Pharyngula<\/a>, I found myself asking \u201cWhat is theology?\u201d In spite of its name, it clearly isn\u2019t \u201cthe study of God\u201d, as though we can put God under a microscope and examine God\u2019s attributes. Indeed, in some uses of the term \u201cGod\u201d, the reality so denoted includes the microscope and the one looking through it!<\/p>\nSince the discussion I mentioned touched on anthropology and religious studies, it was natural to identify theology as the \u201cinsiders\u2019 perspective\u201d corresponding to the view from outside in those disciplines. Theology can be prescriptive in a way that religious studies and anthropology generally eschew.<\/p>\n
That, of course, led me to handshakes. That\u2019s just one more example of something utterly irrational that some societies do as part of their cultural meaning-making exercise. Is there any reason we should perpetuate this irrational behavior (which surely enhances the spread of germs and is thus contrary to our best scientific knowledge)? While there is nothing absolute about the handshake (or the bow, or the salute, or anything else), we need symbolic gestures. And with culturally-defined matters of politeness, as with culturally-defined matters of religion, these differences seem \u201cnatural\u201d and \u201cabsolute\u201d when in fact they are cultural and relative, and we end up taking offence and arguing because of them. But we cannot eschew meaning-making altogether. And while there is a need for outside anthropological perspectives, societies also need prophetic voices that call for change from within. Theology isn\u2019t the only field that deals with that particular area, but it certainly is one<\/em>. When any society speaks about \u201cGod\u201d, it projects its ultimate values onto that term. This should surprise no one \u2013 the existence of the ineffable ultimate is in the end a separate question from whether we project our values onto that ultimate reality, and the answer to the latter question is an undeniable yes<\/em>.<\/p>\nWhen older constructs crumble, we do not stop making meaning, but find new ways of doing so. I have been criticized of late (or at least, a caricature of the theologian has been criticized, and I along with it) for assuming atheists are by definition shallow nihilists, inferior by definition to the lowest person of faith. I have never said that, and I would have thought that things I have <\/em>said would indicate that this is not how I view things. Plenty of atheists have a depth of values, and respond to the mysteries of our existence with awe and wonder, and may even believe that we are part of something greater. They simply view the term \u201cGod\u201d as so tainted by the way it is used in some circles as to be beyond redemption. This viewpoint is clearly not to be viewed as more shallow than the religious believer who has nothing more than their own ego, their own violent temper projected onto their puny conception of ultimate reality<\/a>. The atheist who refuses to engage in such projection may well be theologically more sophisticated \u2013 although, alas, the term theology is also tainted for so many of them, that they may not believe I mean this as a compliment!<\/p>\nSo what is Theology? It is not the study of God, but the study of how people think about God in particular traditions, communities and societies, in a way that is prescriptive and not merely descriptive. As such, I believe that theology has the best chance of challenging the limited, anthropomorphic, intolerant and ultimately idolatrous projections that so many people today worship. Because neither an attempt at unbiased description, nor a hostile attack from another perspective, will enable any particular tradition to take the next step towards a deeper, fuller and richer understanding of the ultimate. One must take what is already there and work with it, develop it, and reinterpret it. One cannot simply abolish the handshake, but one can through hard work change the way people think about it, if one feels it is important to do so. In a sense, that is the task of theology, not with respect to individual cultural symbols (although these are often included), but with respect to the symbols of the ultimate.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-5883037751151593928?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"