Talk:Theology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

	Religion Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Contents 1 Theology approaches from a position of belief 1.1 Seminaries may require belief 2 Hindu Theology Should Be Represented in the Article 3 Hindu Theologies 3.1 Theology predates Christianity 4 Relationship of creationism to theology 4.1 Should the Theology page be improved? 5 13th century theologians list 6 a reworking 7 Theory that gods exist because people believe in them 8 Finally did it; now I need your help 9 Theology article and the wikipedia style guide 10 Reasoned discourse? 11 Why has this page become part of the Philosophy series? 12 Problems with the history of theology section 12.1 So help me 12.2 History of Theology 13 Theology and Vaccination 14 Godlore 15 Lede 15.1 part. 15.2 part. 15.3 part. 16 TT 17 ABSOLUTELY AWFUL! 18 Details 18.1 cont. 19 Side by side 20 Controversy 21 Proposals for redistributing material 22 Pages for development 23 Links section 24 Archive bot?

[edit] Theology approaches from a position of belief

1. Theological study approaches its topic from a position of belief; thus it must be distinguished from the philosophy of religion, which does not presume the truth of the religious beliefs it examines

I think it would be clearer to say "Theology assumes the truth of at least some religious beliefs and therefore can be distinguished from..." A hundred years ago, your description would be pretty accurate, but there are many professional "theologians" who disavow any specific belief in God... --Mark Christensen

Mark is pretty correct in what he says: for example, I do not personally believe in the Norse gods (or any other come to that) but nevertheless I find a study of the pantheon to be quite fascinating. My work in this field is inherently theological, although I probably wouldn't describe it as such. sjc

I agree with Mark..ie. many people study religions and theology under Anthropology or Humanities. Perhaps your category should go under Biblical Studies 14:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seminaries may require belief

The shift in the field can be seen in the naming of academic departments - most university departments are now called "Religious Studies" or "Departments of Religion", while seminaries retain "Theology" departments. Admittedly, there are folks in Theology Departments who 'disavow any specific belief in God,' but at least some seminaries try to practice a little quality control over their education and encourage people like that to seek work in departments of Religious Studies. --MichaelTinkler

[edit] Hindu Theology Should Be Represented in the Article

There are three main areas of Hinduism; Shaivas, Vaishnavas and Shaktas. Vaishnava Theology, especially in its form as Krishnology, represents 300,000,000 people's religious thoughts, beliefs and questions. Below I have inserted a potential piece for the article...

[edit] Hindu Theologies

Main article: Krishnology

Vaishnava theology has been a subject of study for many devotees, philosophers and scholars within India for centuries. In recent decades this study has also been taken on by a number of academic institutions in Europe, such as the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies and Bhaktivedanta College. The Vaishnava scholars instrumental in this western discourse include Tamala Krishna Goswami, Hridayananda Goswami, Graham Schweig, Kenneth R. Valpey, Ravindra Svarupa dasa, Sivarama Swami, Satyaraja Dasa, and Guy Beck, among others.

[edit] Theology predates Christianity

The TERM "theology" has not christian origins. It's classical greek (4th century BC), it means "talking about God" used by philosophers, teachers, and poets, e. g.: Hesiod, Orpheus et al. --

_____________

Isn't the interest in "other" religions and pantheons something more akin to the meaning of "mythology?" And also, in the main page I think God should be non-gendered for all those of us who see the Deity as above/greater than gender? EvelynToseland

---

Is the link to anthropology a litle misleading? In context, I would expect the link to go to an article on theological discussions of human nature. In fact, this link goes to an article on anthropology as an academic discipline that is situated in either the natural sciences, social sciences, or humanities. I am not disputing theologians' right to consider something they call "anthropology;" but I doubt that most academic anthropologists would think of themselves as working in a sub-field of theology -- SR

I echo these sentiments. -- NetEsq 02:14, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship of creationism to theology

I just added a wikilink to creationism in the theology article. The creationism article currently focuses on the controversy arising from scientific creationism, and -- as an anthropologist by training -- I am not disposed nor qualified to act as an apologist for creationism qua creationism in theology, but I am not particularly satisfied with the way that the creationism article dismisses creationism as a valid subject for theological inquiry. For more background information, please see the creationism talk page. -- NetEsq 02:14, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Should the Theology page be improved?

The great Wikipedia scholar and commentator recently suggested that a team of us should improve the Theology page. As I peruse the Theology page, I notice that there is not one rebuttal by scientists on the Theology page. I also notice that the immortal Larry Sanger make an early contribution to the Theology page. I notice only one gross error on the Theology page. The statement "The term theology originated in Christianity . . ." is very wrong. For Plato in the Timaeus used the term theology around 350 B.C. What would improve the Theology page? Any ideas? Rednblu 00:15, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ironic, isn't it, that the Wikipedia theology article remains untouched by what some have referred to as the "evolutionist censors"? This speaks volumes to the fact that theology is recognized by all Wikipedians as being a legitimate topic for Wikipedia. However, when theologians attempt to contribute to Wikipedia articles that are perceived to be the province of scientists, they are all but dismissed as quickly as astrologers or Flat Earthers would be.

For me, logic and philosophy are the places where scientists and theologians can find common ground in their common quest to discover the truth, and I begin this quest at the same place where Immanuel Kant began it, Cogito ergo sum. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is from this axiomatic assumption of his own existence that Kant posits God's existence as the Creator, and I have yet to hear a convincing rebuttal to this argument. -- NetEsq 01:48, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ok. That is interesting enough to me as a theme to develop on the theology page. And I could find that an interesting pursuit. But isn't that bloody battlefield over at the Creationism page much more interesting? Rednblu 02:39, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] 13th century theologians list

If anyone feels so inclined and wants to create lots of new pages, here is an available database of 13th century theologians that is available in the PD:

http://home.sandiego.edu/~macy/index.html

Each theologian contains brief bio, works and bibliography. Nice resource that would fill out a lot of names for European Middle Ages history. I did not write it but the author just requests "Please give a reference to the Guide in any published work just as you would to any other source." .. which would go under the ==Sources== header.

That's ==References==, actually. The reference looks excellent, although info on each person is rather limited. It'll help fill out some stubs at least, in a lacking area. Deco 17:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] a reworking

I intend to totally rework this page over the next few days. I spent three years studying theology, so I should be able to come up with something good! I hope to make it a series.

The general line will be to approach Theology as

1. The attempt to reconcile "Revelation" with Knowledge gained through life/experience. 2. Theology is primarily used to refer to Christian Revelation as it came to be handled under a system of thought stemming substantially from Classical Greece. 3. It is especially applicable also to Islam and Judaism 4. In a secondary sense it is applicable to other "belief systems" and religions 5. A look at Theology through history 6. Culminating in Theology issues today (e.g. Black/Gay/Pentecostal Theology) 7. Its place in the academy and real world

I hope to link this to other articles (look at how little there is on Kalam!)and create a series, perhaps under the banner of Theology, or "Religious thought". I will try and incorporate elements of the current page.

Any comments before I begin?

Cheers, --Totalthinker 02:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) Welcome to the study of " Theology?"

I think you just got a good start, please continue..cheerio!165.21.154.109 14:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theory that gods exist because people believe in them

In Terry Pratchett's Discworld series of novels it is shown that the gods of that world exist and have a presence simply because of people believing in them. This leads to many strange Discworld gods appearing because of the nature of what people tend to believe. Does this theory have roots in some existing theology? And if so should that be incorporated here and/or at the Discworld gods article? violet/riga (t) 13:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The kou 09:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)==Theology or Metaphysics?==

In order of categories, it is either Theology as under the scope of Metaphysics or vice-versa? This definitely is an issue to tackle or re-think about. We each have our prejudices, whether in beliefs or any assumptions. To be totally neutral is an impossible position, suffice to say it is still possible to start with what we assume as to what is required for the Public and general audience. According to the general understanding, it should be classified under Metaphysics and not a separate entity here. Is it possible to explain some basic understanding to the use of this word? The history of the usage of word is unclear. This is probably derived word during the lost ages in history. Presently, this word theology co notates no meaning for many people, even many believers in God. It is a category of knowledge " about God or gods". 165.21.154.114 14:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't 'metaphysics' better be running along the lines of 'apologetics' than 'theology'? Theology seems to contain more dogmatic statements of its area demanding no proof, you either believe it or you don't. Metaphysics is still asking the questions, just like apologetics...ask the question, present the findings and then decide which 'theology' to embrace. The kou 09:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finally did it; now I need your help

So I got round to editing the page. Please help me distill the wordy sections and add to the missing content sections. I have kept almost all the old stuff. Yours, Totalthinker

I have reverted your edit; it is inappropriate to replace an article with its broken version. If you want to start a rewrite, use Theology/temp or some similar name. (The previous version can be found here if you are interested in it.) Sincerely, Mike Rosoft 15:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I'll try a temp version. It occured to me after I changed it how much of the article was not organised and unecessary. Next time round I'll try the temp and I'd appreciate as much feedback as possible. I'm convinced we can do a better job than the present page. Totalthinker

[edit] Theology article and the wikipedia style guide

I've noticed a quite liberal use of the quotation marks, when speaking about certain terms. My understanding is that the appropriate style for this type of thing is the use of italics rather than quotations marks. So rather than "theology", it would read theology. I started to change some of these instances, but have stopped half way through the job, as I don't know whether someone is going to come in and revert it all afterwards. What is the prevailing opinion on this? --Randolph 04:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reasoned discourse?

