriously just equate better microwave ovens as a scientific breakthrough on par with HIV/AIDS research?
O_o
No, and being religious does not mean you have a good heart. However, unless there is a scientific breakthrough that defines where morals come from…
The good hearts get nowhere without the technology
[/quote]
-
As far as I recall, no one was claiming that theology is superior to science. On the other hand, it was claimed that science is valid and theology is invalid.
-
That is simply untrue. Good hearts get plenty of places without technology. They may not get on the level of affecting the masses without technology, but lack of technology does not make a good heart useless.
What was the motive for that tax writeoff to be given?
Lib:
But what is the mechanism whereby supermatural beings shape the hearts of people? Any discoveries along those lines would answer with the OP. After all, a fictional story can inspire people to do good things, and so can purely secular reasoning.
Zagadka:
[bolding mine]
Methinks thou doth protest too much. It is an all-too common tactic for religious folks to change the subject and fall back on accusations of mockery in lieu of facts and good arguments to support their position. The fact that you two jumped the gun in applying this smokescreen suggests you’re following a script instead of addressing the points raised.
-
You don’t consider this entire thread mocking? “What revolutionary thought comes forth from the lips of theologians? Or is it mostly just re-interpretations?” “We’re waaaaaiiiitiiiiinnnngg!” “That made me giggle” Wow, what could the dictionary definition of “mocking” possibly be… " To treat with ridicule or contempt; deride." Oh, I suppose you’re right. Absolutely no ridicule or contempt for theology in this thread, not even the title of it.
-
Why is it, then, that you ignored everything else I said, and concentrated on “mocking” my use of the term “mocking”? Talk about applying smokescreens and not having an argument…
How did I contradict myself?
Unless most religions are right (even the ones that say the others are wrong), I don’t see how most religions can be “based on the observation of their god and his/her/its effect on humans.” That aside, you’re imposing a false dichotomy. I said scientists can’t have their blinders on and be scientists, since science requires observation. I may have implied my personal feelings about religion, but I didn’t say religion didn’t involve any observation.
I am not biased about religion. I choose to hold the default “none” position until I see evidence to move me to another position, just as I do with anything else. My observations have yet to show the slightest evidence for the mere existance of a god or gods, let alone what they might want me to do.
Thanks for the generalization again. However, I call myself “Jon the Geek.” I’ll admit my sense of humor isn’t exactly “normal.” I didn’t say I think everyone should find your Sedna line funny; I said that it made me giggle.
The science was there. It was ignored based on non-scientific arguments.
Can I have your phone number? Many people have been convicted on DNA evidence, and many others have been set free. I’d call that “something other than failing to convict OJ.”
That’s too bad. The spread of information is a good thing. I personally get my “art” from museums, literature, and music more than TV, but all I was saying is that TV impacts billions of lives, which was what you requested. Do you deny that billions of lives are impacted by TV? Hint: American lives count as lives in this question, even the base majority who own TVs.
I usually do as well, but I also microwave. I have nothing against using technology for convenience. The requirement was only that the technology affected lives (although I’ll admit my quick response was probably shy of a billion on most counts); do you deny that many people use microwaves, even if you yourself are better than that?
I’m sorry that “we” failed at stopping AIDS/HIV sooner (and have yet to come up with a cure, although the new medicines definitely improve length and quality of life dramatically). I’m not certain that can be blamed entirely on scientists, though, since the disease was mostly ignored by people who had been taught by their religions that gays weren’t worth worrying about (if you think they learned the wrong lessons from their religions, that’s great; but the lessons were learned nonetheless).
Do you deny that people with cancer have their lives affected by science?
It would make no difference, since you asked “what breakthroughs have hard sciences made recently that directly affect the lives of billions of people.” That list is even longer than the “directly benefited” list that I made a stab at.
The post I was addressing had nothing to do with theology. I was only defending science, not denigrating theology. Although I am an atheist, I have no desire to deny others their faith.
I apologize for the term “blind faith,” which was I guess the part of my post that smugly mocked theists. I originally just had “faith,” but I decided to be clever, and it really wasn’t necessary.
I personally sighed when I read the original OP, because I don’t think it helps to smugly mock theology in this way. That’s why I stuck to just replying to your mocking of science (or at least scientists). Feel free to refute the OP, just don’t do it by “smugly mocking” scientists, please.
OK, I’m going to attempt to (de-)highjack this thread, because I was actually very interested in seeing some answers to what I thought the OP was asking. A few ground rules first:
-
Religion, and by extension theology, are matters of faith. Granted there may be observation and proof, but it will not be of the kind that scientists demand in their own fields. If you’ve got a problem with that, too bad, thanks for visiting.
