Theology vs Philosophy

[edhopper]

This may seem too simplistic for some, but I am trying to make it as concise as I can. Here is my view of the two

They deal with many of the same areas. How we as people should live our lives.
But Theology looks at how God or the Cosmic Conscientiousness or however a believer sees the Supernatural Power that controls and maybe created the Universe wants them to behave. Basically the question in Theology is "What does God want?"

The question of how we should live our lives is also at the core of Philosophy, but the question for atheist is "How should I live my life?" With no outside force asking us to live in a proscribed way.

Both can come to the same result. But the central question is very different.

I hope I have explained my thoughts in a accessible way.

[Yellow Submarine]

1. in re Theology vs Philosophy

Would it not seem plausible to suggest that the question, "How should I live my life?" with no outside force asking you to live in a proscribed way is best answered thus: Live your life anyway you determine is best, for there is no outside force compelling you otherwise. Hope this helps

[cbayer]

2. I would suggest that for many, the place they find themselves is in between (or a combo)

of the two.

For some, their God does not control and did not create the universe. This God may also not *want* anything or ask anyone to live in a proscribed way.

Some see their God as an integral part of themselves and not external. Perhaps *soul* best describes it. They may turn to this part of themselves when trying to answer difficult questions regarding morality, ethics, life's meaning or purpose. They may believe that it carries on. They may believe that it is part of something much larger.

While atheism is easily defined, theism is much, much harder to define, imo. When people try to pigeonhole it, they run the risk of painting an extremely diverse group with a very broad brush.

Good thoughtful post, though. I hope it leads to some fun discussion and does not become a snipe fest.

[edhopper]

4. Yes

but why do you need to posit a "soul" at all. If it is part of something larger, you must have some idea of what that larger thing is. If you think something like "We were put her to love one another" rather than "It is good and maybe the best thing if we love one another." Then I ask who or what put us here. And why does it want us to love one another?
It still proposes an outside force, a another plain not in evidence.
I understand that some just consider God as something more than the physical.
Define God however you like, but explain why there is any reason to think this is so.

[cbayer]

6. I would offer that many believers don't really feel a need to believe,

they just do.

Some feel they can describe it, others feel it is indescribable.

Personally, as I have stated previously, it makes no sense to "believe" that we are the top of the food chain in regard to the universe. I don't need a reason to think there is something bigger. I would, OTOH, need a reason to think it wasn't so.

[cleanhippie]

11. They feel that need because it's been pounded into their brain their entire life.

That is a beneficial and planned-for side effect of the indoctrination.

[edhopper]

13. Why?

If there is no evidence there is. You may want to believe there is something bigger. And may feel it is right. But reason would argue there is not.
The reason it isn't so is there is no reason for it to be.

[cbayer]

15. I don't agree with you. Why would you want to convert anyone to your way of believing or

not believing?

Reason would lead me to believe that there is something bigger than me. It's just not rational for me to see it otherwise. Of all that is known, I know virtually nothing. How presumptuous of me would it be to assume that I know what is or isn't?

So you can say it isn't so and that there is no reason for it to be, and I can say that's not how I see it. In the end, what difference does it make to either of us what the other believes or not?

[edhopper]

18. The Universe is bigger than you.

But you are talking about a metaphysical "bigger'. Why must there be that.
You say you would be presumptuous, but you also seem fairly certain there is.
Aren't you being presumptuous to say there is.
Not knowing and filling that unknown with God, is called God of the Gaps.
The gaps have been shrinking for some time.


We are debating on a Religion Forum, where else would we discuss such things.
Post and reply, that is how it works. If you want to be left alone, don't post or don't respond.
I am trying for an open discussion about the heart of what we are people here believe. (or don't believe).
The only questions I don't like are those that are unasked.

[cbayer]

21. Of course we are here to discuss.

This is the problem with the way you have approached the question, imo. You make many assumptions about believers -

that they think a god controls and possibly created this world
that they think God wants something
that they think an outside force is asking us to live in a proscribed way

While there are some who hold those beliefs, not all believers do.

When you start your question or proposal with those assumptions, you have already shut down the conversation. If you really want to know what people here believe, ask them, don't tell them.

The only assumption I can make about an atheist is that they don't believe in a god or gods. The only assumption I can make about a believer is that they do.

"God of the gaps" argument ranks right up there with "No true Scotsman" in my book - which is to say, not very far up there at all.

[edhopper]

22. Again

I am not making assumptions. I am merely trying to ascertain what believers believe.
If you believe that God has no control on the physical world, has no consciousness, wants nothing from you and is irrelevant in the Universe. Fine.
I keep asking and the response is. "You just think God is this or that." I don't, I am an atheist, I don't believe God is anything.
So I am asking, what is God?

And Theology seems to seek what God is saying. It is not archeology, just reading ancient texts. It is trying to find what the text means. That the text contains messages from God.

[dmallind]

3. Sorry - reminds me of the old joke

University President speaking to Dean of Physics department:


"Every year you ask me for millions for fancy new sensors and scopes and monitors and lasers and God knows what. Why can't you be as frugal as the Philosophy department - they just ask for pencils and erasers? Or even better the Theology department - they just ask for pencils."

[edhopper]

5. That's a good one :D

[Yellow Submarine]

7. careful

careful here. Let's not offend those who practice what the Right Wing calls the "radical" religion.

[westerebus]

8. My agnostic version.

Philosphy: What is the meaning of human nature and what are the consequences of human nature?

Theology: Who's interruptation of the meaning of god might someone believe in?

[Thats my opinion]

9. Somehow you can't break away from a concept of God you reject out of hand.

How can you even deal with any other concept if you are stuck with the one you define?

