How do philosophy and theology differ?

[DMB]

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins is very dismissive of theologians and theology, but he appears to have respect for philosophers and philosphy. And yet, are they so very different? Wasn't theology, the so-called Queen of Sciences, the mediaeval form of philosophy? Was there such a division between the two disciplines before the Enlightenment?

[BWE]

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins is very dismissive of theologians and theology, but he appears to have respect for philosophers and philosphy. And yet, are they so very different? Wasn't theology, the so-called Queen of Sciences, the mediaeval form of philosophy? Was there such a division between the two disciplines before the Enlightenment?

Two unrelated questions?

I think they are different now. Remember, science was theology too before Francis Bacon.


Mmmmm. Bacon. Nom nom nom.

[Ray Moscow]

To the extent that theology is studying "god" itself instead of the ideas about "god", their history, social influence, etc., it's a field without an actual subject.

Philosophy in general can fall into a similar trap, but it doesn't need to. It has much wider implications and range of study (basically any- and everything, although it usually backs away from a subject once science has sufficiently defined it).

[The Barefoot Bum]

Philosophy is 99% bullshit. Theology is 100% bullshit.

[DMB]

To the extent that theology is studying "god" itself instead of the ideas about "god", their history, social influence, etc., it's a field without an actual subject.

Philosophy in general can fall into a similar trap, but it doesn't need to. It has much wider implications and range of study (basically any- and everything, although it usually backs away from a subject once science has sufficiently defined it).

But for a theist, doesn't "everything" bring in god?

[Ray Moscow]

But for a theist, doesn't "everything" bring in god?

Yes, it does, and so there is some overlap between theology and philosophy, sometimes a considerable overlap.

[Eudaimonist]

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins is very dismissive of theologians and theology, but he appears to have respect for philosophers and philosphy. And yet, are they so very different? Wasn't theology, the so-called Queen of Sciences, the mediaeval form of philosophy? Was there such a division between the two disciplines before the Enlightenment?

I think the key aspect of theology that makes it unlike philosophy is that theology is entirely devoted to studying God and his relation to the world, and not to the pursuit of truth whatever it may be.

Philosophy may question any claim, and may have any goal, but theology cannot and remain theology. The claim that God exists is sacrosant in theology. It's the tail wagging the dog.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Danhalen]

Philosophy distinguishes the different disciplines within it: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, ontology, etc.

Theology does not separate metaphysics from any of the disciplines. That is, theology implicitly makes a metaphysical claim whenever it talks about anything.

[Jobar]

Philosophy is 99% bullshit. Theology is 100% bullshit.

Hah! :D

Now our only problem is figuring out *which* 1% is not bullshit.

[Jobar]

I think the key aspect of theology that makes it unlike philosophy is that theology is entirely devoted to studying God and his relation to the world, and not to the pursuit of truth whatever it may be.

Philosophy may question any claim, and may have any goal, but theology cannot and remain theology. The claim that God exists is sacrosant in theology. It's the tail wagging the dog.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Theology presupposes the existence of God(s).

If you want to examine the possibility that God(s) do not exist, you have to move from theology to philosophy.

(I wish there was a recognized discipline of 'atheology'. Many of us could go straight to our doctorates in that field, couldn't we?)

[Ray Moscow]

Philosophy distinguishes the different disciplines within it: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, ontology, etc.

Theology does not separate metaphysics from any of the disciplines. That is, theology implicitly makes a metaphysical claim whenever it talks about anything.

I think this nails it. :)

[HinduWoman]

Theology presupposes the existence of God(s).

If you want to examine the possibility that God(s) do not exist, you have to move from theology to philosophy.

(I wish there was a recognized discipline of 'atheology'. Many of us could go straight to our doctorates in that field, couldn't we?)

I don't think that is quiet correct historically speaking.

The thought that God does not exist is merely skepticism. But to counter it and prove that God does exist Christian and Hindu theologians were forced to develop philosophical arguments.

[BioBeing]

Hah! :D

Now our only problem is figuring out *which* 1% is not bullshit.

Obviously, we need a philosopher for that task!