Theology cannot be based on reason, as its hypotheses are not falsifiable (Popper) and it is dogmatic, pretending to be in the posession of the absolute truth. Only science is based on reason. User:Arado

Science is based on intellectual presuppositions as well, which theoretically may not have much to do with reason (i.e., scientists were once convinced that the earth was flat); it is not based on reason entirely (and I'm not anti-science or anything).

Also, Arado, theology does not typically "pretend" to be in possession of absolute truth; theology is often convinced it is in possession of absolute truth...you may disagree with what theologians are convinced about, but they are certainly not "pretending".

BUT...I agree with you in part - - that theology is not necessarily all "reasoned discourse", and at times, in my view, goes beyond reason (though it is not necessarily irrational). KHM03 15:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reinserted the word 'reasoned'. Of course theology can be 'reasoned discourse'! It is concerened to set out the reasons people might give for holding certain beliefs, the precise sense of those beliefs, the connections and implications of those beliefs, even (often) the conditions under which someone might cease holding those beliefs, and so on. When done properly, it proceeds by careful and rigorous argument. That's all that 'reasoned' means.

Of course, theologians will differ on the extent to which they consider there to be basic presuppositions that cannot be falsified in any straightforward Popperian sense - but the same could be said of secular philosophy, and that question alone does not decide whether something can be called 'reasoned'.

And theologians who make appeal to some unchallengable revelation or authority normally provide detailed arguments about why they do so, and what the limits of such authority are, and so on. Even those who make explicit appeal to the 'irrational' normally argue quite carefully about why they do so. Of course, all these arguments may be argued to be wrong by opponents, but only if theologians in general refused to join the argument would it be appropriate to deny that theology is 'reasoned discourse'. --mah 13:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Theologians may use arguments that *sound* reasoned, and they may use such arguments in debates and revise them further given new insights. However, those arguments are based on faith, which is the antithesis of reason. I'm changing the definition back to what I had originally, "reasoned-sounding", because theology by its very nature can't deal with falsifiable phenomena via truth-claims that can avoid contradictions, or else it would be science, which *is* reasoned discourse. It's not a slap at theologians; theological discourse doesn't fall under the adjective of "reasoned" at its core because it can't. Pretending otherwise is misleading for people trying to understand what theology is at its most basic level, which is what an encyclopedia should help people discover. --Lothar76 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Your definition of 'reason' is too narrow. I might make some claims about the existence and nature of God. If I simply state those claims, and ask for your obedience, or your faith, I am not doing 'theology' (and I do not know any context in which I would be said to be doing theology). 'Theology' would start happening if you and I began a reasoned conversation about those claims of mine. What would the implications of my claim be? How do my claim differ from other, similar-sounding claims? How do I account for the lack of evidence? Our discourse would be reasoned if it made sense for each of us to criticise the validity of the other's arguments, and if an exposure of some invalidity was always met with some attempt to repair the validity of the arguments in question; and if, even if there were points on which one of us claimed that some point could not directly be supported by reasoned discourse (but had, say, to be accepted on authority), it was nevertheless possible for us to reason together about whether and why that itself was true - i.e., about the reasons for and against accepting that authority. Only if we stuck to those principles - i.e., if we stuck to reasoned discourse - would we be doing theology. Theology is 'reasoned discourse'.--mahigton 09:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"'Theology' would start happening if you and I began a reasoned conversation about those claims of mine."

You can't *have* a reasoned conversation about those claims, because there's no basis on which to argue in the first place. The only way anyone can honestly address claims like that is to say, "I don't know." Anything besides that is not reason - it can't be when it comes to affairs of God(s), because it's not based on rationalism. Only when someone makes an assumption from faith can theological discourse begin. Sure, from that assumption(s) or an opposing assumption(s) can arguments be built up, and something approaching "reason" can come out of it, but theology is not based on reason at its core, and to call it "reasoned discourse" implies that it is. --Lothar76 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As your phrase 'based on reason at its core' suggests, you are restricting the word 'reason' to foundationalism. That is, you appear to be claiming that we can only have a 'reasoned' argument about something if we can begin from basic beliefs that could in principle be justified to all participants in the conversation regardless of their particular worldview or faith. Yet such a claim would rule out not only theology, but a great deal of philosophy as well - i.e., most philosophy that worked with nonfoundationalist or antifoundationalist epistemologies. The debate between you and me, it seems to me, boils down to a question about whether the word 'reasoned' must refer to a discourse that relies upon foundationalist methods and assumptions, or whether it can properly have the looser meaning of 'a discourse conducted according to argument'. I submit that all that is required for a reasoned discussion (rather than for a foundationalist discusson) is either that the participants in a conversation can identify some common ground that they happen to hold, or that the participants can assume such common ground for the sake of argument - i.e., it simply requires the rejection of a strict incommensurability between the worldviews of the participants.

Let me give an example. Today, I went to a seminar at which a theologian spoke about his understanding of atonement. I disagreed fundamentally with the premises that he laid out at the start of his talk - but I was still able to argue with him. I could say things like 'If what you say is true, then would not such and such a consequence follow - which is incompatible with some other commitment that you hold?' And he would have to respond, by arguing that I had misunderstood, or by pointing out some way in which the consequence in question did not follow, or by explaining how the consequence was in fact compatible with his other commitments, or by explaining that he did not in fact have those other commitments. We were genuinely arguing, such that it would have made perfect sense had their been a non-theological logician present for him or her to criticise the validity of any of the arguments we put forward - and no appeal to 'faith' could have insulated such criticisms of the validity of our arguments. And our arguments constituted a genuine, non-foundationalist test of his opinions: had my arguments succeeded, he would have been forced to ammend or abandon his position. What are we to call such argued testing of opinion if not 'reason'?

Now, it would be possible to avoid the conflict between us by picking some word or phrase to replace 'reason': 'argued', perhaps? However, in dictionaries, in other encyclopedias, in student textbooks, and in academic discussions of the nature of theology, 'reason' is the word most regularly employed in my experience; I therefore think it would be less helpful to adopt a different word - and more helpful, perhaps, to include a paragraph explaining the sense in which the word 'reason' is used. Hence my suggested addition to the article. It was not intended as a heavy-handed way of replying to you, but a way of placing a clarificatory passage of text in a place where it will be examined, tussled-over. and refined by wikipedians in the normal way - trying to take the argument away from our head-on disagreement, and bring something productive out of it.--mahigton 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why has this page become part of the Philosophy series?

I dont think that Theology should be part of the Philosophy series. Please could anyone involved state the reason why it has been moved into this? Lets have a debate!

My reasons for objecting are;

1. Treaditionally Theology has been distinguished quite sharply (within the academy) from Philosophy; Philosophy was said to be the Handmaiden of Theology, meaning that as the Queen of the sciences Theology had need for Philosophy in order to explore its subject matter correctly.

2. Modern Philosophers would not commonly hold Theology to be a part of Philosophy.

3. "Philosophy of Religion" is the correct subject to include in a Philosophy series, not Theology.

4. Theology ought to have a seperate subject series; theology has traditionally been Christian, but similar analytical studies within religious traditions have arisen, notably Kalam in Islam and Rabbinical thought in Judaism.

5. Since there is already a Christian Theology article which is OK, and since the current Theology article is pretty bad, the Theology page ought to be turned into a brief summary of the term's special association with Christian Theology but also include links to those areas that are usually misnamed Theology within other religions (Kalam, Rabbinical thought, Hindu and Buddhist "Theology").

6. There also ought to be a section about how Theology differs from Comparative Religion and Philosophy of Religion, the two main schools of thought that have grown out of it as the Academy became more secularised in the nineteenth century.

So what do you say?!

--Totalthinker 09:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the history of theology section

I have some problems with the new section 'A brief history of theologies'; I originally cut it (which was the wrong thing to do, I realise) because I didn't have the time to write a new version - but it's now back in.

Problems include: (i) I think we need something more on Hellenistic theology, beyond the description of the problems it bequeathed to later Christian theology.

(ii) In general, I worry that the discussion of Hellenistic theology is too schematic and selective.

(iii) Pre-Christian Jewish theology is not exhausted by Hellenistic strands of thinking, unless you define 'theology' very narrowly.

