Ship of Fools: Which Came First: Philosophy or Theology?

Thread: Which Came First: Philosophy or Theology? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020405

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Jim Holt, in Why Does the World Exist?, said, "If philosophy, like theology before it, has so far failed to come up with the goods...." (meaning a non-circular and non-brute-force ("goddidit") explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing).

This got me thinking: did theology come before philosophy? Western philosophy as we know it dates back at least to the presocratics Anaximander, Democritus, et al., starting in the 6th century BC(E). Was anybody doing something recognizeable as "thelogy" at that time?

Certainly St. Paul's wrangling with the Old Testament could be described as theology, as of course were the deductions of the rabbinic school he emerged from. How far back before that does theology go?

I'd be willing to place my money on philosophy as being the senior service (so to speak).

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

At the very beginning of human existence I doubt there was much difference between the two.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I think you have to grossly twist the definition of each to drag them back to the beginning of human existence.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

That seems very odd to me.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Fascinating question.

I read a not wholly dissimilar discussion recently about whether religion emerged from ethics, or ethics from religion.

The writer opted for the former.

Me? I only came for the free drinks.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
That seems very odd to me.

I think you're confusing religion with theology. One can be religious, talk about religion, act out a religion, without doing theology. The vast majority of religious people do. I would probably be referred to by most Americans as a very religious person, but I spend precious little of my time -- if any, some might argue -- actually doing theology.

I don't know of anyone who places western philosophy before the presocratics.

[ 21. December 2017, 20:13: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Is this about only western philosophy?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Is this about only western philosophy?

Pretty much, although I'd be interested to hear about eastern philosophy if someone knows. Is the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" one that eastern philosophers -- or theologians -- chewed on?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I think there are pitfalls in translating the categories of philosophy, theology, and religion to Indian and Chinese thought.

I'm sure human beings have been asking questions about existence and ethics and so on since they first began. But I think systematic thought with an ideal of conceptual clarity starts in the Axial age - that is the middle of the first millennium BC. Theology proper as done in the Abrahamic religions is I think the result of Jewish and Christian thinkers making use of Greek philosophical tools to talk about God. So in the Judaeo-Hellenic world philosophy is the elder.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

mt--

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
That seems very odd to me.
I think you're confusing religion with theology. One can be religious, talk about religion, act out a religion, without doing theology. The vast majority of religious people do. I would probably be referred to by most Americans as a very religious person, but I spend precious little of my time -- if any, some might argue -- actually doing theology.

I don't know of anyone who places western philosophy before the presocratics.

Hmmmm. Actually, I agree with Nicole, about it all going back to the beginning. People wondered, asked questions. Everything came from that.

Theology is about what sort of Divine there may be, if any. Religion adds a "what are we supposed to do with that?" emphasis. Maybe the difference between theoretical and applied?

If you specifically mean formal discussion, with rules and systems, I'm not sure when that started. It could have gone on in oral cultures; but we don't know, because they didn't write it down, and outsiders didn't care about the oral tradition.

Science comes from those early wonderings and questions. (And it, or a facet thereof, used to be called "natural philosophy".)

Little kids are born scientists, philosophers, theologians, etc. They wonder mightily. And boy, do they ask questions!

That's where it all came/comes from. ("That's what philosophy, theology, religion, science, etc. are all about, Charlie Brown.")

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I suppose this basically comes down to what one means by "philosophy", "theology" and "doing philosophy/theology".

I think often people talk about philosophy when what they're talking about is a school of philosophy - or the more loaded terms of a paradigm, worldview or even culture.

In those senses, I suppose that a "philosophy" is just a systematic way of thinking about certain things - and so "theology" is a subset of that where people thinking systematically about certain things in the context of a deity (where that concept is defined in various different ways).

But then "doing theology/philosophy" also seems to me to have different meanings to different people. To some, the doing part involves pushing the boundaries to get to new insights - so we have people getting higher degrees in various subjects earning Doctorates in Philosophy showing that they've come up with something new or original according to their academic examiners.

On the other hand, I think the doing part is considered by some to be part-and-parcel of the normal existence of a person who is committed to an overarching idea. A Christian, one might argue, cannot help but be doing theology because the idea requires ongoing work and because the concepts are not simple, in comparison to say accepting that this object is an pear. Or say being a Marxist requires ongoing commitment to the work needed to engage with that philosophical idea.

The problem with this latter idea is whether this expands the idea too far. If one is a town-planner, is one then somehow engaging with the philosophy of town planning? If one is a Samoan, does that in some sense make one a theologian?

