From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 12:35:36 BST
Hi Rick,
> 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.
I think this is becoming more than a semantic difference. I'm happy with
"there is only "theology" which encompasses the study of god concepts from
any and all sectarian religions", because to my mind that sort of theology
can comfortably be (in fact is in practise) coterminous with what happens
within a particular tradition. Where I am uncomfortable is thinking that
this process of abstraction provides a cognitively superior viewpoint - I
would deny that.
> RICK
> I don't think either Buddhism or Christianity are intellectual pursuits.
Dependent on how you defined 'intellectual' I would probably agree with
that.
> 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.
I think you're running together philosophy of religion and theology. They
overlap, but their basic approaches are distinctly different. Whilst
theology operates within a faith tradition, with a potential to grow away
from that base (hence I'm happy with 'theology' being broader than
'Christian theology') I still think that it is more accurate to talk about
'Christian theology' than simply theology per se. After all, the vast
majority of theological writing is in fact based in a particular framework.
I'm quite happy to drop any sectarian modifier from 'philosophy of
religion', unless it's the word 'Greek'.
> 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.
I think that's a mistake (an anachronism if nothing else - 'fideism' is a
twentieth century term, and I'm not sure it's legitimate to apply such
categories to him). For example, Aquinas wrote that the Bible should never
"be understood to mean certain things the contraries of which are shown by
sufficiently evident reason". His understanding of the role of reason was
remarkably subtle. This issue is the same one that DMB and I keep bashing
our heads together on - in other words, I think you're sharing some of DMB's
assumption of 'neutral' reason, which I don't think is legitimate. Thus your
tacit contrast between 'faith in dogma' and 'intellectual pursuit' in your
last sentence.
> 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.
I have no quarrel with your definitions working better for you. What I would
point out, though, is that they mischaracterise the nature of religious
faith; such mischaracterisation has an historical genesis that can be
described; it is part and parcel of the SOM framework that Pirsig dismantles
in the MoQ; and consequently I think it is broken-backed intellectually.
Now, as Pirsig himself (to my mind) hasn't fully engaged with any Western
theological thinking - despite his occasional allusions to Eckhart - and his
conception of the intellect (again, to my mind) is still vitiated by the
occasional Modernist prejudice - it is unsurprising that in this forum these
prejudices are still prevalent. I think they're wrong though - but, of
course, that's an argument that I need to make compelling enough to convince
people about. Probably a Sisyphean task :o)
The essential conceit which I object to is the notion that there is 'neutral
ground' from which it is possible to impartially assess the truth claims of
different religious beliefs (ie 'objectively'). There is no 'view from
nowhere' - and the ideology (they *mythology*!) that there is such a view
is, as I understand it, a core part of SOM thinking. So I see the academic
study of different religious concepts as itself grounded in, effectively, a
type of religious framework (neo-Platonism) even though it is part of that
framework to deny that it does so. I think that framework is demonstrably
false.
> 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.
Could you explain the practical difference? ie, in what way does resort to
S/O reasoning (in pursuing an 'objective' understanding of religions) avoid
making the mistaken value-assumptions that the MoQ critiques?
> 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.
Because a) that's not what theologians actually do and b) the 'objective
study' etc is intellectually problematic and IMHO untenable. In the
classical period, a theologian was simply 'one who prays', so I do have some
sympathy for your point.
> 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.
I hope I'm clear!!
> thanks for the enlightening chat,
> take care
To you too.
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 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 13:06:49 BST