What is Bad Theology?

[James Brown]

What is Bad Theology?

Why is bad theology so common, and good theology so rare—assuming there even is such a thing?

<snip>

● Anything that looks like rationalization of Stone Age barbarism, e.g., human sacrifice, especially the death of Jesus, to allow people to get right with god, is bad theology.

● Bad theology claims to know more than we do know or can know, e.g., “God exists outside time and space.” How would anyone know that?

● Bad theology claims that it doesn’t need verification beyond faith and prayer—and that people who want verification are shallow or arrogant.

The knowledge revolution of the last two centuries has repeatedly put theology on the defensive. The ad hoc justifications have multiplied, and the result is usually bad theology in full retreat.

More at the link.

 

[Bronzeage]

It seems pretty much to define theology as bad theology.

 

[funinspace]

WWOD?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Anything that starts with the conclusion that whatever god exists and then works backwards to fit the facts into that conclusion.

It would be fine to have a theological position which ends in "... and therefore God" provided that "... and therefore God" isn't the initial premise you used to come to that conclusion. I haven't personally seen a theology which does anything different, but it could theoretically exist.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It's a rather complex question hard to answer simply.

There are several ways to look at it. Theology based on a given revelation.
Theology based on metaphysics not dependent on supposed revelations.
Natural theology, proving God exists not based on revelation.
All have major problems.

But most people aren't ready to give up in a belief that God exists despite that.
Not that most people really have studied the issues in great depth.

A believer can always take refuge in the claim God is so beyond our comprehension, that logic cannot deal with the issues. Here any real thinking about the issues comes to a grinding halt.

 

[bilby]

It's a rather complex question hard to answer simply.

There are several ways to look at it. Theology based on a given revelation.
Theology based on metaphysics not dependent on supposed revelations.
Natural theology, proving God exists not based on revelation.
All have major problems.

But most people aren't ready to give up in a belief that God exists despite that.
Not that most people really have studied the issues in great depth.

A believer can always take refuge in the claim God is so beyond our comprehension, that logic cannot deal with the issues. Here any real thinking about the issues comes to a grinding halt.

It's impossible to conceive of the inconceivable, and it's impossible to comprehend the incomprehensible.

I find it unbelievable that it is possible to actually believe in either.

"God is incomprehensible", cannot be a true statement when followed up with, "and this is how He wants us to behave".

And yet theists who claim incomprehensibility for their gods still seem to comprehend enough about them to make bold claims such as "he created the universe", or "he doesn't like it when you masturbate". How the fuck could they possibly know?

Apparently gods are only incomprehensible when ones comprehension of them necessitates acceptance that they are logically impossible.

 

[DBT]

Theology; Study and teaching that is related to imaginary Deities.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It's a rather complex question hard to answer simply.

There are several ways to look at it. Theology based on a given revelation.
Theology based on metaphysics not dependent on supposed revelations.
Natural theology, proving God exists not based on revelation.
All have major problems.

But most people aren't ready to give up in a belief that God exists despite that.
Not that most people really have studied the issues in great depth.

A believer can always take refuge in the claim God is so beyond our comprehension, that logic cannot deal with the issues. Here any real thinking about the issues comes to a grinding halt.

It's impossible to conceive of the inconceivable, and it's impossible to comprehend the incomprehensible.

I find it unbelievable that it is possible to actually believe in either.

"God is incomprehensible", cannot be a true statement when followed up with, "and this is how He wants us to behave".

And yet theists who claim incomprehensibility for their gods still seem to comprehend enough about them to make bold claims such as "he created the universe", or "he doesn't like it when you masturbate". How the fuck could they possibly know?

Apparently gods are only incomprehensible when ones comprehension of them necessitates acceptance that they are logically impossible.

The standard answer is that God is utterly incomprehensible except for that which God communicates to us by revelation. Widely held by diverse thinkers such as Duns Scotus, William of Okham and al Ghazali. But once one accepts that you can reason about God based on the attributes of God guaranteed by revelation.

 

[bilby]

It's impossible to conceive of the inconceivable, and it's impossible to comprehend the incomprehensible.

I find it unbelievable that it is possible to actually believe in either.

"God is incomprehensible", cannot be a true statement when followed up with, "and this is how He wants us to behave".

And yet theists who claim incomprehensibility for their gods still seem to comprehend enough about them to make bold claims such as "he created the universe", or "he doesn't like it when you masturbate". How the fuck could they possibly know?

Apparently gods are only incomprehensible when ones comprehension of them necessitates acceptance that they are logically impossible.

The standard answer is that God is utterly incomprehensible except for that which God communicates to us by revelation. Widely held by diverse thinkers such as Duns Scotus, William of Okham and al Ghazali. But once one accepts that you can reason about God based on the attributes of God guaranteed by revelation.

So gods are incomprehensible except when they are not.

That's not very interesting or informative.

In fact, it sounds exactly like what I would expect someone who is making shit up as they go along to say, when they find that they have painted themselves into a logical corner, but don't want to admit that their whole position is valueless.

