Does theology offer anything?

adamd164

Apparently some atheists (I've met one!) believe that theology can be a meaningful area of study in spite of god's non-existence. I'm not sure I can believe this. It may not be limited to the existence or otherwise of god, but from what I've seen (and admittedly, it's not much), the whole thing is just word games and obfuscation, nothing that couldn't fall under some area or another of philosophical / historical / literary study.

Has anyone here ever encountered anything in theology that seemed to have genuine novel merit?

Dades

It would drive me feckin' bananas.

It's one thing to analyse Moby Dick or Catch 22 but to have to do it on the basis that the stuff actually happened would be (for me) impossible.

robindch

adamd164 wrote: »

Has anyone here ever encountered anything in theology that seemed to have genuine novel merit?

There are plenty of ideas current in theology which have a fair degree of memetic or cultural interest, based as they are on the different and often peculiar ways in which these ideas interact with individuals and their desires and motivations.

For example, christianity's trinity as it's currently explained is an idea which is as uninteresting as it is incomprehensible. But it does make a weird kind of sense if it's placed within the context of Plato's Theory of Forms, where a deity -- entertainingly, a nameless, almost abstract, one himself -- exists as an instantiation of a Form of a deity (aka the holy spirit), with both having given rise to Jesus, the kind of god-progeny with which Greek mythology abounds.

So, yes, there are certainly interesting ideas in it, but taking them as serious descriptions of the society, world and universe we live in? Nah, that'd be silly.

pH

“Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.”
Robert A Heinlein.

“The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion”
Thomas Paine

“What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?”
Richard Dawkins

“For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing.”
HL Mencken

Dades

^^ Brilliant.

minusorange

pH wrote: »

“Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.”
Robert A Heinlein.

“The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion”
Thomas Paine

“What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?”
Richard Dawkins

“For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing.”
HL Mencken

Very good. But what are your thoughts on the matter?

Turtwig

The fact is that theology is so fricking old and vast in depth of content that I can't even tell if it's useless or not. I really hope all those hours studying and debating such minute intricacies wasn't for nothing. I mean what a shame that would be, studying the ends and outs of the properties of a God who wasn't actually there.
The reason theology pisses me off though, is that I have to learn it. Yeah, you read that right, by not being a tiny bit versed in theology the theologian can just play the ignorance card that scientists usually dish out when people rather annoyingly attack their theories with idiot pseudo-science, lore or intuition. The card's use in theology may not even be accurate but I like to remove any card an opponent can play.:)

minusorange

I'm starting a Philosophy degree next year and was considering doing world religions & theology with it. The course content seems very interesting, and I spoke to a member of the Philosophy department about it. He believes its a fairly robust combination and strongly recommends it.

This is from the prospectus.

This arts course offers you the opportunity to study Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and world religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism. We begin with their origins – asking how and why these religions came into being and continue to examine their development up until the modern period, where we examine how these religions have shaped European, Middle Eastern and Western civilisation. The relevance of the course to an ever changing Ireland is self-evident. How many times a week is Islam discussed in the media? How often are events in the Middle East reported? What lessons can the Holocaust teach us about integration and tolerance for a multi-cultural society? How will new generations of Irish Muslims contribute to Irish society? What is the Muslim perspective on integration? Where will the challenges and opportunities lie? The new Leaving Certificate syllabus in Religion seriously attempts to prepare for this future and Trinity’s course also takes up the challenge of a multi-cultural Ireland. Other issues which demand our attention include the ethical challenges of scientific advancements, such as, how can the ethical stances of religions affect the discoveries and opportunities of genetic engineering?

I suppose I agree with Christopher Hitchens when he says theology is worth studying, because it is man's first attempt at philosophy. My number one choice is actually philosophy and political science, but I just can't seem to get this out of my head. I've been to the theology section in the college library and the books there are fascinating. Some very interesting things relating to atheism etc.

I've been told that most people who apply are actually atheist/agnostic, believe it or not. I suppose we spend more time thinking about it than believers!

Ickle Magoo

adamd164 wrote: »

Apparently some atheists (I've met one!) believe that theology can be a meaningful area of study in spite of god's non-existence. I'm not sure I can believe this. It may not be limited to the existence or otherwise of god, but from what I've seen (and admittedly, it's not much), the whole thing is just word games and obfuscation, nothing that couldn't fall under some area or another of philosophical / historical / literary study.

Has anyone here ever encountered anything in theology that seemed to have genuine novel merit?

I'm not sure in what way it could be meaningful. Interesting, perhaps, but meaningful - to an atheist? I doubt it.

There was never a century nor a country that was short of experts who knew the Deity's mind and were willing to reveal it." - Mark Twain

minusorange

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure in what way it could be meaningful. Interesting, perhaps, but meaningful - to an atheist? I doubt it.

