In some cases, I've heard that theology is a specific branch/subset of philosophy of religion. In this case, theological posts would therefore belong on a site like this. But to me, how would we differentiate a theological post/claim from a philosophical one? — Paulm12

All theology I've read starts with belief in God. Philosophy does not start with such assumption.

But to me, how would we differentiate a theological post/claim from a philosophical one? — Paulm12

I generally take the view that this is in the eye of the beholder. But in general if a religion is making claims about the nature of reality (on ontological and epistemological grounds) they are open to philosophical argument. Remember just defining religion is almost impossible. In fact, religion expert and writer Karen Armstrong has said it is impossible to define it.

In the bookshops in my town, religion and atheism share shelves, no issues.

Philosophy is essentially concerned with the nature of reality. Philosophers, then, assess the likely truth of a view that attempts to describe reality.

That's not what a theologian is doing. Religious worldviews are views about the nature of reality. But theologians do not assess how likely it is that they are true. If they do start doing that, then they're a theologian who is doing philosophy

I've made two thread on his topic, both active recently.

The Concept of Religion had the nature of definition as it's explicit theme, using religion as the exemplar. My contention, which remains strong, is that religion has no essence, nothing that is common to all, and only, the many variants. Rather it is a "form of life" involving such things as ritual, longing, and beliefs in transcendence of one form or anther. The term "religion" remains useful, despite being fuzzy arounf the edges - not unlike "woman".

The other, older thread is Demarcating theology, or, what not to post to Philosophy of Religion. This was about content on this forum. The contention there is that posts based exclusively on scripture, or claiming god to be the trite answer to some issue, or attempts at evangelism are not appropriate.

There's a legitimate branch of philosophy that is concerned with natural theology. It's defining characteristic is that unlike other theologies it does not rely on scripture, mysticism or revelation. Hence, just talking about god is not sufficient to differentiate theology form philosophy.

Roughly speaking, philosophy starts with a problem and explores rational solutions, while theology starts with the solution found in this or that religion, and seeks to apply it to the problem. Their methods are diametrically opposed.

A favourite Dave Allen joke carries the point:


Theology starts with the black cat.

There's a legitimate branch of philosophy that is concerned with natural theology. It's defining characteristic is that unlike other theologies it does not rely on scripture, mysticism or revelation. Hence, just talking about god is not sufficient to differentiate theology form philosophy. — Banno

Does the Timaeus count as a proponent of natural theology?

Does the Timaeus count as a proponent of natural theology? — Paine

There's a doctoral thesis for you.

Plato predates the notion of "religion". Despite that misgiving, I'd count it as natural theology.

Are you onboard with Aristotle saying that the first principles that bring about the realm of becoming we live in is a matter of what he called "theology"?

Are you onboard with Aristotle saying that the first principles that bring about the realm of becoming we live in is a matter of what he called "theology"? — Paine

That does not sound like Aristotle. Can you cite something with him saying that?
What exactly are these "first principles?"

In the Metaphysics he explains the concept of God, or prime mover, but it is not the cause of becoming.

I'm not expert on Aristotle, but it seems this is not so much another Ph.D in the offing as a branch of Aristotelian exegesis. . Sorting out Aristotle from Plotinus for a start.

But here's the thing; and correct me if I am in error; I do not think that Aristotle made use of the scriptures in his arguments. He was looking for the cat; he didn't start from the assumption he had found it.

But here's the thing; and correct me if I am in error; I do not think that Aristotle made use of the scriptures in his arguments. He was looking for the cat; he didn't start from the assumption he had found it. — Banno

Aristotle was explicitly opposed to religion. I do not remember the passage, but he criticized making god into a form like a human or animal. So, no Jesus, no Christianity.

So, no Jesus, no Christianty. — Jackson

Well, that sort of follows from his dates.

But we see Aristotle through a Christianising lens, one that came via Islam and neoplatonism. I won't pretend to knowing what he really thought.

Well, that sort of follows from his dates.

But we see Aristotle through a Christianising lens, one that came via Islam and neoplatonism. I won't pretend to knowing what he really thought. — Banno

I do. God, the prime mover is thought thinking thought. The cause of motion yet itself not in motion. Christians used this idea directly but made it into a person, giving it subjectivity.
God, for Aristotle, has no subjectivity.