And at the same time it sounds absolutely nothing like what a person with special or exceptional knowledge would say to an ignorant person who he was genuinely and intelligently trying to help to gain that knowledge.

People who know what they are talking about don't make arguments that boil down to 'trust me, would I lie to you?' or 'I believe it because it's written in this book'. They give reasons backed by evidence.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

And when you have painted youself into the corner, you can abandon reason and retreat into empty mysticism, again, al Ghazali, as an example. Recently Alvin Plantinga has claim that even without any sort of evidence, Christianity is a properly basic belief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology

In the philosophy of religion, reformed epistemology is a school in philosophical thought concerning the nature of knowledge (epistemology) as it applies to religious beliefs.^[1] The central proposition of reformed epistemology is that beliefs can be justified by more than evidence alone, contrary to the positions of evidentialism, which argues that while belief other than through evidence may be beneficial, it violates some epistemic duty.^[2] Central to reformed epistemology is the proposition that belief in God may be "properly basic" and not need to be inferred from other truths to be rationally warranted.

<sup>------

Is this enough bad theology for you today?</sup>

 

[bilby]

And when you have painted youself into the corner, you can abandon reason and retreat into empty mysticism, again, al Ghazali, as an example. Recently Alvin Plantinga has claim that even without any sort of evidence, Christianity is a properly basic belief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology

In the philosophy of religion, reformed epistemology is a school in philosophical thought concerning the nature of knowledge (epistemology) as it applies to religious beliefs.^[1] The central proposition of reformed epistemology is that beliefs can be justified by more than evidence alone, contrary to the positions of evidentialism, which argues that while belief other than through evidence may be beneficial, it violates some epistemic duty.^[2] Central to reformed epistemology is the proposition that belief in God may be "properly basic" and not need to be inferred from other truths to be rationally warranted.

<sup>------

Is this enough bad theology for you today?</sup>

More than enough, thanks.

 

[DBT]

And when you have painted youself into the corner, you can abandon reason and retreat into empty mysticism, again, al Ghazali, as an example. Recently Alvin Plantinga has claim that even without any sort of evidence, Christianity is a properly basic belief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology

In the philosophy of religion, reformed epistemology is a school in philosophical thought concerning the nature of knowledge (epistemology) as it applies to religious beliefs.^[1] The central proposition of reformed epistemology is that beliefs can be justified by more than evidence alone, contrary to the positions of evidentialism, which argues that while belief other than through evidence may be beneficial, it violates some epistemic duty.^[2] Central to reformed epistemology is the proposition that belief in God may be "properly basic" and not need to be inferred from other truths to be rationally warranted.

<sup>------

Is this enough bad theology for you today?</sup>

Holy Mackerel, that epistemology is truly fucked up. What a convoluted rationale being used to justify the unjustifiable.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Remember, Plantinga was not a theologian. For many years he was officially a tenured professor of philosophy at Notre Dame who specialized in epistemology.

Yup. Epistemology means believing whatever you want to believe without having to bother with things like evidence.

So it's perfect;y OK to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Bronzeage]

One of the nice things about discussions such as this is, you can pick any religion, pick any part of it, and declare your version to be their theology. It's the universal strawman.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Or you can read their theologians and see what they claim as their theological systems. Especially the systematic theologians who write fat, thick books of Systematic Theology.

 

[Kharakov]

"I don't care what anyone says about you, you're all right in my book." Lefty Friggin

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

One of the nice things about discussions such as this is, you can pick any religion, pick any part of it, and declare your version to be their theology. It's the universal strawman.

Lets call religion Sacred Ghostology. Or maybe Anthropocentology or simply Godology is better.

 

[Bronzeage]

One of the nice things about discussions such as this is, you can pick any religion, pick any part of it, and declare your version to be their theology. It's the universal strawman.

Lets call religion Sacred Ghostology. Or maybe Anthropocentology or simply Godology is better.

Does this somehow reduce the straw content?

 

[abaddon]

Does this somehow reduce the straw content?

Just saying “straw man” isn’t convincing without presenting at least some of the allegedly misrepresented content. Why am I supposed to believe there’s “good” theology when I have never seen it? During my years of church-going, then on the internet, Christians have had plenty of opportunities to present well-reasoned theology but ALL instances of it presupposed God then wrangled words to force the presupposition to seem reasonable. So if all chances to present a reasonable theology turn up only “bad theology” and never anything else, then I’m going to conclude something from that. It is no misrepresentation of what I have seen of theology to characterize it as word-games, and I have seen enough to draw a generalized conclusion about it. Apparently the other posters' experiences are much the same as mine. If you think it's better than it is being treated by persons in this thread, then give an example to show how anyone's being unfair.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Lets call religion Sacred Ghostology. Or maybe Anthropocentology or simply Godology is better.

Does this somehow reduce the straw content?

Well, it is a content issue certainly. Whether its called theology, divinity or godology doesn't really change anything. Gods are just proclaimed super ghosts, not the regular kind that haunt houses.