(iv) The section on pre-Christian jewish theology should not discuss post-70 developments - so some rearrangement is needed.

(v) To describe Patristic theology simply as 'certain men concern[ing] themselves with determining the degree to which the Christian faith could be accommodated to Hellenistic thought' is perhaps too reductive to be of any use.

(vi) The implication that Trinitarian and Christological doctrine were understood at the time to be philosophically illogical is, I think, misleading.

(vii) It is too simple to say that monasticism became more ascetic after the collapse of the (Western) Roman Empire - but there probably isn't space here to do justice to the topic of monasticism.

(viii) To dismiss the whole of Byzantine and Orthodox theology as 'influenced by speculative neo-Platonism' is, I think, unfair.

(ix) The comments on Islam are far, far too brief; we need some Islamic specialists to make sure this whole section does justice to Islam as much as Christianity.

(x) Similarly with High Medieval Theology. I'm not convinced that the main or only thing going on was a combination of 'dark age' monasticism and Hellenism.

(xi) The renaissance is not exhausted by what it contributed to the Reformation; and the Reformation should have a section of its own, surely?

(xii) The counter-reformation is not restricted to strands influenced by the Jesuits, and did not simply derive its theology from Trent;

(xiii) Deism gets going quite strongly before the nineteenth century.

(xiv) The discussion of nineteenth century developments and the rise of liberalism needs to include reference to German Idealism;

(xv) It is a deeply contentious issue whether 'Neo-Orthodoxy' is post-modern; it is even more deeply contentious whether it is a well-formed category at all: Bultmann and Barth, for instance, are now recognised to be poles apart.

(xvi) I'm not sure that Barth's dialectical theology has that much to do with existentialism.

In general, we need some help from the wider Wiki community to make sure that full justice is done to Catholic and Orthodox Christian theology, and to other religious traditions, where they are widely regarded as possessing 'theologies'.

--mah 10:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC) - revised 9 November

[edit] So help me

OK, some good points, I appreciate your critical eye. But come on! Surely adding some kind of brief run down of the history of Theology is necesary to give people a perspective on Theology.

If I have made some errors then please correct them; if I have oversimplified subjects, then please forgive me and graciously rephrase/rework the sentences/paragraphs etc. But don't just delete the whole thing!

Moreover, why do you have to be so schathing in your comments? Calm down a little! Yes, I am the result of a western protestant undergraduate course (though I have graduated) but who are you? Seems the only thing you can do is disagree. I am sure you can do more than that.

The main problem seems to be that I have attempted to give an overview of some of the main things in Theological history as I see them, and not as you would. My selection is therefore, according to you, POV. I would be happy if you were to edit this so that it became more "Objective". Moreover, I do not think my current selection is misleading at all.

I still hold that, even with errors of over simplification, the History of Theologies section improves the page. I am therefore re posting the history theologies section and will continue to do so until you edit it to your approval. --Totalthinker 05:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

Totalthinker - you're quite right; I over-reacted, and was unacceptably rude in the way that I expressed myself - and intemperate in the way I simply deleted that part of your work. Bad judgment on my part - and I shame-facedly realise that (although this wasn't my conscious thought) in part I probably reacted that way because in putting the new material on the page you had deleted material which, some time ago, I had been the first to post. Thanks for putting in such hard work to the page, and please forgive my overhasty and unpleasant response. I'll try to find some time to do the proper thing and work on the section, using the start you've made as a foundation. I have, by the way, edited my comments above a little so as to make them sound less like an attack - not so as to save my blushes (anyone who really wants to dig up the old version can, of course), but so that my over-critical comments on your work are not left too prominently in the public gaze.

--mah 10:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mahigton, apology accepted. I would really appreciate your help with the summary; many of your remarks were very pertinent! I shall start by trying to edit the history in view of your remarks and perhaps you could add some topics that I have missed out. In particular I know very little about the hisory of Eastern Orthodox Theology. Thanks again, and looking forward to working with you.

Bravo Mahigton! The new work on Hellenistic/Greek Theology is really good. Hopefully others will help us with the other sections. Please feel free to change "illogical" comment on trinity and existentialism on Barth etc. I dont have much time right now so I haven't been able to change them. --Totalthinker 17:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Theology

What should the division of labour be between the brief history of theologies section on this page, the history of theology page, and the pages on individual periods - patristic theology, medieval theology etc? --mah 15:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the divisions of labour concept. I did particularly well in patrisitics and reformation examinations but know nearly nothing about mystical theology! i think we ought seriously to think about how the "Christian theology" article is related to "Theology" and also how these pages are to differ from the church history pages. To this end I have been stuudying the content of the better regarded hitories of theology. A case in point is the distinction between synergists and monergists in 16th century protestantism. This is part of church history but I think would be better dealt with on a theology page. Any thoughts? --Totalthinker 01:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - by 'division of labour', I simply meant to ask which bits of information should go on which page. At the moment, the 'history of theology' page offers a very brief overview of the main periods of Christian theology, whereas this page has a more detailed description of periods of Christian and other theology. I wonder if this should be reversed, so that on this page we simply have a list of headings/links to discussions elsewhere (classical Greek theology, jewish theology, and so on), whereas the history of theology page could contain the fuller description? --mah 10:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Totalthinker 14:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theology and Vaccination

If a theologian has a moment to spare, might they look at vaccination and anti-vaccinationist? historical references to "against the will of god" and "on grounds of pre-destination" It may be as much church history - there are assertions about catholic and protestant churches, as well as god's will, but I wonder if a note on the thinking informing anti-vaccinationist religions, and the theologiccal view of vaccination/immunisation and the larger religions might inform the debate, if not the current debaters. Midgley 17:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godlore

Is there an archaic word, such as "godlore" ore "godwit", to have designed theology? - Waelsch 18:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lede

User:Mahigton wrote some points, to which Im responding. -Stevertigo

1. 'Typically Greek and Latin language-derived terms': only if you are concentrating on a narrow range of Western theologies, which at least the early parts of the article try not to do. There are forms of theology historically and today which focus on Syriac, Hebrew, Arabic, Coptic, Sanskrit, Pali... -M

1. I understand, and it is quite valid to state this in the lede; as a caveat to the dominance of Greco-Roman-"based" culture of theology. The issue is the terminology, as it bonds culture and religion together in a framework which may be variant from earlier forms. The dominance of GR terms carries with it some implied constraints from within GR culture. The antecedents you listed, while fundamental, are operable largely due to their translation to GR word form. Your point is quite valid, but the mention "typically Greek and Latin" was simply a note to myself to link up the GR concept with the Western society context; explain how this linguistic foundation has had a role in defining a secular theology - apart from say an Islamic theology, which itself may be attributable to the limitations of Arabic vocabulary. -SV

1. I'm thinking particularly of the fact that the article contains, fairly early on, a section on theology in religions other than Christianity - and thinking that whilst it is of course true, that the term "theology" itself has Greek roots and a strong Latin history, it is now used, by extension, to talk about Islamic kalam, about Hindu darshama, and so on. And I'm also thinking about the fact that the claim to about the dominance of 'Greek and Latin language-derived terms' needs to be handled rather carefully. On the one hand there is the fact (not mentioned in the article) that the acceptance of Greek and Latin as dominant languages for much Christian and some Jewish theology did not take place without a transformation of both languages. On the other hand there is the fact (also not mentioned) that the later transition to Western European and other vernaculars instead of Latin has (arguably) been equally transformative. Maybe we want some kind of statement in the lede along the lines that, "Although it can now be used much more widely, the term 'theology' most naturally refers to Christian intellectual traditions and particularly to those classic strands of Christian intellectual endeavour that were conducted in Latin in the West or Greek in the East, and to the modern traditions that look back to those classic strands." My own feeling is that only the first half of this - or something like it - actually belongs in the Lede. - M

1. 'as a means to clarify religious differences' - That is the purpose of some, but by no means all practitioners of theology; I rather doubt it would even be a majority position. -M

1. True, but in some respects it doesnt matter even if a majority of theologians disagree with this aspect. Theologian culture comes with implied customs and rules for intercommunication, which in turn provide a platform for discussion. At some level this engenders a resolution of issues in a sociological way, if not in a doctrinal way. Syncretism isnt syncretism if its a sea change. Considering that Northern Ireland's conflicts were/are something less than a theological debate, we havent seen sectarian violence in the west for a substantial amount of time. Theology has provided a platform by which religious experts can make clarifying statements on religious matters -often in contradiction to any attempted political usage. -SV

1. But if the article says "Theologians typically attempt to use rational language and argument ... to discuss, interpret, and teach ... as a means to clarify religious differences' that sounds very much like a declaration about the explicit intention of theologians. If you want to make the claim that the theological endeavour has, often despite the intentions of its practitioners, helped enable cohabitation and mutual understanding between religious traditions, that's a rather different claim. Is it true? -M

1. 'and to maintain a dominantly secular concept of faith' - isn't that's a rather sweeping generalisation? It is certainly not NPOV; I find it hard to think of any theologians who would accept it without massive qualifications. -M

1. That line is certainly misworded. Faith itself isnt secularised - Western theologian culture is. -SV

[edit] part.

