From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 03:32:20 BST
Hey Sam,
> > 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'.
SAM
> 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).
RICK
Not exactly. Defined in this way, it is meaningless to add any sectarian
qualifier to the terms "Philosophy of religion", "comparative religion", or
"theology". True, there is no "Buddhist theology", but there is also no
"Christian Theology". Rather there is only "theology" which encompasses the
study of god concepts from any and all sectarian religions.
SAM
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).
RICK
I don't think either Buddhism or Christianity are intellectual pursuits.
SAM
> 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.
RICK
I agree with all of this except the last line. For me, I think both
"christian theology" and "christian philosophy of religion" are equally
unclear. I prefer to completely drop the sectarian modifiers from the
terms.
SAM
> 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).
RICK
As I understood Aquinas, he was a member of a particular theological school
known as "fideism" (from 'fides', the Latin for 'faith) which held that
reason alone can establish nothing about god and that revelation based dogma
must be accepted to fully understand god. Aquinas was a true-believer and
so the need for faith in dogma was, to him, no obstacle to 'theology' being
considered an intellectual pursuit. Since I'm not a believer, I don't
believe that any worthwhile intellectual pursuit can require faith in a
sectarian religious dogma, and so the definitions that I was taught seem to
work better for me than yours do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SAM (from your second post)
Firstly, doesn't the ideology of 'objective process' rely upon SOM
reasoning?
RICK
No. It relies on S/O reasoning. No SOM is necessary.
SAM
Secondly, the sense of 'sectarianism' that I was using - which was
introduced by DMB - is not intended to mean unintellectual, or anything
pejorative. It's more of a tautology - someone practising Christian theology
is a practising Christian.
RICK
Okay. But to me this seems like a waste of the word 'theology'. Why not
just say that 'someone practicing Christianity is a practicing Christian'
and save 'theology' for the objective study of god concepts? Seems like a
more practical use of the word to me.
SAM (to DMB)
But depending on your basic framework, theology can
include philosophy of religion and comparative studies, or vice versa. I
think it is a prejudice to say the 'inclusion' has to be one way.
RICK
Agreed. All that is necessary is that your audience understands how you are
using the terms.
thanks for the enlightening chat,
take care
rick
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 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 03:38:21 BST