Theology, What is it Good For? Absolutely Nothing!

[boatsnguitars]

I am going to argue that there are few things more useless than Theology.

Definition I will be using:
Theology is the systematic study and interpretation of religious beliefs, doctrines, practices, and texts within the context of a specific religious tradition or belief system. Theology often seeks to understand and explain the nature of the divine, the moral and ethical principles associated with a particular religion, and the relationship between humanity and the divine. Theology can be seen as both an academic discipline and a form of spiritual reflection, depending on the context in which it is pursued.

Lack of Empirical Evidence: Theology is often criticized for its reliance on faith and lack of empirical evidence. Unlike fields like science, which are based on observable and testable phenomena, theology deals with abstract concepts and beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven. This lack of empirical evidence undercuts all validity of theological claims. There is not a single theological claim that can be made that either can't be proven true or false in any objective sense.

Incompatibility with Modern Scientific Methodology: The scientific method is a rigorous process that relies on empirical evidence, experimentation, and falsifiability. Theology, on the other hand, often operates outside the scope of these principles, making it incompatible with modern scientific methodology. This removes Theology from the most rigorous and useful tool we have as humans to determine truth from fiction - Theology thumbs it's nose at science and simply takes the ball and goes home. It refuses to even play the game other than by it's own rules - which change depending on the Theologian.

Fragmentation and Subjectivity: Theology is a highly fragmented field, with various religious traditions, denominations, and sects often having conflicting theological interpretations and beliefs. This fragmentation can lead to subjectivity, where theological conclusions are heavily influenced by personal biases and cultural backgrounds. As a result, theological claims lack universal consistency and credibility. Worse, they can be completely internally consistent to one religion, but completely inconsistent to another religion - the only parallel is in fiction: The Stars Wars universe is distinctly different from the Lord of the Rings universe. Only by entering into one universe can you find consistency, yet, there is nothing to objectively assess one universe from the other with religion. Islam, Mormonism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. - they can't be proven wrong by another religion, since they all rely on supernatural and irrational beliefs; at least when viewed objectively.

Historical Conflicts and Divisions: Theology has played a significant role in historical conflicts, disputes, and divisions among different religious groups. Theological disagreements have often led to religious wars, schisms, and animosities, which can be seen as evidence of the negative consequences of theological study. It's not just that Theology is useless - it's dangerous. At least when someone brings up science and how it created the atom bomb, one can point to cancer cures and other benefits. With Theology, there seems to be no significant benefit - that is, if one points to the joy or peace religion offers, that can be done without theology, or, put another way: A ancient Polynesian found as much joy and peace in their religion as a modern Christian and theology would make no difference to that truth.

Limited Practical Utility: While theology may provide insights into the beliefs and practices of religious groups, it often has limited practical utility in addressing real-world problems and challenges. Fields like medicine, engineering, and economics offer tangible solutions and improvements to society, while theology is often seen as offering little practical guidance. Imagine all the people studying theology were to actually apply themselves to solving real problems? In truth, Theology is a massively egotistical practice of navel gazing.

Decline in Influence: In many modern societies, the influence of theology has declined significantly. People increasingly turn to secular and evidence-based approaches to address questions about the world and human existence, relegating theology to a more peripheral role in shaping public policy, education, and moral values. More and more - other than people studying theology to get rich off of old ladies - there is no demand for theologians to weigh in on any problem that faces the world. Sure, they are trotted out for a 30 second spot to comment on Halloween, or their view about another Virgin Mary statue leaking, but there are no serious people asking theologians for serious answers to serious questions.

Ethical and Moral Questions: Theological discussions around ethics and morality are often seen as arbitrary and subjective, as they depend on specific religious beliefs and interpretations. This can hinder the development of a shared moral framework that is inclusive and relevant to diverse societies. in fact, as I repeatedly say: No one understand morality less than a religious person.

Redundancy: Many philosophical and ethical questions that theology attempts to answer can also be addressed by other fields, such as philosophy, psychology, sociology, and ethics, without relying on religious beliefs. This makes theology appear redundant in the quest for knowledge and understanding. In the race case a theologian may have an actual answer that matters (I can't think of one), these are better answered by other fields; fields that have objective methods to determine the truth or falsity of the claims.

Changing Social and Cultural Norms: As societies evolve and adapt to changing norms and values, theology may find itself struggling to keep up with these shifts. Theological doctrines that were once considered absolute may become outdated and irrelevant in the face of evolving social and cultural norms. All religions die - all theologies become obsolete. Sure, current theologians believe their religion is the exception - which is exactly what all the other theologians believed before. Also, to this point, we see how religions change to meet current beliefs: Gay pastors, for example. What happened to no gays? It appears the earlier theologians were wrong - or the current ones are - and it's all just speculation and subjective opinion.

Lack of Consensus: Theological debates often lack consensus and can result in never-ending discussions without clear resolutions. This lack of conclusive answers can lead to frustration and a sense of futility in theological inquiry. There has never been consensus, never will be consensus because there are no facts to discuss. There is no "there there."