1. Are you wanting to claim more than that the theology that takes place in the modern West takes place in, and is in all sorts of ways shaped by, Western secular culture, to the extent that much Western theology can itself be characterised as 'secular'? I'd have two objections, even so. In the first place, in an article that tries not to limit itself to talking about Western theology, it seems a shame to be so limited in the Lede. In the second place, sociologists of religion debate at great length the secularisation thesis, and it is by no means certain - and by no means uncontroversial - that Western culture can straightforwardly be described as 'secular', still less Western theology. This still feels, to be honest, like you are wanting to make a polemical point. -M

1. Honestly, no. Im simply basing one concept on another concept, and relating the two. Granted, the view that Western society is "secular" is problematic, if only because its a relativistic view. This is likewise complicated by overlap in concepts of East/West Orient/Occident Dharmic/Abrahamic cultures and religion. While my focus has been on the anomaly of 'Oriental Abrahamic' Islam, this comes about due to a nominal use of contrasts and anomalies to define concepts (see my new section "modes of writing" at WP:LEDE), as well as the obvious fact that there are some real-world splits (contrasts!) between theology and theocracy —which appear to, at least have some relationship to the forementioned Orient/Occident split. These, again are crude concepts which 1. help define major concepts and 2. are helped by being defined relative to major concepts. Looks like a circular argument? Perhaps, but it taps into very broad worldviews and assumptions which need addressing from every context —not least of all this one. Perhaps thats "polemical," but I see it simply as a function of being universalist in approaching any topic. -SV

1. 'The concept of "theology" represents an influence of Western academic empiricism and secular Western culture on the religious world'. No it doesn't. If you read the early part of the article on the history of the term, you will see that, in the first place, relevant uses of the term 'theology' were established before 'Western academic empiricism' etc. existed, and that the term is now used for a wide variety of practices/discourses, only some of which are covered by your comment. If you want to add a discussion about the 'Western empiricism' inherent in some dominant forms of theology, put it later in the article as a separate point, and back it up properly: don't put it here in the header.

1. Its important to establish context in the lede. Your criticism is really one which centers on the flaws in using the East-West distinction at all. Its hard to argue with your point, except to say that when defining important context in the lede, it helps to be generalist. Yes there is variance in the operant usage of "theology", and this is best related in terms of a spectrum. "If you read the article" you will note that the history of the term is Greek and Aristotilian, which though "established before 'Western academic empiricism', were the very foundation of 'Western academic empiricism.' An even more Western-confined definition: "In other patristic Greek sources, theologia could also refer narrowly to the discussion of the attribution of divine nature to Jesus." (!) So you catch my drift. Granted, 'academic' is confusing, and 'empiricism' as a (empirical) concept doesnt come around for some 600 years after Aristotle... hence the essence could be better stated, but nevertheless points again to the important 'Western' element. The only issue is how to not overstate it in the lede. On that I can certainly compromise with you.

1. The article describes the process by which a specific Greek term became the broad name for a whole set of forms of intellectual religious discourse which were predominantly Greek and Latin, along the way being used for narrower purposes, and then became a term which in the modern world could be used to refer (with some caveats and qualifications) to analogous discourses in other religious traditions. It might be appropriate to state something like this in the Lede, but it is not appropriate to prejudge those issues by privileging in the Lede the Western, Greco-Roman-derived meanings of the word, is it?

1. 'Hence the term generally refers to religious education in the Western world'. No. Contemporary use of the term is broader than that - as is discussed later on in the article. -M

1. Western culture cannot define a concept outside of western culture without explaining the caveats for its implementation. If "theology" comes from "other patristic Greek sources," which "could also refer" to the "divine nature to Jesus," then there is an intrinsic (cultural) spin to how and what the term defines. To say 'our "contemporary" usage is broad (universalist)' would seem to belie the actual etymology of the term! Even if we cant ask the important question 'is something lost in the translation of this term to other languages' in the lede, we still need to frame the context, and do so in a manner which points those who are interested in this question in a clear direction. -SV

1. Etymology does not exhaust use. We are now in a situation where 'theology' is used, for a variety of reasons, to speak about discourses within non-Christian, non-Western religious traditions that are analogous to 'theology' as a Christian discourse. The article discusses some of the cavetas that surround this analogical extension. Nevertheless, it is simply the case that, rightly or wrongly, contemporary users of the world by no means all use it to refer to "religious education in the Western world". That is one, prominent usage, but there are others which are important.

1. 'in accordance with both the societal norms of Western-style academic inquiry'. No, again. This is true only of some of the discourses/practices which these days get identified as theology. For instance, try asking about the practice of theology in Orthodox Christianity: you would find great resistance from many practitioners to the idea that 'theology' is predominantly a Western-style academic discipline. -M

1. This was overstated, Ill give you that. -SV

1. 'Western theological traditions have developed according to predominanty Christian and Jewish beliefs'. What are you claiming here? If by 'Western theological traditions' you mean the 'Judeo-Christian tradition' or something similar, this is a tautology. If you don't mean that, what do you mean? -M

1. "Tautology" has three definitions, all apparently refering to something which is "self-evident" and "obviously" such as to be "hardly worth mentioning" (ie. "all crows are black"). Applying this definition to your statmenent above, you seem to be claiming that stating 'theology is tied to the Judeo-Christian tradition' is too "obvious" as to be "hardly worth mentioning." Is this a correct interpretation? On the one hand you argue that "theology" is "broad", and on the other hand you say its tie to the 'Judeo-Christian tradition' (separate even from other notable Abrahamic traditions) is so intrinsic as to be like saying "all crows are black." Please clarify- what are you claiming here? -SV

1. If 'Western theological traditions' means 'Christian and Jewish theological traditions', or something like that, then your sentence becomes 'Christian and Jewish theological traditions have developed according to predominantly Christian and Jewish beliefs' which is, surely, 'hardly worth mentioning'. From your clarifications, however, it sounds like you mean to make the much stronger claim that where it is claimed that there are discourses within other religions which can be called, analogously, 'theology', that always in fact the involves the witting or unwitting imposition of ideas about the nature of belief derived specifically from Christianity and Judaism. Something like that may well be true - but it is a controversial and complex claim that surely needs to be discussed in the body of the article, not simply stated in the Lede. -Mah

1. 'and in most cases study is directly tied to evangelism'. Simply untrue. A large number of those working in theology departments or faculties in Western Europe or the States would deny this claim vociferously. - Mah

1. I understand, but perhaps "evangelism" is incorrect. Dont students go into clergy? Doesnt the U.S., for example, view the tie between endorsing religion and funding theological education too close to handle within its legal framework for educational funding? I would support replacing it with a statement like 'the link between theology and evangelism is controversial' and point to a subsection. While I may be making the mistake of overstating this tie (along with describing the "Western" culture in which theologians swim in) at this point I think its important to not understate it (or them). -SV

1. Perhaps all that can be said at this point is that 'Many different views are held about the relationship between the study of theology and the training or equipping of students for various forms of religious ministry'. -Mah

1. 'Students in theology often seek to become religious clergy.' This is discussed later on in the article, and the situation is complicated. True, some forms of theological education or training are specifically designed as part of training for religious ministry of some kind; but some are not. I teach in a theology department, for instance, where the overwhelming majority of students are NOT seeking to become 'religious clergy' - and that is not untypical of such Departments in my country. -Mah

1. What are the career opportunities, aside from the obvious? -SV

1. Theology in the UK is often seen as simply one more humanities degree, opening up the same sorts of careers as any other humanities degree: teaching, publishing, media, business... and so on. I work in a Department of Theology which is a part of a 'School of Humanities and Social Sciences'. and graduate destinations for the Department's students do not differ dramatically from those for the other Departments in the School: history, philosophy, politics, social science, and so on. -Mah

[edit] part.