[Jobar]

I don't think that is quite correct historically speaking.

The thought that God does not exist is merely skepticism. But to counter it and prove that God does exist Christian and Hindu theologians were forced to develop philosophical arguments.

Historically, yes, I'm sure you're right. Gods existed before theology; I wouldn't be surprised if they were practically coeval with spoken language. Gods of lightning and volcano, gods of wind and rain; anthropomorphic personifications of the forces of nature. By the time theology became a recognizable discipline or study, the idea of god(s) was so ingrained that I'm sure it was an intellectual struggle for the first skeptics to conceive of the world existing without gods. (That's still true in some sense today, isn't it?)

But once the possibility of 'no gods' was conceived, that's a simpler way to look at the world. As Occam would say, it requires fewer entities of explanation. Logically atheism is more basic, if not historically.

[Linus]

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins is very dismissive of theologians and theology, but he appears to have respect for philosophers and philosphy. And yet, are they so very different? Wasn't theology, the so-called Queen of Sciences, the mediaeval form of philosophy? Was there such a division between the two disciplines before the Enlightenment?
Philosophy is basically learning how to think about different topics. Theology, I guess, is thinking about religion/gods/holy texts under the assumption that there is some truth to it.

[Preno]

Wasn't theology, the so-called Queen of Sciences, the mediaeval form of philosophy?No, it was a mediaeval form of philosophy.

[DMB]

As far as I can see they co-opted Aristotle into theology.

[MrFungus420]

Philosophy is 99% bullshit. Theology is 100% bullshit.

Philosophy is general BS, theology is religious BS.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

How do philosophy and theology differ?

Put simply: the former teaches you how to think; the latter teaches you what to think.

[Politesse]

I don't differentiate between them. To me, most theological questions are philosophical questions, but not all philosophical questions are theological. It's an umbrella sort of thing.

[Politesse]

How do philosophy and theology differ?

Put simply: the former teaches you how to think; the latter teaches you what to think.

Oh, nonsense. Plenty of philosophical schools are dogmatic, plenty of theologies less so.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

How do philosophy and theology differ?

Put simply: the former teaches you how to think; the latter teaches you what to think.

Oh, nonsense. Plenty of philosophical schools are dogmatic, plenty of theologies less so.

That's not what I said, but thanks for the lesson in being dogmatic.

[davidpbrown]

It's a rare philosophy that starts from fundamentals, so perhaps many do suffer the same fate as theologies.

Philosophy has an advantage in not being limited to a stated assumption; the errors can always be contested, even if it does become more difficult as its arguments progress.

I suspect in times past that theology offered an opportunity to consider some questions in exactly the same way philosophy would, its base assumption being non-interfering to certain classes of question.

[munnki]

Erm... those of you pwn'ing philosophy are aware that you're pwn'ing the history of thought...right?

Theology could not be further removed... the history of philosophy is littered with tossers with bad ideas... but it is also girded with ideas that made possible all other fields... theology is what happens when good thinkers get some bad ideas... or, for the greater part, when weak minds encounter bad ideas...

[davidpbrown]

That's a very modern view of theology though and as suggested wasn't theology the mediaeval philosophy at that time. Now if you look up a definition it's the 'study of religions' or some such and philosophy is 'fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence'.. I expect there would have been a similar old world definition of theology being the study of 'science'.

[BWE]

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/got.html

[munnki]

That's a very modern view of theology though and as suggested wasn't theology the mediaeval philosophy at that time. Now if you look up a definition it's the 'study of religions' or some such and philosophy is 'fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence'.. I expect there would have been a similar old world definition of theology being the study of 'science'.

I don't know the answer to this...because there is a problem of both scope and definition... and it's an unresolvable one. There's certainly truth in saying that the church co-opted philosophy to a certain extent during the Medieval period by destroying unliked texts, editing others out of recognition, stealing previous philosophies (where useful) and negating/denying others (where standing in contradiction). However, philosophy predates theology or, at least, emerged and developed as a separate entity which occasionally intertwined (or was intertwined) into theology.