These are reasons Theology is useless. I would argue it damaging on top of it's uselessness - which makes it ultimately dangerous.

But, worse, beyond it being useless, it's so simplistic and arbitrary that it allows anyone to do it. Even the most simple-minded fool can wax on about their belief about their favorite God of the hour. They can make all kinds of proclamations about what their God thinks, want, wonders, does or does do. They can be inconsistent and claim it's us, the non-believer that doesn't understand! They can say things like "God says yes, no and maybe". They can claim God is too complex to understand - yet, they will tell us all about how they understand God. (This phenomenon isn't about how complex God is, but how poor the person is at expressing their childish grasp of a ephemeral subject that doesn't exist).

And, still worse... yes, it gets worse: Theology is a field ripe for attracting the insane; the conspiracy minded; the tin-foil hat wearing buffoons' that from their basement in Iowa have somehow discovered the answer to all questions through numbers and signs; who somehow know exactly what the government is doing, and is someone been anointed by God to understand these things and educate us all on these matters. And they are treated as divinely inspired - get that? Insane ramblings are equal to "divine inspiration" - That should tell us something of how valuable Theology is when you can't distinguish madness from inspired truth.

And still worse... Theology can be invented from whole cloth and considered respectable by the people who practice it: Think of how serious Scientologists take themselves! Mormons! Christians! They all think they all took themselves so seriously even as they were inventing the religion! Don't think for a moment that early Christians were any different from any other early religious group. They joined their little circles and told stories that made them feel good and decided it was the truth that everyone needed to hear. What ego! What profound ignorance! The blind leading the blind - and Theologians giving them cover every step of the way.

Watch the pomp and pageantry of a Church service. Watch how seriously they take the breaking of bread, or hanging from hooks, or dipping of water, or wearing special underwear, or bathing in the Ganges, or walking on coals... These were developed by Theologians to honor their imaginary gods - and there is no telling which, if any, actually does the thing it is supposed to do: God answers yes, no or maybe - remember? So, Theologians could say, "You must drink wine and eat bread to curry favor of Malosh the One-Eyed Bull God (or whatever practice or god) - but you can't know if that works because "yes, no, maybe."

In other words, a Theologian could invent ideas that they know are invented, but if he can get someone to believe them, he still gets paid. There is no QA/QC when it comes to Theology. If a school rejects some loon because they don't believe the Bible properly, that Theologian gets to go to another school and claim they are the one speaking the truth, and the old school is filled with vipers and heretics - and - as the events surrounding Marcion proved - none of it matters except that one tradition wins out over another. Not truth, mind you, just one story sounds better to more people.

Like art. Like a Hollywood Blockbuster. But, there is room in theology for the Art House films, and a host of other takes on the Supernatural Cartoon Universe in which gods can turn people into trees, water into wine, etc.

And we are supposed to take this seriously? We are to be respectful of these outrageously inane beliefs? Really? Have you seen the Pope's hat and robes? They are hilarious! It's as if they are mocking us - begging us to say something.

So, there is my argument against Theology. Would anyone like to argue in favor of Theology?

[boatsnguitars]

I am going to argue that there are few things more useless than Theology.

Definition I will be using:
Theology is the systematic study and interpretation of religious beliefs, doctrines, practices, and texts within the context of a specific religious tradition or belief system. Theology often seeks to understand and explain the nature of the divine, the moral and ethical principles associated with a particular religion, and the relationship between humanity and the divine. Theology can be seen as both an academic discipline and a form of spiritual reflection, depending on the context in which it is pursued.

I would take a simpler view based on the word itself. Theology is the study of God or gods, full stop. Even better, albeit more for someone like me who is already aboard the theology train, is that it is literally the word (logos) of God.

Why is it useful? A few reasons.

1. It provides options and therefore counterviews which can open up the dialectic of thought and deepen all our understandings. e.g., logically, there are two options in terms of the origin of the material world. Either it always existed in an infinite regress of matter in motion, or else it had a beginning. 'God' remains a viable (if unprovable) hypothesis in that second option. Perhaps the only hypothesis other than it coming from literally nothing, which seems even more impossible.
(There is valuable discussion and debate to be had here, even if it serves materialist ends, isn't there?)

2. It pushes us to think about morality, and to do what is right in our day-to-day lives. This is so even if we do what is right for the wrong reasons, like fear of damnation. Or if it just means we're following prescribed rules, like don't kill, which help establish a modicum of civility in this world.
(There is usefulness in that too, right? In not being killed? And in theology helping get human society to even a baseline level of civility?)

3. What I think is the most important, since it transcribes the first two and is what we should really be thinking about, is it provides a final cause for all things ('m borrowing from Aristotle here, one of the first great scientists and a great theologian...). As such, it can motivate the material world to move toward a certain end, and can provide a ground for all motion other than randomness, or arbitrary natural laws that offer no real direction in themselves.
(There is usefulness, is there not, in having an end and working towards it? Not just in our own lives, but the earth as a whole? The cosmos? e.g., devising and achieving something other than a cosmic crunch or freeze?)