1. 'Within the "theological" framework, student theologians may engage in extra-traditional religious discourse and navigate many of the sectarian and denominational differences between various doctrines (dogma), while remaining as faithful believers in their respective traditions.' This is a somewhat more valid point, and could perhaps become a section further down in the article; it certainly doesn't belong here in the header. But it is very unclear as written - and implicitly generalises far too much about what theology looks like and how it works. In some contexts where theology is taught, what you say might be true; in some it is not, and in some it wouldn't even make sense. -Mah

1. I will never disagree with someone who wants to expand on a point further. I do disagree with the notion that such things are too 'unclear' if explained in summary in the lede. The lede provides overview, as well as an editorial direction and scope for the article. All I can do is try to be as generalist as possible (for which my limited expertise is actually a strength), and not interfere with the experts but rather to help guide experts to an understanding of our need for generality and context. Though I would be offended if this point was called an issue of simple style, we can compare this above modality with articles that begin with "[topic] is a very difficult subject to explain..." -SV

1. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be insulting - but it does seem to me that there's a great deal compressed into this statement, and that a general reader will find it pretty difficult to unpack. And I'm still not convinced that what it says is central enough to go in the Lede. I take it that you are claiming that there is a lot of structural similarity between forms of theological discourse in the various different religious traditions, and that as a result students of theology within a particular tradition automatically acquire an intellectual toolkit which can be used beyond their particular tradition - providing them with tools and analogues which allow them to make some headway in understanding other religious traditions, and seeing more clearly the difference between those traditions and their own.' This, as I say, is an interesting claim - though I personally think it debatable - but I'm still dubious about its place in the Lede. I accept your comment about the Lede providing "editorial direction and scope for the article" - I wonder in this case therefore whether the Lede comment should simply be an indication that there is a question about the extent to which theology should be seen as a discourse firmly internal to a particular religious tradition, and the extent to which it should be seen as a discourse that can explore and compare various different traditions - or something like that. The more detailed discussion could then be a section further down. -Mah

1. 'In contrast, a theocracy asserts that religious spirituality should have dominance over and within all matters of government, including academic study.' This too is very unclear. I presume that you are wanting to contrast theological study within secular regimes with theological study within 'theocratic' regimes, claiming that the former is characterised by a degree of pluralism or at least attention to differing views that is absent from the latter. However, as well as being expressed very unclearly, it is not clear that this claim is true. There are forms of theology in secular regimes which are distinctly non-pluralist; there are forms of theological study in religious regimes which are pluralist. If you want to make this article explore this point in more detail, why not try adding to the discussion of academic freedom and confessional basis later on in the article, rather than putting this rather misleading statement here? -Mah

1. Again its a balance between overgeneralization and overspecification, and how to summarise important points without doing much of either. I much appreciate the criticism. -SV

1. 'Such a system of predefined laws must accept local sectarian views as their foundation, and thus differences tend to be undebated, unresolved, and increasing due to natural cultural divergences.' You are making a whole set of problematic claims here: (i) that religious regimes use 'predefined' laws; (ii) that such laws must be 'sectarian'; and (iii) that such systems rule out debate and change. We could debate each of these, if you like - in my opinion each of them is wrong, or at best misleading - but I'm very unclear what place you think they have in a top-level definition of 'theology'. Haven't you got off topic? --mah 08:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Good points (1) not all theocratic laws are "predefined" but instead are interpreted. This seems to be a function of the language power issue though, and I suppose that is a bit hard to explain here. Secular terms allow for greater description, more defintions, less interpretation, and hence less subjectivity and more universality. (2) it shouldnt say such laws "must be sectarian", but rather they are deferential to sectarian influence. In the context of universalism, which this term purports to belong to, "sectarianism" is simply a natural state of any localized religious framework. Ie. an Ayatollah isnt going to declare that everyone in his jurisdiction is converting to a different branch of Islam. There are no absolutes, even in theocracies. But to not mention the fact of localism is to make the mistake of making definitive statements which are too general. Using the English language to its fullest, the term "sectarian" simply addresses the imperfection of a definitive term like "religion" by simply avoiding it. (3) It may be a bit off topic; if one views the tie between theology (as its applied) and secularism, as of minimal importance. I think its of prime importance, just as it is important to mention 'water' in the lede of an article about 'fish.' All that said, using theology as a contrast may be more problematic than we can handle right now, and I can easily agree to taking that part out for now. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] part.

It seems to me that overall you are making a very serious point, which does need to be explicitly explored and debated in the body of the article. Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you, but what you are saying seems to me to amout to something like this:

• The very idea of 'reasoned discourse about religion/God' is an idea with a very particular intellectual pedigree, with its roots in Graeco-Roman intellectual culture.
• This idea actually brings with it deep assumptions which we can now see to be related to ideas underlying 'secularism': i.e., the whole idea of reasoned discourse about God/religion suggests the possibility of a common intellectual framework or set of tools for investigating, comparing and evaluating traditions - an idea with a strong affinity for a 'secular' worldview in which religions are seen as particular choices, set within an overarching religiously neutral public sphere.
• Even those who pursue this discourse as a way of deepening their commitment to and expertise in their own tradition, perhaps even so as to become promoters and propagators of it, often do so in a way which underlines this same 'secular' atmosphere - by assuming the communicability of their religious views (as explored and explained by theological discourse) within a neutral intellectual market-place.

Am I anywhere close? If so, maybe the Lede should simply contain a statement that there are debates about the extent to which the very idea of theology is inherently secularising - and then have a section of the body of the article exploring this in detail? --mah 22:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we are communicating extremely well, and your summary of those issues is good enough to include in text. IMHO we should now think about how to structure the article and, keeping the distinction between issues of substance and the article's modality, how to best represent the various caveats. All I can say is that we can be both substantive and artful in finding a balance which touches enough on the issues to best relate the concept's general shape. But in a basic sense, we are encumbered by the paradox of secular and religious language and their inability to adequately describe this very paradox of terms within their own respective terms. My solution has been to simply employ the usage of a spectrum of terms, which offer a sense of the scalar relationship between discrete ideas in secularism, versus transcendent ideas in spirituality. For example in good and evil, I defined knowledge of "truth" by relating it to human value, sanctity, and divinity. While divinity itself should rightly raise some secular objections, human value is an important secular concept, and these two are tied together by the concept of sanctity (inviolability). Ie. the trick is in using terms which have a balance between secular and religious usage. More later. -Ste|vertigo 19:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Relate mysticism. -Ste|vertigo 23:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TT

Hi, its good to know people are working on the Theology page. However, I must say that I think the "Lede" is unhelpful to the page as a whole. It contains material already present within the piece, is rather partisan in the terms in which it chooses to describe the main issues of theology (e.g. I wouldn't agree with "to maintain a dominantly secular concept of faith." under anyones definition) and it is also confusingly long and off putting to the novice. I'm not clear who added it, but I suggest weaning out the valuable points being made (e.g. what is the role of Theology in modern secular states) and adding new sections to this page or creating new linked pages to discuss these issues. In the above discussion I tend to agree with Mahigton.

I also think the previous rather clipped definition of theology that stood at the begninng was rather good and was the collabortive result of previous editors. I intend to remove the lede and replace it with the original in a few days. So, heres waiting for your feedback! --Totalthinker 21:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I might agree with most of your critique, though I disagree that the caveats are elsewhere, represent partisanship, or else dont bear mentioning. Encyclopedias must use descriptive language in a way which is abstracted even from theology - using secular terms should in no way be construed as being partisan - its not an issue of partisanship, but one of language.

"Concept of faith" could be changed to concept of religion, as its referring not to faith but to the social form. While I agree that we want to make article accessible, by no means should they be written for a "novice" - as much work in that direction tends to rather confusing by virtue of being simplistic. If there are indeed some institutionalized misunderstandings between different religions with regard to what theology is based in, then using a novice approach would seem geared only to repeating narrow concepts without qualification. Its more important IMHO that we explain the concept to a non-Western audience than it is to assume a Western readership, just as it would be wrong to fish for potential new believers here. I will take a hack shortly at it to see if I can condense some basic points.-Ste|vertigo 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

PS:We could also start with the obvious: "Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing." - Mencken

[edit] ABSOLUTELY AWFUL!

Ok, Here are a few reasons why I think that your additions to the Theology page are absolutely awful!

1. You claim that we do not want to make the page for novices is fair enough, but in replacing a clear succinct definition arrived at by a collaboration of editors with a wordy confused definition you simply make the article nonsense. I studied Theology for three years and have spoken English all my life, but sorry, I do not understand what this sentence means; "Theology refers to discourse concerning religion, spirituality, God, and other religious topics, that attempts to be reconciled with both the language and concepts of belief as well as those of reason and rationality (cf. Western empiricism)." I can guess what it might mean, I can guess several different meanings. Heaven help those from a non western background you seek to help.

2. What is all this about "secular terms should in no way be construed as being partisan". Of course its partisan! Even your concept of "secular" is up for grabs. The best way to approach this is surely to simply describe movements and ideas in the way their proponents and opponents describe them and allow the reader to draw an informed decision on the basis of their (the reader's) presuppositions. It seems to me that religious people are generally better at this than "Secular" people. But that's another argument. You have persisted in describing Theology from your particular viewpoint rather than allowing a variety of viewpoints come through. For example, it is not a fact, not even a commonly held opinion in Europe, that "Religious topics" is a separate category. Nor is it the case that most people engaged in Theology would agree that it is "within the context of emerging rational thought". What is emerging rational thought? What do you mean by this? Many protestants like myself would not agree that rational thought is emerging. Rather, rational thought (IMHO) is totally depraved.