As to the which-came-first question, the answer seems to me to depend both on how one is defining the above terms and also the narrative one is accepting regarding the relationship between the pre-Socratic and post-Socratic ideas in the Western philosophical tradition.

If one uses concepts such as paradigm, I think one can make an argument that Plato/Socrates offers a paradigm shift. Prior to that point one might argue that the accepted paradigm was necessarily theological. The ideas that developed were couched within an understanding that a b and c about the gods was obviously correct. But one way Socrates was shocking (or at least the way he is portrayed as being shocking) is that he "did work" by breaking through the boundaries of the accepted paradigm in ways that were arguably not theological.

But then he did it using accepted theological terms.

I don't know which came first. And I wish you'd never asked.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

First came the awareness, then the fear. From this we developed religion as mechanism to control the fear.
A degree of joy was also to be found from answering massive questions which had popped into our heads, but not those of our kindred creatures.

Then for some reason, as archeological evidence makes plain, we were strangely compelled into hauling gigantic rocks around and building things.

So in answer to OP I would say the complexity of philosophy definitely came after the initial WTF? moment.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

What implications would there be for each answer?

I don’t know about chronology, but philosophy feels more foundational to me. A philosophical disagreement seems tougher than a theological one, more basic, though probably less emotionally charged. And philosophy sets the framework for theology more often than the other way round.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I think the distinction can be a bit arbitrary. Aristotle discusses the nature of God but is counted as a philosopher. And yet when the same arguments are developed by St Thomas Aquinas, that is considered to be theology.

I suppose there is also a sense that philosophy is what you extract from a theologian that you disagree with - so Averroes and Avicenna are philosophers if you're a Scholastic and theologians if you're a Muslim.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Great question, my immediate response was that (Western, Hellenic) philosophy came first and as Dafyd said informed Judeo-Christian theology. Heraclitus' logos any one? And I'm astounded at the emotional depth of his contemporary the 500 BCE Greek soldier-playwright Aeschylus and his slightly later contemporaries Sophocles and Euripides. They transcended the far more ancient shaman religious role to an existential degree. Shamanism, religion, philosophy, theology with drama as far as philosophy only intriguingly seems to be the chronology to me?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

There is really old evidence (Cro-magnon paintings) that human beings get some meaning out of stories, art, rituals, camp fire stories. We make sense of our world via representing meanings of it. I suppose theologies and philosophies are analytical means of considering these representations, and, by them, refining these prior fascinations. They are attempts to make sense of our fascinations about the lives we have been born into. We are people of wonder, people who wonder. And that seems to precede, and be the reason for, our analytic methodologies.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Western philosophy as we know it dates back at least to the presocratics Anaximander, Democritus, et al., starting in the 6th century BC(E). Was anybody doing something recognizeable as "thelogy" at that time?

They believed in gods back then, which means they must have had a reasonably coherent body of thought about who/what those gods were and what they demanded of their worshippers. That's theology as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I would agree with those who have said that when you go that far back in time the line between philosophy and theology becomes very blurred, if indeed it exists at all. To study knowledge, reality and existence was to study the gods, and to study the gods was to study knowledge, reality and existence. They were to all intents and purposes the same thing.

It's only really with Socrates and Plato that a distinction between the two begins to develop. As such, I'd say that neither philosophy nor theology came first as they developed in parallel from a common ancestor.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I wonder if *one* reason for the analytic methodologies is a sort of embarrassment? E.g., feeling we're so smart and advanced, yet clearly feel like there's some sort of pull to those older ways of looking and being. So we must analyze and dissect and construct--because we're certainly not primitives!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Mythologies seem to go way, way, back, certainly before the middle of the first millenium BC, which is where Russell started his history of Western philosophy (with the pre-Socratics). All of the different mythologies seem to me to contain stories and explanations, intertwined.

Most of us will not know much about this so here is a link to Chinese mythology.

In both theology and philosophy, I sense an engagement with the non-rational, one might say magical, elements of our fascination with these earlier explanations. A part of us seems to like the magic, another part of us seems to be bothered by explaining the world this way. Is a shaman wise?

[ 22. December 2017, 09:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Which goes first? Surely theology is only philosophy or religion or a religion?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Western philosophy as we know it dates back at least to the presocratics Anaximander, Democritus, et al., starting in the 6th century BC(E). Was anybody doing something recognizeable as "thelogy" at that time?
They believed in gods back then, which means they must have had a reasonably coherent body of thought about who/what those gods were and what they demanded of their worshippers. That's theology as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I would agree with those who have said that when you go that far back in time the line between philosophy and theology becomes very blurred, if indeed it exists at all. To study knowledge, reality and existence was to study the gods, and to study the gods was to study knowledge, reality and existence. They were to all intents and purposes the same thing.

