There are no facts to decide what is good theology and what is bad theology.Actually this is wrong. Yes, OK, so according to atheists there is no objective reality which theology describes (and as a non-theist myself, I am inclined to agree). But some theology is definitely far more harmful than other theology, and some theology can be beneficial.
Good theology is what you can sell to the believers.
Bad theology is what does not sell.
For instance, the kind of theology that says that God dislikes LGBT people is obviously harmful; whereas the kind of theology that says God is Nature and Nature is God, or that God is Love and Love is God (and not a person) is harmless, and probably beneficial as it encourages ecological awareness; and the kind of theology that encourages people to be nice to everyone because "we are all made in the image of God" is surely beneficial. Also the kind of theology that says we don't know if God exists or what She wants (e.g. Godless Morality by Richard Holloway) seems like a good thing to me, as it encourages people to be more humble and tolerant of others' beliefs.
Theology can be tested empirically by its effects on people's lives. Bad theology will make people unhappy and cause harm; good theology will make people happy and altruistic.
NB in my book, good theology includes old-style atheism (i.e. the kind that was more tolerant of other views), agnosticism, naturalism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, universalism, unitarianism, a lot of mysticism, and the interfaith movement. Most of these theologies recognise that mythology is a metaphor for the process of living, and is best enjoyed in the mode of fairy-tale. They also show respect for other philosophies and religions.
27 comments:
Good theology is what accords with one's own prejudices, and bad theology is what doesn't.
Ha ha Steve. So in effect, you agree with the comment I quoted....
I suppose what one considers to be a good effect of theology is also a result of one's own prejudices, so perhaps you're right.
Good theology drags in insight from other fields. Bad theology drags it in from your own preconceptions.
Good theology can change your own ideas - bad theology is an attempt to impose your ideas on other people.
I like your thinking, Archdruid Eileen.
I shouldn’t worry overmuch about Steven‘s views on retail religion. Serious mathematicians aren't attack atheists, and many discount biology as a science. Nobody discounts like a serious mathematician.
"Good theology drags in insight from other fields. Bad theology drags it in from your own preconceptions."
From which field did you drag in that nugget?
“Good theology can change your own ideas - bad theology is an attempt to impose your ideas on other people.”
So if everyone endeavours to be a “good” theologian then there is no theology.
Fog Patches - I don't like the tone of your comments. Please play nicely. I regard Steve and the Archdruid as friends, and I don't like people being snarky at my friends.
There's a difference between persuasion and imposition.
I also find it difficult to take anyone seriously who is funded by the Templeton Foundation.
“I don't like people being snarky at my friends.”
I wasn’t being snarky - reputation isn't destiny - but I find that it’s often useful to look at aphorisms in their own terms.
“There's a difference between persuasion and imposition.”
I think that if there is a line then it’s impossible to identify. Somebody who is happy with their beliefs keeps them to themselves. People only take time to communicate their religious ideas coherently, as theology, when they wish to persuade others that their religious beliefs hang together.
“I also find it difficult to take anyone seriously who is funded by the Templeton Foundation.”
John Barrow isn’t funded by the Templeton Foundation. He won a prize which they awarded, but I think a problem for many people who disagree with Dawkins is that they tend to swallow what he and his minions feed onto the internet about the Templeton Foundation and others. Templeton isn’t some kind of science-corrupting evangelical empire based in a hidden volcanic lair. It’s core principle - that religion and science aren’t non-overlapping magisteria - is one shared by many reasonable and able people and which was, in fact, behind your own dissertation.
John Barrow is one of the most rigorous and respectable scientists anyone could hope to meet and has done more in his own quiet way to advance the public understanding of science - especially among young people via the Millennium Mathematics Project - than any number of sour-faced vainglorious commercial atheists.
Thanks for the clarification.
No, reputation isn't destiny, and I wasn't going by your reputation, but by what you had written.
I think your description of commercial atheists is right on the money.
You're welcome. Oh, incidentally, I should have been more clear; the Steven to which I referred was Mr. Carr.
>>"Good theology drags in insight from other fields. Bad theology drags it in from your own preconceptions."
From which field did you drag in that nugget?<<
My own experience - if I'm doing theology the last place I want to do theology from is *here*. I want to pull in all the angles I can - from science, art and even God help me sociology - even the Health and Safety industry gives us insight into some aspects of the human condition - and that's a part of theology (if you're a totally nontheist theologian I guess that's almost the only part of theology).
>>“Good theology can change your own ideas - bad theology is an attempt to impose your ideas on other people.”
So if everyone endeavours to be a “good” theologian then there is no theology.<<
If everyone endeavours to be a "good" theologian then we won't all sit behind your confessional walls, whatever they may be, chucking proof texts and nuggets over the top and working along their own tramlines.
Right, I'm off to the Dawkins site. I hear it's really friend over there.
...that would be "friendly".
“if I'm doing theology the last place I want to do theology from is *here*. I want to pull in all the angles I can - from science, art and even God help me sociology - even the Health and Safety industry gives us insight into some aspects of the human condition - and that's a part of theology (if you're a totally nontheist theologian I guess that's almost the only part of theology).”
Ah, I see where we’re crossing one another. I’m talking about theology - the study of religious theory and practice - and you’re talking about anthropology. Or possibly performance art.
“If everyone endeavours to be a "good" theologian then we won't all sit behind your confessional walls, whatever they may be, chucking proof texts and nuggets over the top and working along their own tramlines.”