I'm an atheist. What little theology I have read is meaningful. At least to me. I became an atheist through an interest in theology.

Discussions on God's non-existence are all part of theological discourse. We're involved in the process right now. This whole forum is in a way part of the program.

I don't see a problem with it.

Turtwig

minusorange wrote: »

I've been told that most people who apply are actually atheist/agnostic, believe it or not. I suppose we spend more time thinking about it than believers!

While on one hand I can understand this, on another I think it is an utter waste of time. I realise that in order to get people to seriously doubt God we need to destroy every doctrine they have, but to be honest I just couldn't be bothered. Being realistic, I could die in the next few seconds (I hope not!), and when I think like I can't help but think like:
"Theology : Bullsh1t. "
"Science : Reality."
I'd rather learn and appreciate as much about reality as possible than waste my life trying to disprove some voodoo nonsense. When I was growing up, philosophy and theology fascinated me. Nowadays, though, I like to actually focus on reality not just meaningless speculation and conjecture. If it wasn't for the "power" and "respect" theology has in this world, I wouldn't even be paying an iota of attention to it. Nor would I be frequenting these fora as much as I do.

Atheists/Agnostics do science/math it's more worthwhile, more fulfilling and definitely more realistic.

adamd164

minusorange wrote: »

I'm an atheist. What little theology I have read is meaningful. At least to me. I became an atheist through an interest in theology.

Discussions on God's non-existence are all part of theological discourse. We're involved in the process right now. This whole forum is in a way part of the program.

I don't see a problem with it.

Well, the question of god's (non-)existence is an interesting one (I wouldn't be posting here if I didn't think so), but from what I've seen and read, theology is mostly concerned with muddying the waters around the question rather than tackling it directly, and branches out into all sorts of unfounded and ill-defined areas from there.

Ickle Magoo

minusorange wrote: »

I'm an atheist. What little theology I have read is meaningful. At least to me. I became an atheist through an interest in theology.

Discussions on God's non-existence are all part of theological discourse. We're involved in the process right now. This whole forum is in a way part of the program.

I don't see a problem with it.

Nope, me neither. I have an interest too but nothing written in theology is particularly meaningful to me above an academic interest in the linked anthropological fields and even then, because I hold so little regard for the message theological material supposedly carries, it is infinitely less interesting or meaningful than, say, the latest satellite images from space. You are right though, I had no right to assume all atheists would think the same way.

herbiemcc

Couldn't agree more - most of you are capturing my sentiments exactly.

Most of me feels overall that theology just has to be a waste of time.

However, even if the subject is non-existant, a case could be made that intelligent philosophical thought on the subject could advance human thinking.

A philosopher could debate the divinity of a football and I'm sure come up with some really interesting twists on how we think about reality etc.

I also think that for every raving lunatic there are more thoughtful, intelligent religious people (someone like Rowan Williams seems quite sensible and I was impressed with David Wolpi (youtube) - he could almost sway me until he starts talking about supernatural realm type stuff). So I would listen to someone's view if they took a consistent, rational and thoughtful approach. Although that does seem scuppered from the word go when dealing with such a subject.

I share your pain Malty about having to learn it. I do get a bit frustrated when you see people like the infamous Dr Craig et al rubbishing poorly understood scientific ideas and then go on to talk supernatural weirdness. I don't really discuss this much with people outside this forum (most of my friends/family are the usual lazy religion types who don't like to rock the boat) but when I do I hate to be in the opposite position of not being able to coherently debate biblical matters.

I want to research it until I really think about all that implies. The libraries of books, the years of reading and study all just to rubbish something (assuming I'm not converted). I'd rather go off and study something useful. Especially as if you're speaking to a Muslim or a Hindu or a Jew you have to hit the library again!!

pH

Here's a paper (abstract) at random:

Christ’s Resurrected Body as Key to a Nonviolent Theology of Location
Sarah Morice Brubaker University of Notre Dame