It's only really with Socrates and Plato that a distinction between the two begins to develop. As such, I'd say that neither philosophy nor theology came first as they developed in parallel from a common ancestor.

I can't subscribe to that definition of theology, for me its first appearance is in Aristotle's Metaphysics in his unmoved first mover development from Plato's self moved first mover. Religion and the nasty quixotic requirements of the gods ain't theology.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
What implications would there be for each answer?

None, by my lights. Since I think they developed independently, it strikes me as a matter of historic interest. I think that Greek philosophy and Hebrew theology came together after both were up and running, probably in Jewish Alexandria, and without question in pre-Nicene Christianity.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is really old evidence (Cro-magnon paintings) that human beings get some meaning out of stories, art, rituals, camp fire stories. We make sense of our world via representing meanings of it.

I would suggest this is mythos, not logos.

quote:
I suppose theologies and philosophies are analytical means of considering these representations, and, by them, refining these prior fascinations.

That sounds right.

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
First came the awareness, then the fear.

This is of course speculation, and my speculation runs the opposite way. I'm afraid of the dark. I invent bogeymen to explain the dangers of the dark. I don't invent the bogeymen, project them into the dark, then become afraid of my projection. That seems the wrong way 'round.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hmmmm. Actually, I agree with Nicole, about it all going back to the beginning. People wondered, asked questions. Everything came from that.

Did it? It seems to me that cranking out systematic answers -- which is what theology and philosophy are, in a nutshell crude definition -- requires a leisure class who can sit around writing tomes about it. Normal people have too much getting-on-with-their-lives to do to systematize their wonerings.

quote:
Theology is about what sort of Divine there may be, if any. Religion adds a "what are we supposed to do with that?" emphasis. Maybe the difference between theoretical and applied?

I think the applied came way first. There is nothing like theology in the Pentateuch. There is something like it in the post-exilic prophets, perhaps because after the exile they could compare their religion to that of the Babylonians, and start to theorize about it. Although the prophets largely wrote about God's requirements on the people and ho they fall short.

quote:
If you specifically mean formal discussion, with rules and systems, I'm not sure when that started.

People much smarter than I am put it in ancient Greece with the Presocratics. I am taking that as a starting point.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
They believed in gods back then, which means they must have had a reasonably coherent body of thought about who/what those gods were and what they demanded of their worshippers. That's theology as far as I'm concerned.

I can believe a lot about the gods without systematizing it or doing fiddly what-if's, which seem part and parcel of theology. The average pew-warmer thinks a lot about God but that doesn't make her a theologian.

quote:
To study knowledge, reality and existence was to study the gods, and to study the gods was to study knowledge, reality and existence. They were to all intents and purposes the same thing.

This is just flat wrong. Democritus, Aniximander, Pythagoras et al. were not studying the gods. There have been no good reasons given so far in this thread to push philosophy any further back, nor any evidence of systematic study of the gods. Telling stories or producing plays about the gods is not the same thing as doing theology.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wonder if *one* reason for the analytic methodologies is a sort of embarrassment? E.g., feeling we're so smart and advanced, yet clearly feel like there's some sort of pull to those older ways of looking and being. So we must analyze and dissect and construct--because we're certainly not primitives!

That seems rather anachronistic, and a little insulting, like we think they should have been embarrassed, so they were embarrassed. I think it's more charitable, and more true to the evidence we have, to say they were genuinely curious, and felt "goddidit" (or "godsdiddit") to be insufficient answers to their questions. And indeed the questions they had (e.g. "what is the ultimate substance that the world is made of?") really aren't addressed at all in the mythology of their day.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It's a fascinating thread, mousethief. My feeling is that mythologies were the earliest attempts to explain conundrums of existence, both theology and philosophy began out of a perceived need to examine those mythological explanations more coherently, subject them to a more logical approach. But I think you may well be right that the earliest systematic theology post-dates the earliest attempts at systematic philosophy.

I think the driver is a belief that systematic thinking leads to greater clarity, better understanding.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
They believed in gods back then, which means they must have had a reasonably coherent body of thought about who/what those gods were and what they demanded of their worshippers. That's theology as far as I'm concerned.