Roughly speaking, philosophy starts with a problem[question] and explores rational solutions[answers], while theology starts with the solution[answer] found in this or that religion, and seeks to apply it to the problem[question]. Their methods are diametrically opposed. — Banno

:up:

... wondering what the difference is between theology, religion, and philosophy (of religion). — Paulm12

Consider these distinctions from Banno's recent thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/682234

Looks like Plotinus; but I won't enter further into that discussion.

All theology I've read starts with belief in God. Philosophy does not start with such assumption. — Jackson

I think philosophy can start with any assumption it pleases to.

That's the difference between science and philosophy. Scientific theories need some sort of basis, then justification. Philosophical thoughts need no justification. Philosophical thoughts can start with a reasoned basis (such as the Relativity theory and how it was developed) and can start with no basis whatsoever (such as religions.) If a philosophical thought gains justification, the topic becomes a topic of science.

@Jackson, please see my post three posts down. It unifies our seemingly oppositional opinions.

Looks like Plotinus; but I won't enter further into that discussion. — Banno

"Therefore it must be of itself that the divine thought thinks (since it is the most excellent of things), and its thinking is a thinking on thinking." Metaphysics, Aristotle; BkXII, 9.
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.12.xii.html

Yes, I was actually going off of some of the ideas in these threads. In particular you say

My contention, which remains strong, is that religion has no essence, nothing that is common to all, and only, the many variants

Which I do very much agree with. Anything to associate it with an idea like "belief" is going to be Judeo-Christian influenced and perhaps biased. For instance, many people consider Buddhism to be a religion, but it is also doesn't have any theistic beliefs (in fact I've heard it described as an atheistic religion).

But in general if a religion is making claims about the nature of reality (on ontological and epistemological grounds) they are open to philosophical argument

Totally agree. In many ways metaphysical claims that are often found in religions make it challenging to differentiate it from philosophy. And when we think of the "practical philosophy" that many religious figures (Jesus, Buddha, etc) have, it is hard (for me) to see them as different from other philosophers at the time before analytic philosophy became a thing.

But we see Aristotle through a Christianising lens, one that came via Islam and neoplatonism. I won't pretend to knowing what he really thought.

Yeah, especially with the work of Aquinas who sort of reconciled Aristotelean Philosophy with Christianity (similar to what Augustine did with [neo] platonism).

In some cases, I've heard that theology is a specific branch/subset of philosophy of religion. In this case, theological posts would therefore belong on a site like this. But to me, how would we differentiate a theological post/claim from a philosophical one? — Paulm12

Philosophy treats topics that have a reasoned basis, and theories are built using logic from that basis. Religion in this sense is philosophy; historically, and to some degree in the present, people do see a basis to religions. However, when you think long and hard, you realize that what makes a belief system a religion, has no basis. So religion, at best, is a speculative philosophy, inasmuch as it has some basic premises, upon which it builds, but the premises are mere fantasy, nothing to do with observed reality.

He was looking for the cat; he didn't start from the assumption he had found it. — Banno

I think that is true. On the other hand, he based his model upon separating the 'realm of becoming' from what is timeless:

So, it is evident from what has been said that what is called "a form" or "a substance" is not generated, but what is generated is the composite which is named according to that form, and that there is matter in everything that is generated, and in the latter one part is this and another that.
— Metaphysics, 1033b 15, translated by H.G. Apostle

In regards to recognizing a 'natural' theology in contrast to any other kind, this thing about time and what happens within it is not just a narrative of revelation and what might be promised by gods. Or if it is, then there is no distinction to be made between kinds of theology.

I think that is true. On the other hand, he based his model upon separating the 'realm of becoming' from what is timeless:

So, it is evident from what has been said that what is called "a form" or "a substance" is not generated, but what is generated is the composite which is named according to that form, and that there is matter in everything that is generated, and in the latter one part is this and another that.
— Metaphysics, 1033b 15, translated by H.G. Apostle — Paine

What does that have to do with "the realm of becoming?"

Generated beings happen because they appear through time and so have beginnings and endings as organisms. That element of this life is sharply distinguished in Aristotle from what is presumed to be timeless.

