# Is theology finished as a valid knowledge source?
**URL:** https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/is-theology-finished-as-a-valid-knowledge-source/4644
**Category:** Religion and Secularism
**Created:** [November 26, 2015, 3:26pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/is-theology-finished-as-a-valid-knowledge-source/4644 "2015-11-26T15:26:55Z")
**Posts on this page:** 8
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@grandparay](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/grandparay)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2015, 3:26pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/is-theology-finished-as-a-valid-knowledge-source/4644/1 "2015-11-26T15:26:55Z")
I cannot find any critical thinking or rational reason for even reading about theology, except from a historical point of view on how the brain really controls us.
---
### Author:  [@timb](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/timb)
#### Post date: [November 26, 2015, 3:46pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/is-theology-finished-as-a-valid-knowledge-source/4644/2 "2015-11-26T15:46:05Z")
Studying something that only exists conceptually, may have its place, in seeking knowledge, but the inordinate impact of theology on mankind is the interesting thing, to me.
As to theology, itself, being finished as a VALID KNOWLEDGE SOURCE: I don’t think it was ever a valid source of knowledge, to begin with. But it has certainly been an impactful “knowledge” source, and will continue to be so, for the foreseeable future.
---
### Author:  [@jamesbriggs](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/jamesbriggs)
#### Post date: [November 27, 2015, 1:49pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/is-theology-finished-as-a-valid-knowledge-source/4644/3 "2015-11-27T13:49:21Z")
Theology seems like a mixture of philosophy and revealed religion, with philosophy being ancillary to “revealed knowledge”. As a secularist, I conclude it invalid as a source of knowledge because theology has unjustified beliefs as the core of its teachings.
---
### Author:  [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)
#### Post date: [November 27, 2015, 2:08pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/is-theology-finished-as-a-valid-knowledge-source/4644/4 "2015-11-27T14:08:42Z")
Richard Carrier has a good talk on the meaning of words like philosophy and science. “Science” has never been formally defined. He says it is philosophy with a lot of well established facts to back it up. Whereas, religion is philosophy with no facts, i.e. pseudo-philosophy. He says it better
---
### Author:  [@jamesbriggs](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/jamesbriggs)
#### Post date: [November 27, 2015, 2:31pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/is-theology-finished-as-a-valid-knowledge-source/4644/5 "2015-11-27T14:31:38Z")
I like Richard Carrier’s work. I’ve listened to him on you tube and agree with his concept of pseudo-philosophy as being philosophy with unjustified premises. Science is a branch of philosophy that has become very successful because its methodologies are able to justify claims it makes about reality, unlike many other branches of philosophy.
---
### Author:  [@grandparay](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/grandparay)
#### Post date: [November 27, 2015, 3:45pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/is-theology-finished-as-a-valid-knowledge-source/4644/6 "2015-11-27T15:45:13Z")
James B I think a bunch of scientists would not like your reference to coming from philosophy!
---
### Author:  [@jamesbriggs](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/jamesbriggs)
#### Post date: [November 27, 2015, 4:34pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/is-theology-finished-as-a-valid-knowledge-source/4644/7 "2015-11-27T16:34:54Z")
> James B I think a bunch of scientists would not like your reference to coming from philosophy!
True, but that is the history of science.
---
### Author:  [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)
#### Post date: [November 27, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/is-theology-finished-as-a-valid-knowledge-source/4644/8 "2015-11-27T19:11:07Z")
> James B I think a bunch of scientists would not like your reference to coming from philosophy!
True, but that is the history of science. Good point James. A scientist who didn't like that reference would be one that isn't aware of the history of their own discipline