I may be several decades behind on anthropology and on studies of Homeric mythology. But when I was growing up I think a body of opinion thought that a reasonably coherent body of thought was just what the ancient Greeks didn't have. (Likewise, other cultures where writing was an esoteric side-effect of efficient record keeping.) That is, if you'd said to an ancient Babylonian that their mythology claims that Marduk killed Tiamat but in Ur they say Enlil killed , their reaction might have been to shrug their shoulders or to say that of course that lot in Ur would say that. They wouldn't have tried to work out some consistent argument to explain why the Babylonian account was more true.
The Old Testament is full of bits that later generations have felt look like contradictions and therefore need to be explained. But the writers and compilers of the Bible don't seem to have felt the need to do so in more than a perfunctory sense.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the driver is a belief that systematic thinking leads to greater clarity, better understanding.

I agree. Certainly the heavy-duty theologizing that resulted in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was for that very purpose -- to better understand the nature of God.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There is something like it in the post-exilic prophets, perhaps because after the exile they could compare their religion to that of the Babylonians, and start to theorize about it. Although the prophets largely wrote about God's requirements on the people and ho they fall short.

I suspect the Exile would be a natural dividing line for (you could stretch the case to Josiah) a kind of second order (academic) Hebrew Theology. With by the time of the Pharisees being well past it (with indirect regulations coming out of the consequences). At which point you have from barely older to 300 years younger.

Though some of the reasoning bit is far older in the Pentuach and the Psalms, but it is more direct the Lord is this because he (rescued us from Egypt), and whenever Job is written, and Amos's God can totally feed himself. But it is distinct.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Not only did philosophy break away from religion, probably at the time of the Renaissance, but medicine also broke away from religion. Almost all the professions had some connection with religion. Butchery comes to mind as well.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Not only did philosophy break away from religion, probably at the time of the Renaissance,

Are you saying Plato and Aristotle were not philosophers?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I feel I should have linked this earlier.

From my reading, mousethief is right. it's not just Russell, but most historians of philosophy who think it started as a serious discipline in the middle of the millenium before Christ. With the pre-Socratic philosophers.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
From my reading, mousethief is right.

Dang. Thank goodness that degree in philosophy was not for nowt.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

mt--

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hmmmm. Actually, I agree with Nicole, about it all going back to the beginning. People wondered, asked questions. Everything came from that.
Did it? It seems to me that cranking out systematic answers -- which is what theology and philosophy are, in a nutshell crude definition -- requires a leisure class who can sit around writing tomes about it. Normal people have too much getting-on-with-their-lives to do to systematize their wonderings.

Yes. I stand by that. Everything we're talking about came from wonderings and questions. Respectfully, I don't think philosophy and theology are necessarily "about cranking out systematic answers". They're about those basic wonderings and questions. What, why, how, who? Theology puts extra emphasis on "who".

I don't think you have to be a member of a leisure class to ponder those. And--with all respect to the philosophically diplomaed [Biased]

--I don't think that philosophy and theology that produces tomes of systems is better than those questions.
[Angel]

(My personal leanings are much more towards the wonderings and questions. If I say I made it to the second page of the "Summa Theologica"... Wasn't a matter of not understanding. Just utterly not the way I work. Felt like a strait jacket, inside a box, inside a cage.)
[Paranoid]

quote:

quote:
Theology is about what sort of Divine there may be, if any. Religion adds a "what are we supposed to do with that?" emphasis. Maybe the difference between theoretical and applied?
I think the applied came way first. There is nothing like theology in the Pentateuch. There is something like it in the post-exilic prophets, perhaps because after the exile they could compare their religion to that of the Babylonians, and start to theorize about it. Although the prophets largely wrote about God's requirements on the people and how they fall short.

But where did all of that come from? What was the beginning?

quote:

quote:
If you specifically mean formal discussion, with rules and systems, I'm not sure when that started.
People much smarter than I am put it in ancient Greece with the Presocratics. I am taking that as a starting point.

Fair enough. [Smile]

Not claiming to be smarter than anyone. But IMHO formal discussion could've happened anywhere, all over the world. Those are the accepted systems that are written down, from cultures both respected and idolized.

FWIW, YMMV, etc.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Everything we're talking about came from wonderings and questions. Respectfully, I don't think philosophy and theology are necessarily "about cranking out systematic answers". They're about those basic wonderings and questions. What, why, how, who?

Then perhaps we need two threads. One for the technical meaning of the two terms, which is what I am asking about, and one in which "philosophy and theology" mean "basic wondering about what, why, how, and who." The latter question, your question, is interesting. But it's not the question I am asking.