Certainly I see a huge difference between the type of philosophy that Plato and Aristotle were engaging in - and that engaged in by Medieval theologians. While Plato and Aristotle clearly had some daft beliefs and some dodgy philosophies their body of ideas has not developed the rigidity of canon and the theological disciplines. Their dialectic, in resorting to questions, dialogue and exploration - even where hilariously wrong - is a process and enquiry whereas the main corpus of Western theological subject texts (i.e. the bible, the scriptures and any other 'primary' sources which are the subjects of theology) are either historical (therefore rigid by the practice of the time), assertive or unenquiring. There can be no comparison between a Socratic dialogue and any book of the bible. And that's picking only two of all of the philosophers active in this dodgy construct called Western philosophy.

In other words... we are allowed to pick and choose the ideas of Plato and Aristotle and are never required to believe in them but only to use them to see how they inform other ideas. Theology requires an entirely different performance - one in which I set out certain beliefs as foundational, others as open to questioning and others as capable of being interpreted by what follows from thinking about the first two classes. It is a series of external and internal constraints based on assuming certain things to be so a priori and which provides no fall back should they be contradicted.

Simplifying again, philosophy, by containing the flexibility and adaptability of the human mind has blossomed into all of the modern sciences, arts and other endeavours and by encouraging (sometimes) an enquiring and process driven view of ideas has provided itself with an ever expanding umbrella of ideas. It is capable, in its most open definition, of subsuming all of the greatest of what we have to offer.

Theology...well... the best one can say about Theology is that if your kids are thick but still want to go to Oxbridge...

I rest my point...

[davidpbrown]

Theology...well... the best one can say about Theology is that if your kids are thick but still want to go to Oxbridge...

I rest my point...

Cheap shot but I don't disagree.

To answer the OP's query though it's interesting to read the Oxford prospectus (http://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/assets/files/theology_undergraduate_prospectus.pdf). No surprise it suggests academic rigor and elements of philosophy are included.

At Oxford we study Theology as an academic subject, both analytically and critically. Arguments based solely on assertion or belief rarely prosper: a more solid base is needed.

(i) History of Philosophy from Descartes to Kant
(ii) Philosophy of Religion
and either
(iii) Knowledge and Reality (the study of what there is and
what we can know about it)
or
(iv) Ethics
Those who take more than three Philosophy papers choose a
further one or two from:
(v) Philosophy of Mind
(vi) Philosophy of Science and Psychology
(vii) Philosophy of Science and Social Science
(viii) The Philosophy of Logic and Language (including the
concepts of meaning and truth)
(ix) Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Criticism
(x) Medieval Philosophy
(xi) Continental Philosophy from Descartes to Leibniz
(xii) The Philosophy of Kant
(xiii) Post-Kantian Philosophy
(xiv) Theory of Politics
(xv) Ancient Philosophy: Plato (in translation)
(xvi) Ancient Philosophy: Aristotle (in translation)
(xvii) Frege, Russell & Wittgenstein
(xviii) The Later Philosophy of Wittgenstein
(xix) Formal Logic
(xx) Philosophy of Physics
(xxi) Philosophy of Mathematics

There is then the clutter of early languages and what might be mistaken as study of classics..
You choose three or four courses from the following list:
1. The Christian Doctrine of Creation
2. The study of Old Testament set texts: Genesis i-ii and Amos
3. The study of a New Testament set text: Mark
4. The History of the Church from Nero to Constantine
5. Introduction to the Study of Religions
6. Introduction to Philosophy
7. New Testament Greek
8. Biblical Hebrew
9. Classical Arabic
10. Pali

:dunno:

[Rodney Dobson]

I should have thought that "before the enlightenment" you would be actively discouraged from studying from anything but a christian point of view, at least if you were west of Istanbul (after all, it's not all that long since university entry required it).

From the religious point of view everything is a part of theology - god created everything and is, thus, manifest in all his works. But then the philosopher still regards any field of knowledge as grist to his mill even if he doesn't have time to
examine it in detail. Consider the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (where I found the best article on Quantum Entanglement outside specialist sources).

But that is today. I doubt if sensible answers to the original question(s) can be found in anything written or thought after c.1660 (in u.k. terms anyway): or probably before c.400 anywhere.

