[b800h]

> Religion is never wrong

That is complete rubbish. There are plenty of examples from East and West. In certain parts of China, rival monasteries would have a throwdown over theology, hold a debate, and the losing monastery would convert.

The difference is that Theology can take personal experience as a logical prior, and work from there. Often that is the grappling hook thrown over a chasm which allows a bridge to be built to a new level of understanding. A bit like the way that infinitesimals are used as a device in the derivation of calculus.

[matthewdgreen]

One of the great (if unfortunate) advances in human society was the discovery that “personal experience” is a very unreliable way to learn about the world.

[themitigating]

How is this unfortunate? If you drawn conclusions about the world around you using your limited personal experience then it is unreliable. Relying on personal experience to learn about the world leads to faulty conclusions, more than data or experimentation would.

- I live in X city and I get robbed at gunpoint, is this city unsafe?

- I buy a new Toyota Corolla, it breaks down, does that mean the Corolla is a unreliable car?

- I go to Vermont and I decide to go hiking. The trail I picked is muddy, it's boring, and there are bugs everywhere. Is this a good place to hike?

Wrong conclusions but harmless you might say, how about:

I'm walking in a mall and I see a Black person steal a purse, it's the first crime I've ever witnessed. Are Black people dangerous?

My sister is raped by a Chinese person and my uncle tells me a Chinese person stole his mobile phone. Are Chinese people criminals?

Of course when it comes to situations that only involve you or your direct interaction with a unique situation that makes sense. Taste, smells, sexual attraction, friendship, even your relationship to God. However for most? situations it's not reliable.

[b800h]

And yet it mediates your entire existence. Without both objective (or analytical) science and subjective (or holistic) theology we're trying to understand the world with one hand tied behind our backs.

Personally I think understanding the story should carry equal (or greater) weight when compared to examining the letters and paint used to write it.

[themitigating]

By saying you have one hand behind your back you're implying holistic subjective theology has value. Why does it have value?

"Personally I think understanding the story should carry equal (or greater) weight when compared to examining the letters and paint used to write it."

Why?

[b800h]

Because it has meaning to me.

[themitigating]

"Without both objective (or analytical) science and subjective (or holistic) theology we're trying to understand the world with one hand tied behind our backs."

One definition of science is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

If you want to understand something about the world and you can do it using science why would you use any other method.

"Because it has meaning to me."

Excuse the bluntness but so? and why? This doesn't answer my question about the value and why you should use it.

[themitigating]

Does God exist? Maybe?

Theological differences are interpretations.