-
“Breakthrough” is perhaps not the right word, but we’ll stick with it. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to claim the messages of Jesus or Buddha or Lao Tzu were breakthroughs in religion. Similarly the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas were probably breakthroughs in theology (no value judgement in my ‘probably’ - I just don’t know enough about it).
So let’s hear what everyone has to say. If Buddha was the Isaac Newton of religion, who’s the Einstein to follow? What is big and new in religion or theology?
How can most scientists be theists, if they aren’t “blinded by blind faith” as you hint that all religious theists are?
Most religious people have observed something in their life that leads them to believe in a supreme being. As you yourself point out, you do not believe until you observe something to move you to another position. Most theists have observed something - the large majority aren’t in it to get the chicks.
The simple fact that beliefs can’t be measured like atoms can does not mean that they are not valid. This is why theology is not a hard science.
I believe the requirement was a breakthrough affecting billions of people. The some thousands who have been affected by DNA evidence is a great thing, I won’t deny that. On the other hand, thousands upon thousands more were also convicted or acquitted by non-scientific means. DNA evidence is one of many tools available; in itself it doesn’t prove or disprove anything.
TV does affect billions of lives. You asked if I had cable. shrugs There is the further question of whether TV has affected lives positively or negatively.
Of course many people use microwaves. I’m curious as to how you define this being a “breakthrough” technology, though.
That’s cheery. Do you want to talk about the science that went into slaughtering millions of minorities under the Nazi reich? Or do those not count as “breakthroughs”?
Nope. Do you deny that people with cancer have their lives affected by theology? It is amazing how religious you can get when you’re facing certain, painful, and horrible death.
Excellent. The post I was addressing was only defending theology, not denigrating science. Science has done many wonderful things - but why is the OP not criticizing philosophy? Law? Politics? Literature? Interpretive dance? What “breakthroughs” have there been in any of the liberal arts? I mean, seriously? Liberal arts don’t have “breakthroughs” - as I said, they have social revolutions. The breakthroughs of liberal arts are in personal understanding, not in discovering something necessarily new. It is as stupid as the fun old standby, “liberal arts students don’t do anything.”
That’s fine.
I’m emotional. When someone is smugly mocking (phrase of the day) me, I tend to fire right back at them. Like I said, I love science, and I think it has done many great things. Trying to compare scientific breakthroughs to liberal arts breakthroughs is absurdly silly, though, and quite frankly, is a low level of “trolling” that is practiced commonly on the Internet.
I apologize if it got out of hand or taken the wrong way, but that’s how these things go.
Although I’m interested in the main point of the OP, I do think that it misses the point. In science you can change the way part of the physical world is explained, but you are always beholden to information available to others. Breakthroughs may be revolutionary applications of what we know or revolutionary explainations.
Theology isn’t like this. I think a better phrasing is for those who are religious what changes in your religion have been of startling importance to those who hold to the religion? What does progress look like to various faiths?
I think threads like this can be very helpful because there is obvioulsy a huge gulf in understanding between the faithful and us not so faithful, and a lot of venom seems to be filling that gulf right now.
Well, in the Catholic religion alone in my lifetime we’ve seen:
-
Reducing the fasting time before communion from midnight the day before, to 3 hours. I think it has been reduced even more since I last attending church.
-
Late Saturday mass counts for Sunday now.
-
Women don’t have to wear hats in church.
-
I think Catholics might even be able to eat meat on Fridays. (Sorry, it’s been a long time since I was in the game.)
Oh, and Galileo was recently cleared of heresy, or whatever it was he was accused of.
You’re trying to apply the rules for hard science to liberal arts? What’s next, are you going to rank the great literature of the world by average word length?
I doubt you will find many professional theologists on the SDMB, but basically, you have to cut theology down into the various religions, just as you would cut down sciences into fields. Ever heard of a guy named Luther? Gardner? Religions are rarely made by one person, so pointing to one guy and calling him the breakthrough theologist is fairly absurd. Most religions take centuries to grow and mature, and over that time concepts change greatly. You could consider certain Christian groups accepting homosexual ministers as a theological breakthrough, considering how the actions are threatening to tear churches apart.
For the most part, instead of an overnight discovery like you have in science, theology changes slowly over time. The Christianity of today would likely abhor many Christians 200 years ago.
So, you want to talk about neopaganism? Christianity? Catholicism (which is being shaked to its roots)? Judaism? Buddhism (which is undergoing major theological changes)? Daoism? Islam? Aboriginal religions?
What do you define as a “breakthrough”? Something that splits a church? A cultural redefinition? Someone writes a controversial new book? Or does it have to be someone founding a new religion? How do you measure understanding and cultural change?
Stating generally that theology has not changed in the past 2000 years only serves to point out that you fell asleep in history class.