Evidently I’m not the only one who enjoys tramlines or I‘d find myself engaged in discussion a lot more. Anyway, if everyone keeps their religious ideas to themselves then there is nothing to study, hence no theology. Regarding walls, I can’t say that I’ve missed any lately but do give me a heads-up if you spot any on your tramlines; if they’re supporters then I’d like to have them back in place pronto.
“Proof texts” aren’t my thing - I deal in real proofs - but if, when you return your pop art, pop science, fake science and health and safety proof texts back to the library - you head towards the theology section and read some of the proper theology books there you’ll find that proper theologians don’t proof text, or even appeal to scripture. Where referencing occurs it’s for the purpose of exegesis, and not for either politics or performance art.
“Right, I'm off to the Dawkins site. I hear it's really friend over there.”
It’s been a hilarious week in Dawkinsland. Do you know the fable about the scorpion and the frog? Well, the scorpion’s now apologised and the frog is falling over itself to carry the scorpion back across the river.
Actually I think you'll find religious studies is the study of religious theory and practice (and generally makes no comment about the objective reality or non-reality of the numinous or the supernatural), whereas theology (as defined in Cicero's De Natura Deorum) is the study of gods and their interactions with the world. From this study one can derive ethics (in the sense that ethics are derived from an understanding of how the world works, not in the sense of them being derived from divine commands, as stated in an earlier post) and practices, but theology and religious studies are two very distinct things. Also I happen to know that Archdruid Eileen knows rather a lot about theology from a conversation we had elsewhere.
"Actually I think you'll find religious studies is the study of religious theory and practice (and generally makes no comment about the objective reality or non-reality of the numinous or the supernatural), whereas theology (as defined in Cicero's De Natura Deorum) is the study of gods and their interactions with the world."
Bearing in mind that the world has moved on somewhat since Cicero, still my brief definition doesn’t actually exclude yours. Why wouldn’t the study of gods and their interactions be the subject of religion?
“Also I happen to know that Archdruid Eileen knows rather a lot about theology from a conversation we had elsewhere.”
I’m sure it may be the case, but theologies are not syntheses of unrelated disciplines and arts.
FogPatches, haven't I seen you starting a fight in a pub somewhere?
“FogPatches, haven't I seen you starting a fight in a pub somewhere?”
Hey, even Wittgenstein had his poker.
"unrelated disciplines and arts"? Blimey. What a weird world. I'd hate to be the person who put socks in your T-shirt draw or vice-versa.
My favourite "discipline" is molecular biophysics. Which relates the disciplines of biochemistry, maths, computing, physics and a strong dose of graphical arts. There's no such think as an unrelated discipline. Apart from motor mechanics and ballet dancing, I was going to say, but then I remembered the Kwik Fit fitters.
“My favourite "discipline" is molecular biophysics. Which relates the disciplines of biochemistry, maths, computing, physics and a strong dose of graphical arts. There's no such think as an unrelated discipline.”
The subject is theology. Molecular biophysics is unrelated to theology.
"Molecular biophysics is unrelated to theology". No it's not. The simple concept of General Revelation says it's not. Psalm 8 says it's not. The book of Job says it's not. The knowledge that an artist puts something of themselves into their art says it's not. Jesus saying "consider the lilies of the field" says it's not.
A theology that is divorced from the sciences is - if it's anything meaningful a all - Gnostic. And while the Gnostics have enjoyed an unexpected resurgence of late, I'd rather stick with some old-fashioned incarnation when all's said and done.
And apologies to Yewtree for populating your comments with a 2-natured Chalcedonian rant.
“No it's not. The simple concept of General Revelation says it's not.”
Unless you’re about to start making arguments from ID then I’m not going to believe you’re seriously telling me that “molecular biophysics” has any relation to theology. As for the rest of it, were you able to make a single argument that “molecular biophysics” had any relation to theology then I’m sure you would have clobbered me with it and not thrown a handful of ping-pong balls at me. Now, if you wanted to talk about natural theology then you might find me more sympathetic but if it had anything to say about “molecular biophysics” then it would call itself “molecular biophysics”
“And apologies to Yewtree for populating your comments with a 2-natured Chalcedonian rant.”
Something of a good sport, what?
Molecular biophysics doesn't need theology because it's about how biology works. But theology needs to take science into account if it's to be a meaningful theology. The relationship doesn't have to be reciprocal for two fields to be related.
Re the comments spat: it's nice to have lots of comments, but play nice, kids!
“Molecular biophysics doesn't need theology because it's about how biology works. But theology needs to take science into account if it's to be a meaningful theology.”
Sorry, but that’s just argument by aphorism; it sounds neat but it doesn’t give the necessity for theology to take science into account. You referenced Cicero as a theologian earlier - how much science do you find in De Natura Deorum? How much science in theology between then and the last couple of centuries? None, really. Is all that work then meaningless? We’re not talking about natural philosophy - the standard has been set by mention of “molecular biophysics”, so we’re really looking for something very rigorous and evidenced if we are not to dismiss all that theology as worthless.
“The relationship doesn't have to be reciprocal for two fields to be related.”
It must be reciprocal for claims of a relationship to be taken seriously, otherwise we just end up with more abysmal New Age bookshelves stacked with titles on “quantum consciousness”, “quantum shamanism”, “quantum witchcraft” and all that rubbish. Here be reiki.
That's not what I meant at all. If you're going to twist everything I say and take it out of context, I can't be bothered to argue with you.
Sorry about that. It’s difficult to get much nuance from aphorism but I thought it perfectly fair to apply your qualification on contemporary theology to the touchstone you gave earlier. You can have another go, if you wish, but I honestly don’t see why theology need tip-toe around hard science.
Post a Comment