It's as if I asked "Which came first, Sears or JC Penney?" and you said, "People have been buying and selling for millenia."

quote:
And--with all respect to the philosophically diplomaed --I don't think that philosophy and theology that produces tomes of systems is better than those questions.

Certainly not. But the question is not whether one is better. I can ask about Sears and JC Penney without claiming that Sears is better than mom and pop shops. It's just that the question is about Sears.

quote:
If I say I made it to the second page of the "Summa Theologica"... Wasn't a matter of not understanding. Just utterly not the way I work. Felt like a strait jacket, inside a box, inside a cage.)

To me it felt like drinking sand. Not my cup of tea either.

quote:
But where did all of that come from? What was the beginning?

I think that's unanswerable. Which is why I didn't ask it.

quote:
IMHO formal discussion could've happened anywhere, all over the world.

Could have. But we don't have evidence of it. We do have evidence of the Presocratics, and of the Rabbinical schools. There might have been writing before the Phoenicians. But until evidence of it shows up, they will be credited as the first writers.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Egyptian texts about Maat or the Epic of Gilgamesh, or Zoroastrian texts seem to me to be a theology, of a sort, and would pre-date Greek philosophy.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I can't speak about that other stuff, but a story like Gilgamesh isn't theology. It's a story. I think you are making a category error, again conflating mythos and logos.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

There is the article on Metaphysics in Chinese Philosophy in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which traces it to the 4th century BCE (in so far as 'metaphysics' can be used in Chinese philosophy).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
There is the article on Metaphysics in Chinese Philosophy in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which traces it to the 4th century BCE (in so far as 'metaphysics' can be used in Chinese philosophy).

Nice! So within 100-200 years of the origins of cosmogeny among the Greeks.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Does the answer to the question depend on where in the world and what culture?

When I've run into traditional people (hunter, gatherer) living the north in Canada (not so much these days, people have moved from the bush into Reserves and communities), when conversation has reached such issues, I've told that everything is considered to be alive and connected. They do read the signs in the environment very sensitively, don't see anything really as threat except on an immediate basis (weather, lack of food, some aspects of animal behaviour), and seem to contentedly comfort themselves with a sense of fitting into the natural order. There is really not much sense of a personified deity, but rather something similar to a general benign positive fitting into the environment. I am reminded of the Shaker hymn "Simple Gifts"**

I am thus wondering if philosophy and theology are conflated and not differentiated in hunter-gatherer societies, and think perhaps the farmer societies (which all of Europe and most of Asia are), and wonder if pastoral societies (herders, ranchers) might have another different orientation, though I guess the Hebrews carried God around in a box in the desert for 40 years. Which all makes me say that very question in the OP constitutes in imposition of structure that is based on the farmers.

I think it is important realize that there is an unconsciously applied notion of the cultural superiority of Europe and Asia because they colonized and conquered other peoples, and thus the tendency to use this as the frame of reference. Which we should realize and not just unmindfully accept.

**the tune has been re-purposed to the Lord of the Dance lyrics, degraded and maladroit in my view.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

I do think there's a tendency to believe the Greeks when they tell us how great they are.

(I think it's now official that the similar English Dept's tendency for everything to be invented by Shakespeare reflects them having a limited reading. And for the sciences yesterday I learned that even the "standing on the shoulder's" is 300 years older than I thought, and thus about 300 years less vision)

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can't speak about that other stuff, but a story like Gilgamesh isn't theology. It's a story. I think you are making a category error, again conflating mythos and logos.

Are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John not theologians then? How curious. If we were discussing the philosophy of Camus and Sartre, would we regard Nausea and The Plague irrelevant to the topic? How odd. Did not Plato and Nietzsche write dialogues, attributing their views to historical figures to make a point? It's almost as if analysis and story are both ways, in which human beings explore their condition.

Put it another way. On your account Julian of Eclanum and Augustine were doing theology when they argued about the meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis. What was the guy who wrote the first three chapters of Genesis doing? Macrame?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Put it another way. On your account Julian of Eclanum and Augustine were doing theology when they argued about the meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis. What was the guy who wrote the first three chapters of Genesis doing? Macrame?

Mythology. Or rather, the recording thereof.

Look, just because I talk about God doesn't mean I am engaging in the discipline of theology. As I told GK, if you want to bend the word to mean that, knock yourself out, but that's not what this thread is about. I'm talking about a metareligious dialogue. Sartre was not writing (or recording) mythology, he was deconstructing an existing social narrative.