[Ozymandias]

For me, it depends on where you draw the line. Some philosophy is as much a waste of time as theology, but some is valuable. The line I would draw is whether or not the philosophy has direct practical applications or not.

So philosophy in a physics sense is good, but philosophy in an aesthetics sense (for example) is worthless.

[Here Rests A Cemetery]

How do philosophy and theology differ?

Put simply: the former teaches you how to think; the latter teaches you what to think.

Good enough explanation for me.

[Efilzeo]

They haven't anything in common. Philosophy was the birth of logic, with Parmenides, and then with Socrates and Aristotle, the birth of all sciences, based on logic. Teology is an illogical thinking, so bullshits.

As far as I can see they co-opted Aristotle into theology.

Actually christians burned all the pagan culture. Aristotle and the others great thinkers came back in Europe because of Arabs. Then christians said that these men was "potentially christians", but actually all the greek philosophers were atheist.

[Rodney Dobson]

So philosophy in a physics sense is good, but philosophy in an aesthetics sense (for example) is worthless.

Do you think "aesthetics" worthless or merely not susceptible to logical analysis: or both?

[Ozymandias]

So philosophy in a physics sense is good, but philosophy in an aesthetics sense (for example) is worthless.

Do you think "aesthetics" worthless or merely not susceptible to logical analysis: or both?

I think the latter, which implies the former.

[Monad]

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins is very dismissive of theologians and theology, but he appears to have respect for philosophers and philosphy. And yet, are they so very different? Wasn't theology, the so-called Queen of Sciences, the mediaeval form of philosophy? Was there such a division between the two disciplines before the Enlightenment?

I think the key aspect of theology that makes it unlike philosophy is that theology is entirely devoted to studying God and his relation to the world, and not to the pursuit of truth whatever it may be.

Philosophy may question any claim, and may have any goal, but theology cannot and remain theology. The claim that God exists is sacrosant in theology. It's the tail wagging the dog.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes that's my understanding - which makes theology entirely a study of something imaginary. It isn't even the study of religion as such - that should really fall into the study of human cultural phenomena generally - ie anthropology. I always found it funny when people criticised Dawkin's for not understanding theology.

[BioBeing]

I think Dawkins understands it perfectly. Which is why it doesn't matter how "sophisticated" a theologian you are; your base premise is still untenable.

[Ozymandias]

I think Dawkins understands it perfectly. Which is why it doesn't matter how "sophisticated" a theologian you are; your base premise is still untenable.

Doesn't theology also include the effects of religion on society? Or the historical context of religious texts? Or the religious beliefs of ancient peoples?

I think you can argue that theology is a waste of time (in the same way that you can argue history is a waste of time) but I don't think you can argue this because its "base premise is still untenable".

[BioBeing]

I think Dawkins understands it perfectly. Which is why it doesn't matter how "sophisticated" a theologian you are; your base premise is still untenable.

Doesn't theology also include the effects of religion on society? Or the historical context of religious texts? Or the religious beliefs of ancient peoples?

Isn't all that covered by other areas like sociology and anthropology? No doubt, if one studied "theology" one might do some of that too, of course.

I think you can argue that theology is a waste of time (in the same way that you can argue history is a waste of time) but I don't think you can argue this because its "base premise is still untenable".

The base premise is that there is a God. You can't study God if you don't first assume that God exists. OTOH, you can study a religion (do sociology, for example) without actually buying into the religion. Religions definitely exist and affect society.

[Jobar]

So philosophy in a physics sense is good, but philosophy in an aesthetics sense (for example) is worthless.

Do you think "aesthetics" worthless or merely not susceptible to logical analysis: or both?

I think the latter, which implies the former.

Hmm. What about ethics? Do you consider that worthless?

[Ozymandias]

Hmm. What about ethics? Do you consider that worthless?

Definitely!

[Jobar]

I certainly agree that ethics isn't reducible to a set of fixed ideals, as most theologians would claim (I think). But it isn't worthless; trying to rationally discover the best and most moral ways for sentient beings to interact is one of the most practical and valuable uses of philosophy, I'd say.

