Sorry, what science in particular are you referring to?
psychology
What are specific examples of those influences?
vain-glory and vendetta (
@ppp, that second one was for you)
Criminology meets psychology/psychiatry ─ yes, that seems reasonably straightforward.
I simply don't see where it intersects with theology.
In the example you mention, for instance, the religion of those attacked represents their alienness ─ their "hateability" if you like ─ as perceived by their attacker in his particular mental condition (essentially paranoia), rather than any particular content of their actual beliefs, no?
Yes. Their alienness. Which is produced by the attacker's rigid self-identity. Almost all conflict is produced this way. Both inter-personal and inner-turmoil. The solution is to encouage flexibilty, but... there's a catch. Being too rigid about flexibility produces the same problems in reverse. If a person is ignorant of this and is unaware of how extremes produce paradoxes, they will fall into the same trap they were trying to avoid.
Chopping wood looks so easy, but if a person is not aware, the axe head is aimed and traveling directly at the femoral artery. As the great and terrible rock god Roger Waters wrote in their scripture, "careful with that axe, eugene." Which is ironic and proves my point. In Roger Water's pursuit against bigotry, they became a bigot themself. Roger Waters is a raging anti-semite.
Theology is nothing more than
a model for understanding the forces that create destroy and inspire in this crazy place that we share. A place which I affectionatley call, "here-and-now". Theos-ology. Theos = god. A god is anything with the power to create destroy and inspire. Theology is not science, but it is its great-great-great-great-grandparent. The difference is, theology is a model for understanding. Science is collecting knowledge. Science is relatively young. Arguably beginning in the 1600s. Theology began the minute that neurology developed to the point of recognizing potential for self-harm and realized it could avoid it. Possibly the very beginning was the impulse to feed itself realizing ( for lack of a better word ) that not feeding would result in self-termination. This would be the birth of the god named "void", "consumption", possibly the first god that was ever conceived. The "first-born" of all the gods.
Theology is specifically useful in resolving conflicts, both inter-personal and inner-turmoil, because it has been around since the dawn of consciousness. Ignoring that people are animals, people have been observing patterns of conflict, peace-making, cooperation, symbiotic, and predatory relationships for millenia. These patterns have been passed down as collected wisdom in story, song, and written word for thousands of years prior to the development of modern psychology. Because psychology is a science it is rigid in what it does and does not include in its scope. Although it is slightly less rigid in that it permits some abstraction. Theology has no limitations. All that matters is, "does it work" "does the model produce accurate predictions, and useful solutions to problems".
What I'm describing is a problem solving technique that is well knowing in computer science, but perhaps others may not be aware of. It's "black boxing", or the black box method. It is extemely powerful for rapidly solving very complex problems or rapidly learning new information. For those who, maybe, pay attention to my debates. They'll realize that I assimilate new information and adapt very quickly. This is because I am a religious person who knows how to "black box". But religious people and the prophets have been black boxing for, like I said, millenia. This technique will be inaccessible for some types of people. Very rare. But if they are hyper-literal, and very rigid thinkers, they will not be able to black-box. Generally when it comes to religious themes and ideas which have been produced by black-boxing, it is not a lack of capability which is the obstacle to understanding them, but a lack of desire, or anti-religious bigotry.
en.m.wikipedia.org
The primary benefit from a modern perspective of using a theological model for understanding human behavior comes from the paradox of lifting up "knowledge" as an ideal. There is a natural paradox, like the one I introduced earlier with "rigid-flexibiliy". When a person idolizes knowledge, then they compromise their ability to learn and grow and adapt. When a "god" model is employed it black-boxes the concept, in this case the power to create destory and inspire in an individual's life, into something which is accepted to be unknownable intellectually. This cultivates a level of respect and awe similar to the respect and awe a person should have for a cleaver in the kitchen. "Careful with that axe...". These things, these ideas, these concepts, these feelings, that people have are far more dangerous, and powerful, than people give them credit for. And in the extreme, a boon can become a bane in the blink of an eye. And even the axiom "everything in moderation" can become extreme, and flip, if it itself is not moderated.
For the atheist, they are devoted in a religious way to a rigid self-identity. When they ask for evidence of god(s), they are asking to be converted, they are saying "prove to me I'm an atheist". And then, when they recieve that proof, they either deny it, or they are hurt by it, because it is perceived as anti-athiest bigotry. The challenge originates from the atheist, but there is no correct way to respond to it other than ignore them, ignore them all. Honestly, the staff, maybe, should consider whether atheists shoul dbe permitted to even ask questions like they do, because they ARE asking for a conversion. That's against the rules of the forum and is irritating to the atheists who are here and do not want read some kind of spiel attacking their chosen identity.
This is of course unrealistic. But I think you understand my point. And as I said before, I cannot be rigid about my flexibility. There is a time and a place to take a stand. In this specific case of "does atheism exist? do they have a god? are they making god claims unknowingly?" The answer is, the atheist needs to be more flexible with their self-identity and just acknowlege that they are just as religiously devoted to their ideal. And that ideal is no different than any other pagan god. It's not a cartoon version of a god. It's not cupid, or athena with a physical body. But very few pagans that I know, actually perceive their gods that way. They have a much more mature god-concept than the atheist will permit in their narrow dogmatic beliefs.
The reason I say that
they should be more flexible is because ,I think you and I agree, I hope, that
in general the desired goal is peace, cooperation, inclusion, teamwork, mutual understanding, and mutual respect. Simple example between you and me: we argue about scripture what it says and what it means. Why? Why should we argue. Both of us agree on the most important points. Rape, Slavery, Genocide are all wrong. I happen to be flexible in my approach to scripture. You are rigid. If I become like you, then become rigid. Nothing is accomplished that way. All we do is argue more. About what? It's meaningless. However, if you become flexible, then the arguing stops. No more conflict.
It's exactly the same with atheist vs. theist. If the atheist is flexible then 90% of the needless conflict around here ceases. We can all have a higher level of discourse together. Or... perhaps people want to argue, want to fight and they gain something personally from it. Personally. Selfishly. It's interesting to note, the founder, Rex, appears to me to be somewhat satanic. If you go back and read their very early posts. This person is embracing something "other". Not necessarily bad. And the last time I checked their profile, I think the religious ID was "I'll never tell." Yup. Checked it. it's "I won't tell." People don't realize how satanism works, just like they don't understand how gods work.
They enjoy, forgive me, f-ing, with people's minds, even their own minds. They love double-meanings and word play. Starting up a "religious-forum" for "fellow-ship" "god-bless", means something totally different to a satanist, but people would never know because they claim the same words that Christian's use and flip them, re-purpose them, then laugh when Christians show up and meet a crowd of atheists piling on to humiliate and laugh at them. For all we know, this place was created for the intention of creating discord and disharmony and chaos and conflict. And when the founder says "god-bless", oh boy, their god is not the Christian god.
So, I think there's a decision to make. What is the real enemy, if there is one in conflict. The enemy in almost all cases is a rigid mind-set, a rigid self-identity. This is no secret. The axiom "Put yourself in their shoes" is nothing more than "put down that rigid self-identity". That sort of lesson is old wisdom, it's contained in scripture going back, back, back. Belief in gods, acknowledging gods, is beneficial for encouraging this sort of flexibility and humility. A person is never going to release themself from a rigid self identity if they cannot humble themself. If you noticed, the Christ-church shooter is narcisstic. Thats rampant on the forum among the people I have been arguing with n this thread and others. Theology is a great model for addressing all of these sources of conflict and more IF it is applied using the prinicples I described. Flexible, but not rigid-flexible.