The Grand Inquisitor speech was a discourse in theology. Most of the rest of Brothers Karamazov was a story with religious themes, but not theology. When a 3 year old sings "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so" she is not doing theology.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think it is important realize that there is an unconsciously applied notion of the cultural superiority of Europe and Asia because they colonized and conquered other peoples, and thus the tendency to use this as the frame of reference. Which we should realize and not just unmindfully accept.

You have fallen into the same trap as Golden Key. I ask which of two department stores came first, and you conclude that I think department stores are superior to mom and pop operations. I'm not talking about what is superior. I am merely looking at two phenomena and asking which is the elder.

Whether or not these phenomena are superior to those of any other culture (or any other phenomena in our own) is an interesting and important question. It richly deserves its own thread, no question. But it's simply not what the OP is asking.

It's like you're saying, "You shouldn't be asking that question, you should be asking the question that *I* find interesting and important."

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can't speak about that other stuff, but a story like Gilgamesh isn't theology. It's a story. I think you are making a category error, again conflating mythos and logos.
Are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John not theologians then? How curious. If we were discussing the philosophy of Camus and Sartre, would we regard Nausea and The Plague irrelevant to the topic? How odd. Did not Plato and Nietzsche write dialogues, attributing their views to historical figures to make a point? It's almost as if analysis and story are both ways, in which human beings explore their condition.

Some thoughts:

Although the Gospel writers were interpreting data, their relationship to later theologians is that they are primary data.

While analysis and story are both ways of exploring the human condition, they are distinct. And I think the terms philosophy and theology are primarily reserved for the former.

That said, analysis and story can be mixed in any given work: there is a continuum between them.

Philosophy and theology are I think both second-order activities. That is, one resorts to them when one's first order practice of religion and telling stories about religion or one's first order practice about practice one's civic life (in so far as those are separate) break down and one loses one's place.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Put it another way. On your account Julian of Eclanum and Augustine were doing theology when they argued about the meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis. What was the guy who wrote the first three chapters of Genesis doing? Macrame?

Providng source material for theologians like Julian of Eclanum and Augustine.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When a 3 year old sings "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so" she is not doing theology.

Though it’s perhaps worth noting here that when asked to summarize his life’s theological work, Karl Barth reputedly said ”Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” (As for whether he really said it, see here.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Though it’s perhaps worth noting here that when asked to summarize his life’s theological work, Karl Barth reputedly said ”Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.”

Was he thereby saying, "I was wasting my time. I could have just sung Sunday School rhymes at you"?

Aquinas is reported as having said his whole life's work was as straw compared to the glory of God, or something like that, although ingoB denied mightily that he said any such thing. But he certainly was doing theology. Oh dear god was he doing theology.

I agree with Dafyd*. Theology and philosophy are second-level ("meta") undertakings.

I mentioned the question to Josephine of what the writer of the first 3 chapters of Genesis was doing, and she said, "storytelling." Of course.

_______________
*doing more to hasten the apocalypse than tRump could possibly do.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Was he thereby saying, "I was wasting my time. I could have just sung Sunday School rhymes at you"?

Of course not. I wasn’t disagreeing with you; I’m in pretty complete agreement with you about what theology is and entails. It just that the particular example you chose reminded me of that story about a very thorough and rigorous theologian.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Was he thereby saying, "I was wasting my time. I could have just sung Sunday School rhymes at you"?
Of course not.

Sorry. My tongue was very firmly planted in my cheek.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

mt--

[Angel]

I was simply focusing on your subject-line question, which was repeated in the OP.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

mt--

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wonder if *one* reason for the analytic methodologies is a sort of embarrassment? E.g., feeling we're so smart and advanced, yet clearly feel like there's some sort of pull to those older ways of looking and being. So we must analyze and dissect and construct--because we're certainly not primitives!
That seems rather anachronistic, and a little insulting, like we think they should have been embarrassed, so they were embarrassed. I think it's more charitable, and more true to the evidence we have, to say they were genuinely curious, and felt "goddidit" (or "godsdiddit") to be insufficient answers to their questions. And indeed the questions they had (e.g. "what is the ultimate substance that the world is made of?") really aren't addressed at all in the mythology of their day.

*I'm* not saying anyone *should* be embarrassed. Just speculating about *one* possible factor behind the emphasis on systematic, analytic methodologies is the common human tendency to think we're all that, and those before us were primitive. And to also have a niggling feeling that maybe there was something there. Which causes some embarrassment.