3. You appear to have a(n American) chip on your shoulder about the church and the state that has nothing to do with much Theology in the Uk at least and probably most of Europe. It is simply not true that Theology in the UK is necessarily tied to Evangelism or ordination, though to be fair you lede does not make this claim explicit.

4. I'm sorry, what does this mean; "As such, "theology" may refer simply to religious interpretation which is more logos and ethos-based and less pathos-based than either ministry or prophesy." Again, I can guess, but it may mean many different and opposing things! There are, however, some good points raised in the second paragraph of your lede, but I still think they would be better introduced later and more succinctly.

Its great you're making a contribution to the page... but when I have time I will revert the page to what it was before you started unless you can make a better version, because what is there is a regression. Have to be honest! PS I don't think that the Mencken quote is at all helpful, except in explaining your lede!

--Totalthinker 23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I see, so...

1. "secularism," which seeks to use language which is religiously neutral is 'just one among many partisan views.' And...
2. Reason and rationality are "totally depraved," no doubt as depraved as artificial abortion (but collective punishment is fine I'm sure). Go figure. The mullahs may agree with you, but I do not. Wikipedia may not be the place for your critiques --NPOV, like objectivity carries within it an implicit concept of rationality. Sorry.
3. "though to be fair you lede does not make this claim explicit" -Glad to see you are being fair.
4. "For example, it is not a fact, not even a commonly held opinion in Europe, that "Religious topics" is a separate category." - I dont understand this at all. Religious topics is simply a link to a list of other religious topics. Though Ill admit makes the sentence a bit unwieldy, I dont see how to replace it except with a topic box.
5. "As such, "theology" may refer simply to religious interpretation which is more logos and ethos-based and less pathos-based than either ministry or prophesy." means:

Theology, as a concept of study with somewhat indefinite boundaries, has a place in the pantheon of human arguments along with logos (appeal to logic, reason), ethos (appeal to ethics), pathos (appeal to emotion). Of course theology is also related to the religious concepts of ministry and prophesy, and we can thus make some statement about the nature of these relationships. (Note the term "may refer to" qualifies the following statement about the relationships as likewise indefinite - this indefinite topic itself does not allow for more precise statements about its nature, save how it relates to other concepts. This is simply explaining a relationship between theology and philosophy.)

1. "Dont think the Mencken quote is at all helpful" - Well its probably more "helpful" than the one I was going to use: "Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate, as the Christianity of Christ was founded upon love."

Thanks, from America. - Ste|vertigo 03:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've just done a rewrite of the Lede. I've moved most of Ste|vertigo's points into the body of the article, and rephrased them; he will have to be the judge of whether I've missed anything important. I've added a new subsction on 'controversy' which, though not part of the lede, will provide an guide to some of the important issues Ste|vertigo raised, and indicate where in the remainder of the article more detail can be found. I've taken Totalthinker's points on board as much as possible, and tried to use more neutral language and clearer NPOV. I don't for a moment imagine I'll have made both of you happy, though! --mah 11:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mah, welcome back. Looks like you started with an older version, rather than the rewrite as based on your criticism, along with the criticism of TT. The lede, while perhaps satisfactory for an elementary overview, is sadly bare and seems based on burying the sophistication of the topic rather than revealing it. I like some of the way you handled the issue of secularism, but you basically buried it, rather than deal with it, and substituted the concept of Graeo-Roman culture as if it were substantively descriptive. It is not. Theology represents an island of philosophy-like study centered around particular points of view, and as such its framework is not just inclusive of rationality, but somewhat parallel to it. As both you and TT stated, theology is not "secular." Its very existence is of course influenced by empirical and secularist concepts. Otherwise it would be called "theocracy." Note that while youre defining theology as something which has pan-religious application, you use God captial "G" and the word Christianity (in variants) four times. One only has to look toward religious philosophy, mysticism, or concepts of religious law (as in Buddhism, various, and Islam, for example) to understand that theology is more localized, and this requires a description of that localization's foundation. Note also that various phrases are clunky and too informal: "might be", "or with a view to", "taken up", "that lies behind", "various aspects both of the process which," etc. "rational analysis" is also out of place; this isnt philosophy of mathematics.

-Ste|vertigo 01:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Details

Okay, let's do this in detail again.

Theology (Greek θεος, theos, "God", + λογος, logos, "word" or "reason") refers to discourse concerning religion, spirituality, God, and related topics, that attempts to be reconciled with the langage and concepts of both belief and reason (cf. rationality, Western empiricism). (Extract from previous version of lede)

Saying that theology 'attempts to be reconciled with the language and concepts of both belief and reason' assumes one particular analysis of the nature of theology: one that assumes that on the one hand you have belief, on the other you have reason, and you need to bring these two together. Whilst it still retains some popularity, this is a view which has received trenchant criticism in recent years, with opponents claiming that it misrepresents both rationality and belief. On the 'rationality' side, the rise of non-foundationalist epistemologies has suggested to many philosophers that all rationality has something of the character of 'faith seeking understanding'; on the 'belief' side, there has been more of a recognition that much 'believing' is not a set of static commitments but a set of sense-making processes which are themselves forms of rationality. Now, it may be that this debate itself could be canvassed in the body of the article, but the existence of the debate should, I think, lead to the removal ofg this clause from the lede.

The reference here to Western empiricism: we've talked about this before - and I'm afraid I'm still not convinced by your argument that this is a 'generalist' bit of contextual information. True, dominant strands of Christian theology in both East and West were heavily influenced by Hellenistic philosophy, especially Stoicism, neoplatonism, and (mostly later on) Aristotelianism - but classical empiricism was not central to that influence. Also true, the rise in the late medieval and early modern period of modern empiricism grew out of an intellectual culture heavily shaped by the Christian theology that had in turn been shaped by these classical influences. For most of its history, however, it is deeply misleading to say that these dominant strands of Christian theology were 'empiricist' - and, in the modern period, Christian theology still lives very largely in the shadow of nineteenth century German theology, the empiricism of which was heavily qualified by idealism. True, there are strands of contemporary anglo-american theology which probably deserve the title 'empirical', with some serious qualifications - but they are certainly not the whole story, and not necessarily even a very large part of the story. So even without beginning to talk about less dominant strands of Christian theology, or about the 'theologies' of other religions, it seems to be deeply misleading to refer people to Western empiricism in the lede. - --mah 09:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Western empiricism" may not be suitable as an entrypoint to describe the tie between theology (Christian, Christian, some Judaic) and philosophy (Western, Graeco-Roman), but its certainly more relevant than Stoicism and the other frameworks you suggest, simply because its more inclusive and directly foundational to our current culture. Keep in mind that I'm trying to define theology for what it means today, relative to other forms of study, religious or not. So, of course "for most of its history, however, it is deeply misleading to say that these dominant strands of Christian theology were 'empiricist.'" Of course they werent, and depending on which timeframe, we could sooner call them "mystical", "paganist", and even "animist" than we could Stoicist or neoplatonist. Again, the concept is relatively new, and its development came in parallel with philosophy.

Even if we are concentrating purely on contemporary theology, I still don't think 'Western empiricism' is appropriate. In most Western academic contexts, there's some kind of divide between the sciences and the arts/humanities, and theology as an academic subject normally sits on the latter side. Whilst many on the science side might be happy with the 'empiricism' label, many - perhaps most - on the arts/humanities side, including theologians, would not. In those cases where the 'reconciliation with philosophy' model is appropriate, the philosophies in question in modern theology have been very diverse: idealism, existentialism, Wittgensteinianism, deconstructionism, pragmatism... you name it. 'Empiricism' does not cover all these. -M

That "some kind of divide" between the sciences and the humanities is controversial. See Sokal Affair. -Ste|vertigo 21:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a distinction between religion and theology which needs to be maintained here. According to some views, no doubt, theology is a subset of religion. If this view dominates, we can simply redirect theology to religion. Likewise if theology is demonstrably a Christian concept, we can redirect this to Christianity. The fact that the concept exists separately from these others suggests that its somewhat abstract, and therefore has some relationship with philosophy. Further, if we want to be regimental with our terminology, we must say that theo-logy must of course mean what it says, according to that Greco-Roman tradition you cited, of course, but also according to the Western tradition which further developed concepts of philosophy, which has had some relationship with theology in general, if not exactly with the vast and deeply specialised concepts within Christian doctrine; itself a developing concept, and large enough to call a world in its own right. -Ste|vertigo 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The job of this article is to explain to people what the main meanings of the word 'theology' are now, and where they have come from historically. And one of the dominant usages is precisely to describe a form of intellectual activity that can be internal to a religious community. It would be a drastic misrepresentation were we to exclude that, or even to downplay it (just as it would be a misrepresentation to downplay the fact that theology now extends beyond those contexts). Similarly, one of the interesting debates is about the applicability or inapplicability of the term beyond the Christian context which was its main context for so long, and it is also the duty of the article to represent that. In neither case would redirection be an appropriate response: that's like saying that the article on London should redirect to the article on England, because London is wholly within England! And certainly the article can and should talk about the relationship between theology and philosophy, but (a) that relationship can take many forms (not just the attempt at 'reconciliation'); (b) it can have very different levels of importance within any particular theology (and in at least some theologies would not be regarded as definitive), and (c) the philosophy involved can take any number of different forms (not just 'Western empiricism'). So by all means let the lede contain a general comment - something like 'in many contexts, theology has a complex and problematic relationship with philosophy', and then expand that further down in the article; trying to specify more closely than that in the lede is, I think, likely to be misleading.-M