Granted, these things, or at least 2 and 3, do not lend themselves to scientific scrutiny. But they are extremely useful and important things to think about. Perhaps the most important things. And there's no field better suited to study them, or to at least contribute to their study, than theology.

I'm not seeing why those things can't be discuss4ed without invoking gods. Again, I see no usefulness in theology.

Worse, it seems that it is either woefully, pathetically stupid: to study something that doesn't exist. Or, actively dangerous in the case of most Theologians who decide amongst themselves that "God must want x" - as in the case of Calvinists (killing people), the auto-da-fé, the stoning by Muslims today, Iran's theocracy, and the many cases of Theologians deciding that this (as you put it, unprovable) entity has been very clear in it's communication that they are justified in killing people.

Churches, Theocracies, Bible Colleges, etc - couldn't exist without Theologians. It's fair to criticize science for creating atom bombs, it's equally fair to criticize Theologians for starting Holy Wars, or simply spreading bigotry and hate. The difference seems to be that science is useful, Theology is not.

Of course these things can be discussed without invoking gods. But like it or not, theology has historically been a part of those discussions, and a main contributor. It is probably the one field, apart from its sister school philosophy, that has most studied such things. (Or at least 2 and 3, which are beyond the reach of science.)

The inherent dangers, damages caused, or risks of being wrong do not nullify the value of its contributions, or in pushing us to think about such things, or the future usefulness that its insights may yield. Seems to me, again, there is usefulness just having more voices at the table, per 1 above, than in snuffing voices out.

So, let's get the Flat Earthers, the Cryptozoologists, the Homeopaths into the room to discuss how to increase food production, mitigate Anthropogenic Climate Change, etc?

No thanks. At some point, you don't invite people to the table who haven't offered any contribution. That's the fact: Theologians have not offered any contribution to any body of human knowledge. They can't even - and this is important - tell us what God is, whether it exists, whether it has communicated with us, whether it made anything, what it might have tried to say to us if it did communicate.

They had one job. One job - and they have failed at it. Forget their opinion on how the universe came to be, they can't even tell us out the "Theo" part of Theology. A complete failure. If Sociologists couldn't even tell you if there was a Society, we'd laugh at them and - no - they wouldn't be invited to the table to discuss grown-up issues.

[1213]

...What is useful is what helps us to get and do the best life we can...

Some could say theology does exactly that to them.

[boatsnguitars]

...What is useful is what helps us to get and do the best life we can...

Some could say theology does exactly that to them.

Some could say theology does exactly the opposite of that to them.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1

You're setting yourself at odds with some pretty smart people.

https://thesciencebehindit.org/does-sci ... ce-of-god/

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1

You're setting yourself at odds with some pretty smart people.

https://thesciencebehindit.org/does-sci ... ce-of-god/

I don't think so. That article was just what we always said - science doesn't set out to disprove a god, nor does it 100% do so. It just happens to find that things work without any trace of a god there (1). If there is one, let someone show it.

Therefore there is no good reason to believe in a god, before you even get to which one.

So on no valid basis, a god, religion and Holy Book appears and bearded savants work out theology - attempts to apply reason and logic to a bunch of unvalidated faith -claims.

"A correct logical construct based on invalid or unvalidated parameters, will always be unsound and invalid."

Absolutely without validity even if it had moral value, which is arguable.

(1) the basis of the consistently ignores materialistic default - Things work without any need for a god. Therefore unknowns are hypothetical evidence for more of the same, not for a god for which there is as yet no decent evidence. The Believers just cannot get this into their heads, any more than the way burden of proof works.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1

You're setting yourself at odds with some pretty smart people.

https://thesciencebehindit.org/does-sci ... ce-of-god/

Can you explain your point? One liners are usually flagged.

[TRANSPONDER]

...What is useful is what helps us to get and do the best life we can...

Some could say theology does exactly that to them.

Or others could say- sure, some can say that. But that sidelines the whole discussion and relegates it to 'i don't care what you say, I still think..."

One might find that the things Theology is supposed to do to improve life turns out to be the stuff anyone one can do, using theology or not. That is,crediting Theology with what it can't really lay claim to. without discussion, nobody can find out, which I guess was the whole idea.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1

You're setting yourself at odds with some pretty smart people.

https://thesciencebehindit.org/does-sci ... ce-of-god/

Can you explain your point? One liners are usually flagged.

My apologies. I assumed that including the article link would keep it from being designated a one-liner.

You did read the article, didn't you?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #25

You're setting yourself at odds with some pretty smart people.

I don't think so.

You don't think the National Academy of Sciences is run by smart people? Then how did they become scientists?

the basis of the consistently ignores materialistic default - Things work without any need for a god.

Here's what you miss about science: Science doesn't assume the presence----or the absence----of a creator.....

......which means......

Science does not assume a default.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1

You're setting yourself at odds with some pretty smart people.

https://thesciencebehindit.org/does-sci ... ce-of-god/

Can you explain your point? One liners are usually flagged.

My apologies. I assumed that including the article link would keep it from being designated a one-liner.

You did read the article, didn't you?

I did. I didn't see what point you were trying to make.