Starts with three lacunae in contemporary Christian dogmatic theology, all of which bear upon “place” as a theological category. Theologians who thematize place as a term of theological resonance, tend to restrict the conversation to created emplacement, bracketing the question of place’s grounding in the triune God. Meanwhile, an influential stream of postmetaphysical trinitarian theology (here exemplified by Jean-Luc Marion) exhibits a nearly opposite tendency: here placial terms, applied to the trinitarian relations, perform a key role in clearing Christianity from the charge of ontotheology… yet placiality itself is given only implicit, and often contradictory, status. Third, some postliberal ecclesiologies, it is argued, are so invested in setting up the Christian church as a rival polis, that they tend to assume the same kind of emplacement is appropriate to the Christian church as to a rival polis – the main difference being that the church defends its borders without violence. (The possibility that nonviolence mandates an entirely new form of emplacement – one arguably more faithful to scriptural witness – is not, the author suggests, not adequately considered.) In response to this, first, although a number of factors conspire to make place an urgent question for contemporary theology, there has so far been a failure to give theology of place a trinitarian grounding with satisfactory ecclesial implications. Second, part of the blame for this failure must lie with a fundamentally violent, dominating episteme wherein place is coded as a supremely passive foil for agency (human or divine). I suggest that the strange mode of emplacement exhibited by Christ’s body in the post-resurrection appearances, hints at a possibility for a genuinely theological, nonviolent, and specifically pneumatological understanding of emplacement: one with sufficiently trinitarian groundings, and one with implications for Christ’s ecclesial body.


Now could someone post one of these useful and interesting ones, from a reputable theologian in the last 20 years?

Zillah

Theology has a use and I wish it didn't. That is to say, it only has a use while there are people who believe in God.

In much the same way that psychiatry has a use and I wish it didn't. That is to say, it only has a use while there are people with mental illnesses.

Zillah

That said, I suppose the concept of God could serve as an occasional tool in the hands of philosopher's in a post-theistic society. I can imagine discussions about morality, power, cause and effect and similar topics having a use for a hypothetical ultimate.

MackDeToaster

To me it's a waste of time and ultimately utterly useless, it's a massive house of cards built on shakiest of premises. But if people want to spend their time at it then let them at it, that's their choice. Trying to get rid of theology would in essence be the same as trying to ban, say Dungeons and Dragons, or any other hobby or pastime, and I have no right to decide what others do with their lives.

However the distinction that I see is that not many people come out and say that Dungeons and Dragons is based on reality, and try to impose their D&D derived morals on others, and that's why I'll always proactively oppose theology and call it the made-up mindcrap that it is.

iUseVi

I can't see what possible use it has. Its like deciding 2+2=5 or that triangles can have 5 sides and then using these axioms and basing a whole intricate philosophy of these lies.

I know we still study Greek philosophy but we take it with a pinch of salt these days. Amongst the truly inspired thoughts they had was ten times the amount of utter rubbish. But this gets filtered out and we discuss the interesting stuff. This doesn't appear to happen with theology. Any thing in the holy texts is fair game and taken quite seriously.

Now if you want to study the philosophy of religion, or the anthropology of religion or you have a literary interest thats very well, you are interested in it. I expect theres some people who take the same interest in Tolkien. But the usefulness is limited at best.

aidan24326

Thomas Paine wrote:

“The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion”

What he said.

pH wrote: »

Here's a paper (abstract) at random:

Christ’s Resurrected Body as Key to a Nonviolent Theology of Location
Sarah Morice Brubaker University of Notre Dame

That abstract reads exactly like postmodernist gibberish, if indeed it's readable at all (makes no sense whatsoever to me). The title alone is enough to warn you that you're heading straight down nonsense street. 'A Nonviolent Theology of Location' ???? You got me there I'm afraid.

Now could someone post one of these useful and interesting ones, from a reputable theologian in the last 20 years?

I second that.

Dave!

It should be studied in the same way as the Iliad is studied: as an ancient piece of literature.

Zombrex

Theology is like trying to figure out how Darth Vader's suit in Star Wars works under the initial assumption that it must work some how because Star Wars is true and really happened. You are always going to come up with irrelevant answers.

The biggest flaw in all of theology is the failure to consider that perhaps none of what theologians are studying has any bases in reality.

bnt

I had a book recommended to me a while ago, and found it in my university library: The Drama of Atheist Humanism, by Henri de Lubac, who later became a Cardinal and influential Catholic Theologian (sez Wikipedia).

I didn't get very far: after what I thought was a lucid description of a Naturalist worldview in the first chapter, the author says something like "but if you look beyond the natural world in to the spiritual realm", and he was off to the races. I remember he treated Dostoevsky as some kind of primitive theologian (ignoring the anti-Semitism), quoting lines like this as proof of his God's existence:

Beauty is a terrible and awful thing! It is terrible because it has not been fathomed, for God sets us nothing but riddles. Here the boundaries meet and all contradictions exist side by side.

while ignoring other Dostoevsky statements such as this:

To my thinking Roman Catholicism is not even a religion, but simply the continuation of the Western Roman Empire, and everything in it is subordinated to that idea, faith to begin with. The Pope seized the earth, an earthly throne, and grasped the sword; everything has gone on in the same way since, only they have added to the sword lying, fraud, deceit, fanaticism, superstition, villainy.

The scary thing about theology is that there are people who think it has a basis in reality - that it actually means something real.