What is Bad Theology?

[Random Person]

Isn't theology an academic discipline? If so bad theology would be an uneducated view of theology.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Isn't theology an academic discipline? If so bad theology would be an uneducated view of theology.

That would be based on the assumption that educated theology is good theology. What do you feel would make it so?

 

[Kharakov]

Comedy.

 

[Random Person]

Isn't theology an academic discipline? If so bad theology would be an uneducated view of theology.

That would be based on the assumption that educated theology is good theology. What do you feel would make it so?

Understanding what religions believe is theology. It doesn't mean that you are required to be a believer. Bad theology would include not understanding what the religion you are discussing believes, good theology would include understanding what they do believe.

 

[abaddon]

Understanding what religions believe is theology. It doesn't mean that you are required to be a believer. Bad theology would include not understanding what the religion you are discussing believes, good theology would include understanding what they do believe.

“Religious Studies”, “Comparative Religions” and “The History of Religions” are various ways to term the academic study of what religions believe. “Philosophy of Religion” inquires into the nature of religious belief and the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments for those beliefs.

Wikipedia describes  theology as “the critical study of the nature of the divine” and includes a list in its definition of ways that “theology might be undertaken to help the theologian” (emphasis added). The activities are primarily supportive of the theologian's own religious tradition, the comparative aspects are to get a perspective on his own tradition’s take on the divine. It doesn't look much like a disinterested comparative study of religious beliefs. Do nontheistic religions have theology, I wonder? (It just now occurred to me that it'd be a weird term to apply to the study of what all religions believe).

 

[Random Person]

Understanding what religions believe is theology. It doesn't mean that you are required to be a believer. Bad theology would include not understanding what the religion you are discussing believes, good theology would include understanding what they do believe.

“Religious Studies”, “Comparative Religions” and “The History of Religions” are various ways to term the academic study of what religions believe. “Philosophy of Religion” inquires into the nature of religious belief and the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments for those beliefs.

Wikipedia describes  theology as “the critical study of the nature of the divine” and includes a list in its definition of ways that “theology might be undertaken to help the theologian” (emphasis added). The activities are primarily supportive of the theologian's own religious tradition, the comparative aspects are to get a perspective on his own tradition’s take on the divine. It doesn't look much like a disinterested comparative study of religious beliefs. Do nontheistic religions have theology, I wonder? (It just now occurred to me that it'd be a weird term to apply to the study of what all religions believe).

I'm certainly no theologian but your link listed several bullet points in the definition section of theologian.

• understand more truly their own religious tradition,[5]
• understand more truly another religious tradition,[6]
• make comparisons among religious traditions,[7]
• defend or justify a religious tradition,
• facilitate reform of a particular tradition,[8]
• assist in the propagation of a religious tradition,[9] or
• draw on the resources of a tradition to address some present situation or need,[10]
• draw on the resources of a tradition to explore possible ways of interpreting the world,[11]
• explore the nature of divinity without reference to any specific tradition or
• challenge (e.g. biblical criticism) or oppose (e.g. irreligion) a religious tradition or the religious world-view.

 

[abaddon]

I'm certainly no theologian but your link listed several bullet points in the definition section of theologian.

• understand more truly their own religious tradition,[5]
• understand more truly another religious tradition,[6]
• make comparisons among religious traditions,[7]
• defend or justify a religious tradition,
• facilitate reform of a particular tradition,[8]
• assist in the propagation of a religious tradition,[9] or
• draw on the resources of a tradition to address some present situation or need,[10]
• draw on the resources of a tradition to explore possible ways of interpreting the world,[11]
• explore the nature of divinity without reference to any specific tradition or
• challenge (e.g. biblical criticism) or oppose (e.g. irreligion) a religious tradition or the religious world-view.

Yep, I mentioned that already in the post you're addressing:

Wikipedia ... includes a list in its definition of ways that “theology might be undertaken to help the theologian” (emphasis added). The activities are primarily supportive of the theologian's own religious tradition, the comparative aspects are to get a perspective on his own tradition’s take on the divine. It doesn't look much like a disinterested comparative study of religious beliefs.

The list doesn't look much like any curriculum from the religious studies departments at any of the universities I've attended. For one, there's no "one's own religious tradition" about such general studies, no "another religious tradition", no "defend or justify" a whole tradition, no "propagation", or really any of that. That's clearly the training for a minister. As the  theology link also mentioned, some such training courses have opened up to non-affiliated students as an "academic discipline" just before it gets to the distinction between theological studies and religious studies. Religious studies ("the study of historical or contemporary practices or of those traditions' ideas using intellectual tools and frameworks that are not themselves specifically tied to any religious tradition and that are normally understood to be neutral or secular") seems to be what you're confusing with theology.

Just look at how theists use the word. Abstracting a highly general description out from the actual contents of what these "studies" are isn't clarifying anything, theology doesn't become "good" if it's an academic discipline. It doesn't stop the theological arguments for God (or their "explorations" of "the nature of divinity") from being just a lot of goofiness.

 

[Random Person]

I'm certainly no theologian but your link listed several bullet points in the definition section of theologian.

Yep, I mentioned that already in the post you're addressing:

Wikipedia ... includes a list in its definition of ways that “theology might be undertaken to help the theologian” (emphasis added). The activities are primarily supportive of the theologian's own religious tradition, the comparative aspects are to get a perspective on his own tradition’s take on the divine. It doesn't look much like a disinterested comparative study of religious beliefs.

The list doesn't look much like any curriculum from the religious studies departments at any of the universities I've attended. For one, there's no "one's own religious tradition" about such general studies, no "another religious tradition", no "defend or justify" a whole tradition, no "propagation", or really any of that. That's clearly the training for a minister. As the  theology link also mentioned, some such training courses have opened up to non-affiliated students as an "academic discipline" just before it gets to the distinction between theological studies and religious studies. Religious studies ("the study of historical or contemporary practices or of those traditions' ideas using intellectual tools and frameworks that are not themselves specifically tied to any religious tradition and that are normally understood to be neutral or secular") seems to be what you're confusing with theology.

Just look at how theists use the word. Abstracting a highly general description out from the actual contents of what these "studies" are isn't clarifying anything, theology doesn't become "good" if it's an academic discipline. It doesn't stop the theological arguments for God (or their "explorations" of "the nature of divinity") from being just a lot of goofiness.

"the study of historical or contemporary practices or of those traditions' ideas using intellectual tools and frameworks that are not themselves specifically tied to any religious tradition and that are normally understood to be neutral or secular" - I suspect a theologian may disagree.


"Just look at how theists use the word. Abstracting a highly general description out from the actual contents of what these "studies" are isn't clarifying anything, theology doesn't become "good" if it's an academic discipline. It doesn't stop the theological arguments for God (or their "explorations" of "the nature of divinity") from being just a lot of goofiness."

I think Bronzeage nailed it in the second post.

 

[DBT]

''Exploration of the nature of Divinity'' is an odd definition given that nobody has shown they have access to Divinity.

 

[abaddon]

I suspect a theologian may disagree.

Disagree with what? The distinction between theology and religious studies?

You redefined theology to be religious studies. And that confusion is a problem because it leaves all the non-theological religious studies in the world out of the picture.