From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 31 2003 - 09:51:26 BST
Hi Rick,
> RICK
> Perhaps that was a poor choice of words, the emphasis was supposed to
be
> on 'god', not on the 'various given groups'. Please allow me to begin
> again. The term "Theology" is derived from the Greek "theos" meaning
'god',
> and "logos" meaning 'discourse'. That is, "theology" is discourse on the
> topic of 'god'. This is only one area of the larger category of
'philosophy
> of religion' because not all religions have a recognizable 'god' concept
> (that is, not all religions are 'theistic'). A religion that isn't
> *the-istic* would obviously have no use for a *the-ology*, but it's study
> would still fall into the category of 'philosophy of religion'.
This is something which I tried to pin DMB down on a little while back. If
you *define* philosophy of religion in this way, then I have no problem with
it. In this case, there is no such thing as Buddhist theology, there is only
Buddhist philosophy of religion (ie Buddhism can operate at the intellectual
level). Defined this way, I would say that what I understand as Christian
theology is also 'philosophy of religion', ie it is understood at the same
intellectual level at Buddhist thinking. I think it is prejudice to say that
Buddhism is intellectual and Christianity isn't (not that you were saying
that, I'm just putting down a marker).
Trouble is, there is a distinct academic discipline called 'philosophy of
religion' and a distinct academic/spiritual discipline called 'theology'.
The former is abstract and 'objective' (ie it is largely SOM based), the
latter is grounded in a community of belief (wherever it might go to from
that basis). That's why I think it's clearer to talk of Christian theology
rather than Christian philosophy of religion.
> 'Comparative religion' is also a subset of 'philosophy of religion'. It
is
> the subset that proceeds by studying the similarities and differences
> evident in different systems of religious belief. It does not necessarily
> hone in on the theistic religions or on conceptions of 'god' (like
theology
> does).
> In short, 'philosophy of religion' embraces both 'theology' the study
of
> concepts of god, and 'comparative religion' the study of different systems
> of religious beliefs. When I wrote to Sam, "...when [Pirsig] says
> 'theology' is an intellectual pattern he's talking about the
objectification
> of religious doctrine for study..." what I really meant to say was that
he's
> talking about the objectification of 'concepts of god' for study.
I agree with what you say about philosophy of religion and comparative
religion.
I think my key dispute here is that I don't see that the objectification
process renders philosophy of religion a higher quality intellectual
endeavour (at least not necessarily so - I see it as a 'moment' in the
intellectual approach, a tool to be used with discretion). Someone like
Aquinas - still probably the greatest philosopher of religion ever -
included that philosophy of religion in his overall theology. He was quite
clear that the intellect was insufficient (something which DMB and I agree
on, as it happens).
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 09:55:15 BST