So, very often, humans will build up systems, and analyze from a "well, they may have had *something*, but they didn't realize what they had, and we can do it better" basis, rather than "we're all wandering in the dark; how did *those* fellow wanderers cope? And did they leave behind any candles and snacks?"

That's all.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sorry. My tongue was very firmly planted in my cheek.

And I’m sorry I didn’t catch that. I should know better than to post after A Long Day.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think it is important realize that there is an unconsciously applied notion of the cultural superiority of Europe and Asia because they colonized and conquered other peoples, and thus the tendency to use this as the frame of reference. Which we should realize and not just unmindfully accept.
You have fallen into the same trap as Golden Key. I ask which of two department stores came first, and you conclude that I think department stores are superior to mom and pop operations. I'm not talking about what is superior. I am merely looking at two phenomena and asking which is the elder.

Don't think you have the right unit of comparison. I'm talking about the warehouse where the foundations came from: The thousands of generations which came before the 150-300 generations which started farming, created nations, made war, translated their connections with nature and tribal god images into formal religions and philosophies. They did both if we take any idea from the peoples who most closely resembled them within the last 200 years to present.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Don't think you have the right unit of comparison. I'm talking about the warehouse where the foundations came from: The thousands of generations which came before the 150-300 generations which started farming, created nations, made war, translated their connections with nature and tribal god images into formal religions and philosophies. They did both if we take any idea from the peoples who most closely resembled them within the last 200 years to present.

Evidence?

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

I'd argue that theology is no more than philosophizing about God. And therefore a subset of philosophy.

There are thus two possibilities:

- that the first philosophy in the world was about God, and so philosophy and theology arrived at the same time.

- that the first philosophy in the world was not about God.

Theology could only conceivably come first if there were a type of theology that isn't part of philosophy.

My guess would be that God (maybe in plural aspect) was the answer to the first philosophical question, which was about everyday reality (such as "why is this good to eat but that isn't?".

Whether a "God made it that way" answer is sufficient to qualify that as theology is a matter of how tightly you define "about God".

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

The message I'm getting from this thread is that theology is what happens when really clever people think about God, and when less clever people think about God then it's storytelling or myth or something else.

I don't subscribe to that view.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The message I'm getting from this thread is that theology is what happens when really clever people think about God, and when less clever people think about God then it's storytelling or myth or something else.

I don't subscribe to that view.

I agree - it seems to be a long way from the marvellous definition of a theologian given by Evagrius, especially the second part:

quote:
If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The message I'm getting from this thread is that theology is what happens when really clever people think about God, and when less clever people think about God then it's storytelling or myth or something else.

I don't subscribe to that view.

I'm a less clever person and I really value theology, especially existential, open, postmodern, liberal theology.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

The free online dictionary provides a useful definition.

the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth.

I think where mousethief is coming from is pretty much the same place as Bertrand Russell was coming from i.e. that the key parts of the definition are the words rational and systematic, whether applied to theology or philosophy.

Going back to the earlier discussion about Genesis 1-3, I agree with Josephine that the authors (however inspired they may have been according to particular theological understandings of the inspiration of scripture) were telling stories. Theologians have spent millions of words seeking to find rational and systematic explanations for the key elements of the stories. Whether you regard the stories as myths, myths illuminating truth, truth per se, etc, the basic material is story.

To illustrate the difference further, here is the online definition of mythology.

myths collectively; the body of stories associated with a culture or institution or person.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The message I'm getting from this thread is that theology is what happens when really clever people think about God, and when less clever people think about God then it's storytelling or myth or something else.

I don't subscribe to that view.

That's nice. I suppose you think that when not so clever people think about how to cure disease, they're doing science-based medicine? How dare we insult them by insisting otherwise.

This really isn't about egalitarianism. At some point you and the slow but sensitive people you are defending here are going to have to admit that there are fancy intellectual things that some people can do, and others can't. Just as there are things that really coordinated people can do, or musically talented people can do, or that really strong people can do, that others can't.

The world is just that way. And all the egalitarianism in the world isn't going to turn storytelling into systematic theology.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's nice. I suppose you think that when not so clever people think about how to cure disease, they're doing science-based medicine? How dare we insult them by insisting otherwise.

That's an interesting example.

There are medical researchers who are looking for new treatments and there are doctors who are using the available treatments on patients to the best of their ability. Are they both not "practicing medicine"? I don't think either group are unintelligent or somehow less scientific than the other.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The message I'm getting from this thread is that theology is what happens when really clever people think about God, and when less clever people think about God then it's storytelling or myth or something else.
That's nice. I suppose you think that when not so clever people think about how to cure disease, they're doing science-based medicine? How dare we insult them by insisting otherwise.