"Supernatural power" is by definition a thing, being, person or even an it. But what if
God is none of these, but the energy within everything that lures it to something beyond--more of a verb than a noun--a doing, not a being.. Try reading the theologian/philosopher/geneticist Teilhard de Jardin "The Phenomenon of Man."

Philosophy and Theology talk about the same subjects from somewhat differing points of view. It is not just how we live our lives, but what is the meaning of our lives?

Philosophy's basic question is, "Why is there something and not nothing?" Theology asks, "Since there is something and not nothing, what, if anything, does it mean?"

[skepticscott]

12. Why do you always accuse atheists

of defining "god" so narrowly? Why not address your accusations to Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and the like, who overwhelmingly define "god" as a supernatural sky daddy, and who would (just about as overwhelmingly) regard your concept of "luring energy" as New Age flapdoodle?

[edhopper]

14. Energy has specific properties

and if you postulate an energy then it has those inherent properties.
I am allowing for the most abstract concept of God you can give.
If you are saying that God is this unnamed energy that connects all things or all living things or all sentient things. Fine.
But again, there is no evidence for it.
You are stuck in thinking we are limiting to God of the Bible. You seem to reject that. (Though that begs the question on why study the Bible and Jesus at all).
But we in fact we are looking at all the varied, nuanced ideas of God that are given here. And they all seem to need a supernatural or paranormal or basically unseen, unknowable, never in evidence component.
Philosophy does quite well with what is the meaning of our lives, or how we give them meaning.
I put it to you that it is Theology that asks why is there something and what does it mean. And it is a meaningless question because it a priori seeks a reason for something. Theology does not allow the answer being, there is no reason. That is atheism.
Science asks, how did the something get here, but that is a different matter.

[Leontius]

17. Instead of trying to define God in your way to make it acceptable to those who

contine to reject what you say and point out how wrong everyone else thinks you are may I sugest that "God is" is about as close as you will get to an explaination and just let everyone go from that point.

[edhopper]

19. I am trying to understand what God

the people here believe in.
Atheist here are often accused of only arguing against the literal, Biblical God (not true.)
If we cannot be told what their concept of God is. How can we have an intelligent discussion about it.
The nature of God is the point, so how do we go from there, if "there" is never explained.
The believers here must have some idea of what the God they believe in is.
If not how can they make any judgement or decisions based on that belief.

So no, I won't just accept a vacuous "God is" and go from there. That is inane.

[Thats my opinion]

23. Say more. I just didn't understand your response--but i would be interested in it. nt

[skepticscott]

10. The question in theology is

"How can we make the harsh and foolish aspects of our religion seem as reasonable as possible, so that people who want to at least appear rational can stomach it?"

[FarCenter]

16. Philosophy is broader than your description

Philosophy includes not only moral and political philosopy, but also epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and aesthetics (plus more specialized branches).

[edhopper]

20. True

I was admittedly simplistic for the purpose of the pertinent discussion.

[FarCenter]

25. Philosophers have given up trying to prove the existence of god

Theologians have also mostly given up trying to prove the existence of god, but more or less believe in god nevertheless.

[edhopper]

26. But aren't Theologians

still trying access what god is telling us. If religious text is not divine, why does it have any meaning at all?

[FarCenter]

27. Theologians might view texts as the writers' best guess of what god would say if he existed

The English Lit faculty doesn't fold up shop just because all the works are fiction!

[edhopper]

29. I don't get the analogy

If god doesn't exist, then what is the point of guessing what he might say.
Then it is fiction and should be studied in Lit classes.

[FarCenter]

30. A novelist can communicate things through his characters that he couldn't say himself

If the novelist wrote the "Cliff Notes" version of his novel, it would probably not be a best seller.

So lawgivers write laws as though they were authored by god, prophets prophesy as inspired by god, and historians gild the lilly to satisfy the longing of their people for a satisfying history.

The practical social and aesthetic effects desired by the authors of sacred texts can be achieved by imagining god.

Theologians can discuss the texts, their origins and authorship, their effects on people, and the nature of the characters that they describe (including god), just as the literature faculty can discuss the works of novelists and poets.

[edhopper]

31. We are getting into semantics and how

we define a subject. What you describe is not what I would consider Theology. Archeology, Anthropology, Sociology Ancient Literature, yes. But I I don't see the majority of Theology as an atheistic look at sacred text. Most seek something of the divine in them.
You may see it differently.

[FarCenter]

32. It is not necessary for a theologian to believe that a real god exists

It is possible to study a fictional character. It is possible to study how societal and psychological attachments to the fictional character are formed.

Theologians who do believe in the existence of a real god, believe in different gods defined according to their opinions and the opinions of their religion.

The god that the theologian believes in is likely to be rather different from the god that the average practitioner of the religion believes in.

Read more contemporary theology.

[edhopper]

33. I think you have missed the entire

point of my OP.

[tama]

28. And logicians

have given up trying to prove that 'math' as such can be proven logically, ie. deducting number theory from a limited set of axioms.

Logic can prove or attempt to prove what can be and cannot be proven logically. Consistent thinking and philosophy (and theology) is not restricted into confines of formal logic and what can be proven inside formal logical systems.

Ramanujan, perhaps the greatest mathematical talent, said that thinking math was thinking God's thoughts. Among theoretical physicists and logicians (e.g. Gödel) mathematical platonism is widely held philosophical position. That is an area where philosophy, logic, science, physics and theology can meet in consistent way. Math or Platonic world of forms as "God's mind" that gives the potential and limits as "world of all possible worlds".

But keeping in mind Hume's Guillotine, I'm not saying everyone or anyone (me included) should thusly think or believe. I'm just saying that it is a consistent philosophical and theological position or world view that is also benignely inclusive of many if not all other possible world views.

[Thats my opinion]

24. of course nt