[davidpbrown]

I don't know if theology is the name they give to the Church's interest in affairs of the State. Today's news by way of example but there are plenty of other instances. Obviously that's political but political thought is applied philosophy.

A tradition of Church v State (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13710427)
Rowan Williams's criticism of the government's Big Society policy is by no means the first time the Church of England has entered the political arena.

In the past, the Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken out on issues ranging from the Iraq war to the role of bankers in the economic crisis and he is no stranger to controversy.

In doing so he follows his two most recent predecessors, Lord Carey and Lord Runcie, both also regular critics of the governments of their time.

[Politesse]

I don't know if theology is the name they give to the Church's interest in affairs of the State. Today's news by way of example but there are plenty of other instances.

A tradition of Church v State (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13710427)
Rowan Williams's criticism of the government's Big Society policy is by no means the first time the Church of England has entered the political arena.

In the past, the Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken out on issues ranging from the Iraq war to the role of bankers in the economic crisis and he is no stranger to controversy.

In doing so he follows his two most recent predecessors, Lord Carey and Lord Runcie, both also regular critics of the governments of their time.
Technically that falls under the heading of ecclesiology, to theologians at least.

[davidpbrown]

Really!?.. new word to me so I look to Google which suggests..

ec·cle·si·ol·o·gy (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ecclesiology#Issues_addressed_by_ecclesiology)
1. The study of churches, esp. church building and decoration.
2. Theology as applied to the nature and structure of the Christian Church.

[Politesse]

In general, the study of the church as an earthly entity. That includes its interactions with the state.

[Jobar]

Interesting. I didn't know that, either.

[Rie]

what's happened to you all? It's clear that a philosopical attitude and a gallic shrug and a glass or two of red has nothing to do with religion as she is defined in these days.

Cutting to the chase, death is an absolute mystery which gives life its glorious suspense! Why is everybody bothering with theology anyhow? Why study a deity? That is just another of our human myths to help us move along cheeerully towards the grim reaper?

[Eudaimonist]

I certainly agree that ethics isn't reducible to a set of fixed ideals, as most theologians would claim (I think). But it isn't worthless; trying to rationally discover the best and most moral ways for sentient beings to interact is one of the most practical and valuable uses of philosophy, I'd say.

Agreed, and its range of practicality includes everyone.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Ozymandias]

Cutting to the chase, death is an absolute mystery which gives life its glorious suspense! Why is everybody bothering with theology anyhow? Why study a deity? That is just another of our human myths to help us move along cheeerully towards the grim reaper?

Contemplating what happens after death is, by definition, theology, and utterly pointless. Nothing happens after death - you are dead, and that's that!

[Rodney Dobson]

Cutting to the chase, death is an absolute mystery which gives life its glorious suspense! Why is everybody bothering with theology anyhow? Why study a deity? That is just another of our human myths to help us move along cheeerully towards the grim reaper?

Contemplating what happens after death is, by definition, theology, and utterly pointless. Nothing happens after death - you are dead, and that's that!

Does this define you as a zombie or have you access to data not available to ordinary mortals? Can your information be made available for peer review?

(Shame on you sir - you're stirring..........)

[Ozymandias]

Contemplating what happens after death is, by definition, theology, and utterly pointless. Nothing happens after death - you are dead, and that's that!

Does this define you as a zombie or have you access to data not available to ordinary mortals? Can your information be made available for peer review?

(Shame on you sir - you're stirring..........)

We have excellent evidence for saying that once you are dead you are gone. After all, your body is destroyed, so where would this "you" reside? Physical manifestations are detectable, and we observe nothing other than corpses. To suggest there is anything else is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Believing in any life after death is as ridiculous as believing in a god.

(Shame on you sir - you're a woo salesman..........)

[Rodney Dobson]

(Shame on you sir - you're a woo salesman..........)

Funny you should say that: reminds me of the response of one tutor to an undergraduate essay to the effect that if I grew up I would make a good technical salesman. Nowadays I would probably laugh but then it hurt.

We both know both sides of this argument backwards: if nothing else it is a comment on the practical value of philosophy