Just a comment about set paradoxes. It would seem that the term would apply to both theology when viewed as a subset of religion, a particular religion, as well as it being a bridge with philosophy - which is conceptually promiscious by comparison. We might be able to graph this out to show the spectrum, and even better, we could do so according to research on what theologians think of theology. More later. -SV

Though cultures and systems vary, the purpose of theology has largely been the continuity of such discourse within the context of emerging rational thought, language, social modernisation, and revolutions in government —all of which have consistently moved away from theocracy and monarchy toward secularism and democracy.- SV

Leaving aside the fact that I'm not at all sure what it means to say that the purpose of theology is the 'continuity of such discourse...', there is again here an assumed narrative which is deeply misleading: that theology grows in step with, and is both driven by and a driver of, the emergence of secularity (if by 'secularity' we mean the move from theocracy to democracy). Look at the role that Christian theology in the fourth and fifth centuries (the period that produced the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian definition, and which is held to be one of the most vital eras of Christian theological development) was bound up with Roman imperial drives for uniformity and control; look at the ways in which the emergence of scholastic theology between the 11th and 13th centuries (another crucial formative period) has been linked to the rise of 'the persecuting society'; look at the ways in which a great deal of 16th and 17th century Christian theology (yet another formative period) was bound up with the disintegration of Europe, the formation of conflicting nation states, and the wars of religion... I'm afraid I can't see much evidence that the practice of Christian theology has bound up with secularisation for much of its history. And we haven't even begun on the questionability of the 'secularisation' thesis - i.e., the theory that claims there is a pretty consistent move 'away from theocracy and monarchy toward secularism and democracy', itself a deeply contested sociological topic.-M

"Purpose of theology" is of course clumsy, given its variance. We could localize this concept of purpose to the general subsets of theology as we identify them. In any case, its good to see you agree with our general MO for how to resolve things like this, and that we are willing to be both inclusive as well as descriptive of particular aspects. -SV

The very concept of "theology" itself arguably represents an influence of Western secular values upon the religious world, and thus often simply refers to religious education in accordance with Western social and academic norms.

The argument that theology represents an influence of western secular values is an interesting one - but it is only one claim, controversial and not amazingly widespread. It deserves a mention somewhere in the article, but I really don't think it is central enough to go in the Lede. If anything, the more dominant note in discussions of theology (albeit one I disagree with) has been that theology is inherently resistant to secularism. (I think, for instance, of the debates between Schleiermacher and Fichte at the foundation of the University of Berlin, about whether theology was a 'science' - wissenschaft - and so deserving of a place in a secular academy; that debate set many of the terms for nineteenth- and twentieth-century discussions of the nature of theology in Western academic contexts (including most American debates).

Also: it may be true in your context, but where I live and work people do not use the word 'theology' to refer simply to 'religious education in accordance with Western social and academic norms.' For instance, there is a mandatory system of religious education as part of the British 'national curriculum' for schools - and there would be an outcry if anyone started claiming the pupils were being taught 'theology' - and this is in a country where the separation of church and state is far less clear than in many Western countries. On the other hand, one also finds that people in religious contexts are nervous of the word 'theology' to describe educational practices within their faith community, because it has such academic connotations, or because it is popularly associated with controversial theologians (particularly of of the sixties, seventies and eighties) and so with the undermining of traditional belief.

Within the "theological" framework, student theologians may engage in extra-traditional religious discourse and navigate many of the sectarian and denominational and doctrinal (ie. dogmatic) differences, while remaining as faithful believers in their respective traditions.

In some contexts, theology is taught very much as the internal discourse of a particular religious community, and any attention paid to other groupings is paid very much in the community's own terms, reinforcing the separation of the groups. In other contexts, theology is taught in ways which are closer to 'comparative religion', and which try to find terms in which the theological views of differing religious communities can be analysed and understood in terms that do not privilege any one group. In fact, of course, there is a spectrum between these two positions. My own guess is that the former is the more prevalent - but that's only a guess. Your description here does not seem to me to capture that variety well, and seems to assume that the dominant position is one which sits some way towards the latter end of the spectrum.

As Western theological traditions have developed according to predominanty Christian and Jewish beliefs, study and discourse may be directly tied to localised forms of evangelism. Students in theology often seek to become religious clergy.

Again, we've discussed this one before. People normally mean 'predominantly Christianity and Judaism' when they say 'Western theological traditions', so of course Western theological traditions have developed according to predominantly Christian and Jewish beliefs. And yes, they may be tied to evangelism (whether 'localised' or not) and they may be tied to the training of religious clergy - but (a) they may also have a range of other purposes, and (b) it is not at all clear what the connection is between the first half of this sentence and the latter: other religions also have forms of 'evangelism' and 'clergy'.

In certain systems, the expressions of theologians may be regarded afte time as part of a religious canon, or else cited as authoritative interpretation at a particular time.

True - though I'm not sure what the distinction is between being part of a canon, and being cited as authoritative: these seem to be the same thing.

As such, "theology" may refer simply to religious interpretation which is more logos and ethos-based and less pathos-based than either ministry or prophesy.

The 'as such' seems out of place; I can't see what the connection is between the previous claim and this one. Given your explanation to total thinker, I guess you are trying to capture what it means to talk about relatively rational discourses within a religious tradition, and those that are relatively less rational. The trouble is, I'm not at all convinced that the logos/ethos/pathos distinction does that well: (a) I think most readers will not have a clue what you're talking about; (b) I am deeply sceptical about the possibility of meaningfully dividing up forms of discourse in this way in general; and (c) I am also far from convinced that ministry and prophecy can be said to be 'pathos-based' in a blanket way. 'Ministry' in particular has been thought of and practiced in a very wide variety of ways, some of which would be very much more 'ethos'-based, and some very much more 'logos' based. In other words, this sentence begs far too many questions, and does not do the job of clarification for which I assume it was intended.

Theologians may help clarify religious differences, translate localized religious traditions and beliefs into abstractions and generalisations which have more universal meaning, or otherwise represent the views of a particular system or tradition within current religious debates.

As a statement of one purpose which some theologians might have, according to some ways of conceptualising the sort of intellectual activity involved in theology, this sentence is true enough. I'm not convinced that it is a lede-worthy general statement of the main things that theologians do or intend to do. I refer to my earlier comments about theology as (in many contexts) a discourse internal to a particular religious community; I would also point out that the role of 'abstraction' and claims about 'universal meaning' are deeply controversial.

[edit] cont.

You commented on my revisions:

The lede, while perhaps satisfactory for an elementary overview, is sadly bare and seems based on burying the sophistication of the topic rather than revealing it.

Surely the lede is precisely a place for an elementary overview which alerts people to more sophisticated discussion below. I have tried to do this by referring to controversy, and then having introducing that new first section of the body of the article to list the main controversies in more detail, and point people to the still more detailed discussion further down.

I like some of the way you handled the issue of secularism, but you basically buried it, rather than deal with it,

I don't think the issue of secularism is as central as you made it. It is one important issue, and deserves to be there in the article, but I think it fairly seriously skews the presentation of the topic to have it prominently in the lede.

...and substituted the concept of Graeo-Roman culture as if it were substantively descriptive. It is not.

Well, it has the virtue of being considerably more accurate than 'Western empiricism' - see above. Theology's emergence in Christianity is shaped by a wide range of Hellenistic discourses, as well as by existing jewish discourses, particularly of scriptural interpretation - though these themseleves were in some cases already partly Hellenized. It is then reinvigorated by a rediscovery of a variety of classical Greek and Latin resources mediated through Arabic translations. I can't think of a better simple way to speak about the whole basket of discources that includes Platonism, Aristotelianism, Middle Platonism, Neoplatonims, Stoicism, Epicureanism, alexandrian allegorical and typological exegesis, etc than by referring to 'Greco-Roman culture'.

Theology represents an island of philosophy-like study centered around particular points of view, and as such its framework is not just inclusive of rationality, but somewhat parallel to it.