I'm not sure that the analogy with medicine helps. It's clear that cultures with evidence-based medicine have something that they're better off for having. I'm not so sure about formal philosophy and theology. An analogy might be economics or history. Most cultures engage in trade and many have money; but only a few make trade and money the object of study in their own right. India, unlike China or post-classical Europe or the Islamic world, doesn't have much attempt to recount the past for posterity (outside lives of Buddhist saints). That doesn't make it inferior; just different.

Likewise, storytelling and poetry can be sophisticated. That doesn't make them directly philosophy or theology (Dostoevsky's novels are profound; his explicit attempts at philosophy and theology outside his stories are awful).

[ 25. December 2017, 09:14: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's nice. I suppose you think that when not so clever people think about how to cure disease, they're doing science-based medicine? How dare we insult them by insisting otherwise.
That's an interesting example.

There are medical researchers who are looking for new treatments and there are doctors who are using the available treatments on patients to the best of their ability. Are they both not "practicing medicine"? I don't think either group are unintelligent or somehow less scientific than the other.

1. Ask Marvin; he's the one who brought intelligence into it.

2. I don't see what group you're comparing those researchers and doctors with? Who do you think I'm saying *IS* using science? But certainly someone who uses the results of science isn't "doing science." Unless they are using scientific methods themselves to further their knowledge. There's a difference between someone who is just following rote instructions -- even if those rote instructions were created by scientific geniuses using the best scientific principles -- and someone who is evaluating evidence and drawing scientific conclusions.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't see what group you're comparing those researchers and doctors with? Who do you think I'm saying *IS* using science? But certainly someone who uses the results of science isn't "doing science." Unless they are using scientific methods themselves to further their knowledge. There's a difference between someone who is just following rote instructions -- even if those rote instructions were created by scientific geniuses using the best scientific principles -- and someone who is evaluating evidence and drawing scientific conclusions.

Mmm. I don't think this follows in medicine. Doctors who are not involved in the research are still medical practitioners, they're still engaged in a process which is clearly a scientific evidence-based process - in contrast to homeopathy or some other nescience.

A chemist who is following a proceedure - even if he hasn't don't the initial research himself - is still a scientist, I'd argue.

A person who operates within a specific philosophical framework is similarly, I think, engaged in philosophy.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Advantage cheesy.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A chemist who is following a proceedure - even if he hasn't don't the initial research himself - is still a scientist, I'd argue.

A person who operates within a specific philosophical framework is similarly, I think, engaged in philosophy.

Someone operating within a framework may have a philosophy; to be engaged in philosophy they must be asking questions about the framework.

I think that's different from chemistry, in which there are incontrovertibly correct answers and a proper understanding of the subject requires only knowing why they answers are true.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'd like Marvin to explain why he thinks it takes more cleverness to chop logic than to write stories. Good stories require a heck of a lot of mental horsepower (or BTU's across the pond) to create.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd like Marvin to explain why he thinks it takes more cleverness to chop logic than to write stories. Good stories require a heck of a lot of mental horsepower (or BTU's across the pond) to create.

If you will accept the testimony of a storyteller born, I will confide that they are quite different things. Apples and oranges, but mutually useful. You need both. Sometimes the apple juice is just what that orange cake needs.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

'strewth, it's a doubles match. Deuce.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd like Marvin to explain why he thinks it takes more cleverness to chop logic than to write stories. Good stories require a heck of a lot of mental horsepower (or BTU's across the pond) to create.
If you will accept the testimony of a storyteller born, I will confide that they are quite different things. Apples and oranges, but mutually useful. You need both. Sometimes the apple juice is just what that orange cake needs.

Well put.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'd argue that theology is no more than philosophizing about God. And therefore a subset of philosophy.

There are thus two possibilities:

- that the first philosophy in the world was about God, and so philosophy and theology arrived at the same time.

- that the first philosophy in the world was not about God.

Theology could only conceivably come first if there were a type of theology that isn't part of philosophy.

My guess would be that God (maybe in plural aspect) was the answer to the first philosophical question, which was about everyday reality (such as "why is this good to eat but that isn't?".

Whether a "God made it that way" answer is sufficient to qualify that as theology is a matter of how tightly you define "about God".

Theology, philosophizing about God is only philosophy when it derives from philosophy.

[ 26. December 2017, 12:19: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0