Theology is a form of sense-making intellectual activity - it is a form of rational endeavour. I'm not sure what it means to say that it is 'somewhat parallel' to rationality, nor what it would mean to say that it is 'inclusive' of rationality. I suspect that one of our troubles is that 'rationality' itself is a contested term. For some, 'rationality' inhernetly refers to conclusions based on a foundationalist epistemology, and has a problematic relationship to theology; for others, with a non-foundationalist epistemology, theology can be one kind of rational inquiry, albeit one is sometimes (controversially) held to face certain non-rational limitations.

As both you and TT stated, theology is not "secular." Its very existence is of course influenced by empirical and secularist concepts. Otherwise it would be called "theocracy."

See above for my discussions of your points about 'secularity'.

Note that while youre defining theology as something which has pan-religious application, you use God captial "G" and the word Christianity (in variants) four times.

I'm trying to do justice to the fact that the word 'theology' has a very largely Christian origin, but has been given an important but controversial extension to refer to analogous practices within or associated with other religions. I fully accept that I have not got the balance right, yet.

One only has to look toward religious philosophy, mysticism, or concepts of religious law (as in Buddhism, various, and Islam, for example) to understand that theology is more localized, and this requires a description of that localization's foundation.

Yes, but the buddhist philosophers I have worked with are adamant that what they are doing is *not* theology; the Muslim intellectuals I work with are deeply ambivalent about the use of the term 'theology' to refer to what they do; and even most of the Jewish scholars I work with prefer to speak about Jewish philosophy than about Jewish theology (though there are significant exceptions). The article, in order to do justice to contemporary usage, both needs to reflect the fact that wider-than-Christian application of the term is now common, but also to the Christian and theo-centric history of the term which explains the widespread unease with the extension of the term...

Note also that various phrases are clunky and too informal: "might be", "or with a view to", "taken up", "that lies behind", "various aspects both of the process which," etc.

We obviously differ in our thoughts about what constitutes acceptable style. Feel free to edit if you think the clarity and precision of the language needs improving.

"rational analysis" is also out of place; this isnt philosophy of mathematics.

You're right, it isn't - but since when did philosophy of mathematics own the word 'analysis', or the phrase 'rational analysis'? Look at the first 30 or so results for a Google search on "rational analysis", and you will find a range of technical and semi-technical uses (amongst which mathematical usage does not feature that prominently) mixed in with non-technical uses that seem to me to back up my usage here.

--mah 09:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ive not yet read all of your comments, but I appreciate the ones Ive read. -Ste|vertigo 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Points

• Theocentrism?

The lede as it now stands mentions 'God' in the etymology, as it must, and then as one of the possible subject-matters of the discourse. I don't think that amounts to theocentrism; in any case, it is a fair representation of the usage of the term. After all, one of the main reasons that the term 'theology' is regarded with ambivalence by many scholars or intellectuals in non-theistic religions is precisely that they regard the term as being theistic. However, I agree that there are a couple of places further down the article which are perhaps too theocenrtic - e.g., the last line of the 'history of the term' section.

• Analysis, like "data", implies the study of a finite set of information. Divinity and finity dont go well together.-Ste|vertigo 20:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Type "theological analysis" into Google. You'll see it's a common enough phrase (71,800 occurrences at the last count - though clearly lots of those will be duplicates). Whilst there might be something odd about saying one is going to analyse God, or divinity, there's nothing odd in saying one is going to analyse beliefs about God, or claims about divinity, or the implications of such claims, or to analyse in the light of such claims some other subject-matter. In fact, that's a pretty good description of what quite a lot of theology involves.--mah 08:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We dont put that much faith in Google searches. -SV

[edit] Side by side

Mah

SV

Theology (Greek θεος, theos, "God", + λογος, logos, "word" or "reason") is reasoned discourse concerning religion, spirituality and God. Theologians attempt to use rational analysis and argument to discuss, interpret, and teach on any of a myriad a religious topics. Theology might be undertaken simply to help the theologian understand more truly his or her own religious tradition or another religious tradition, or to facilitate comparisons between traditions, or with a view to the preservation or reform of a particular tradition, or to assist in the propagation of a tradition, or to apply the resources of a tradition to some present situation or need, or for a variety of other reasons. The word 'theology' has classical Greek origins, but was slowly given new senses when it was taken up in both Greek and Latin forms by Christian authors. It is the subsequent history of the term in Christian contexts, particularly in the Latin West, that lies behind most contemporary usage, but the term can now be used to speak of reasoned discourse within and about a variety of different religious traditions. Various aspects both of the process by which the discipline of ‘theology’ emerges in Christianity and the process by which this now Christian term is extended to other religions are highly controversial.

Theology (Greek θεος, theos, "God", + λογος, logos, "word" or "reason") refers to discourse concerning religion, spirituality, God, and related topics, that attempts to be reconciled with the langage and concepts of both belief and reason (cf. rationality, Western empiricism). Though cultures and systems vary, the purpose of theology has largely been the continuity of such discourse within the context of emerging rational thought, language, social modernisation, and revolutions in government —all of which have consistently moved away from theocracy and monarchy toward secularism and democracy. The very concept of "theology" itself arguably represents an influence of Western secular values upon the religious world, and thus often simply refers to religious education in accordance with Western social and academic norms. Within the "theological" framework, student theologians may engage in extra-traditional religious discourse and navigate many of the sectarian and denominational and doctrinal (ie. dogmatic) differences, while remaining as faithful believers in their respective traditions. As Western theological traditions have developed according to predominanty Christian and Jewish beliefs, study and discourse may be directly tied to localised forms of evangelism. Students in theology often seek to become religious clergy. In certain systems, the expressions of theologians may be regarded afte time as part of a religious canon, or else cited as authoritative interpretation at a particular time. As such, "theology" may refer simply to religious interpretation which is more logos and ethos-based and less pathos-based than either ministry or prophesy. Theologians may help clarify religious differences, translate localized religous traditions and beliefs into abstractions and generalisations which have more universal meaning, or otherwise represent the views of a particular system or tradition within current religious debates.

If a few more of the words were linked I would prefer Mah's version. --Totalthinker 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Linkage is good, particularly in the lede. Concepts must be defined by reference to other concepts after all. -Ste|vertigo 15:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

This section is tagged as needing a cleanup. I have added

.

None of this section makes much sense to me, and each paragraph refers to other parts of the article. I say we should delete the entire section. The section heading leads one to expect discussion of controversial issues in theology, but they should be elsewhere

I'm the original author of this section, but more than happy to see it go. It was created as a response to my debate with Ste|vertigo (see above). I had removed some of descriptions of or allusions to controversial matters from the lede and placed discussion of them into the body of the article; he felt that amounted to hiding or demoting these difficult issues. As a compromise I wrote this section and placed it at the top of the main body of the article, simply to draw attention to the discussion of the relevant controversial issues scattered throughout the article.--mahigton 08:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I will delete it soon if there are no objections meantime. Slackbuie 19:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Id suggest not deleting anything, but expanding intelligently on whatever needs expanding, rewriting things which need clarity, and editing things which need fixing. Too many people come to Wikipedia with notions that pruning is more vital than planting. -Ste|vertigo 07:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals for redistributing material

I propose: (a) To remove the 'Christianity' template (b) To move the material on divisions of theology, which is very largely exclusively Christian material, to the 'Christian theology' page (c) To move the material on the controversy surrounding the emergence of Christian theology to the 'History of theology' page This page should, presumably, be even-handedly about all the contemporary uses of the word 'theology', which is no longer confined to Christianity; it has to give the Christian history of the term, but should not then imply that 'theology' is now synonymous to 'Christian theology'.

Any objections? --mahigton 11:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pages for development

Can more detail be added to Women as theological figures (see comments on talk page) - including an introduction.

Religion and politics also needs development - some of the areas could be moved to separate pages (of the "X and politics" format), leaving this as the hub page, and for discussions on the topic in general.

Both could be linked from this page.

I have reached the limits of my theological knowledge with both fields.

Jackiespeel 30 January 2007 (this library terminal won't let me sign in)

[edit] Links section

Given that there are pages elsewhere for Christian theology etc, and that this article is now clearly focused on (a) the history of use of the word 'theology' and (b) aspects of its contemporary usage that are relevant to more than one religious tradition, am I right in thinking that links on this page should not be to resources for Christian theology (or any other particular theology) but to

1. resources directly related to the changing definition of theology in history (not simply examples of theological writing from history), and
2. contemporary discussions of the nature of theology that directly address multiple religious traditions; or
3. contemporary discussions of the nature of theology that, while focused on a particular religious tradition, clearly treat ideas that will have a relevance to other religious traditions; or
4. contemporary discussions of the nature of theology within one religious tradition that explicitly challenge its applicability to other religious traditions; and
5. nothing else.

Is that fair? --mahigton 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive bot?

Should we maybe think about archiving this talk page? --Selket ^Talk 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)