Generated beings happen because they appear through time and so have beginnings and endings as organisms. That element of this life is sharply distinguished in Aristotle from what is presumed to be timeless. — Paine

I don't think Aristotle believes anything is timeless. His ontology is that both intelligence and materiality are coexistent. Neither precedes the other. The physical universe always existed and nous/intelligence always existed.

Quote passages that support your view.

I'd have to do more research to find it. But I cited his description of God as pure thought. God/Prime Mover causes motion for both physical things and mental.

St. Thomas and Christian theology makes God the creator of the physical world, but Aristotle explicitly denies this.

what makes a belief system a religion, has no basis...the premises are mere fantasy, nothing to do with observed reality

I couldn't disagree more. Most religions have some canonical figure or text(s) that forms the basis of their religion. Take Christianity-I'd say with very good confidence that there probably was someone named Jesus who lived, died, and taught stuff which was written down and was at least similar to what we see in the New Testament, etc. Even if you reject any of the miracle claims it certainly has something to do with observed reality. Furthermore, in my experience, most people who participate in religion or go to church aren't going to hear a lecture on the metaphysical probabilities that these miracles actually happened. Instead they are reflecting on how this text/story/teaching applies to their daily life. This, to me, is where it becomes extremely difficult to separate religion and philosophy.

If the stories in religious texts are mythological, I think it becomes even more difficult to separate them from philosophy, or the sorts of thought experiments that philosophy often engages in (that may have nothing to do with observed reality). I can imagine someone 1,000 years from now looking at the trolly problem and arguing whether or not there were actually 5 people laying on the track.

I think philosophy can start with any assumption it pleases to.

Exactly. For instance, say there's an atheistic philosopher who starts with the assumption that a certain god/gods exists and then tries to show that it leads to some logical inconsistency. I don't think this would fall under theology. But it does start with an assumption that god/gods exists as a premise. So I don't think the presumption of the existence of god/gods is what differentiates theology from philosophy. Maybe it is what is accepted as canon.

Well, you asked if Aristotle distinguished the realm of Becoming from some conditions that were not bound by those limits. In the context of asking what is 'theological', that is an important difference to bring to mind.

Well, you asked if Aristotle distinguished the realm of Becoming from some conditions that were not bound by those limits. In the context of asking what is 'theological', that is an important difference to bring to mind. — Paine

What are you saying Aristotle's theology is?

I couldn't disagree more. Most religions have some canonical figure or text(s) that forms the basis of their religion. Take Christianity-I'd say with very good confidence that there probably was someone named Jesus who lived, died, and taught stuff which was written down and was at least similar to what we see in the New Testament, etc. Even if you reject any of the miracle claims it certainly has something to do with observed reality. — Paulm12

Here we differ. Religious texts are no more reliable to provide evidence of divine intervention than, for instance, "Romeo and Juliet" by Shakespeare provides evidence that Romeo and Juliet died PRECISELY the way they did.

You may want to argue that RnJ provides evidence to human love and tragedy; much like the Holy Books provide evidence to human foibles. True. But the Holy Books provide no evidence to Devine Intervention, much like RnJ provide no evidence to the historical event of RnJ.

Anyone can claim miracles that happened two thousand years ago. Heck, anyone can claim miracles that happened yesterday. But nobody can predict miracles that will happen later today and tomorrow, yet we can predict that people will fall in love and people will meet tragic endings later today and tomorrow.

THIS is the big difference why one ought not to believe that the Holy Books are Holy or even reliable for their claims of supernatural events. They are totally unverifiable. And so are each and every claim of any miracle even that has been claimed in modern times.

@paulm, that said, I think you are not justified to do so, but you do have the philosophical right to believe in divine intervention. A belief is an opinion, and opinions are better based on some evidence, but they are also valid if they are based on nothing too. At least to the person who holds that particular opinion. The problem is when the opinion holder who has no justification to his beliefs, proselytizes his opinion. If it is mere fantasy, it's good as a private thing, but disseminating fantasy as reality -- other than for entertainment -- is a moral crime.

THIS is the big difference why one ought not to believe that the Holy Books are Holy or even reliable for their claims of supernatural events. They are totally unverifiable

I think you are missing the point. The value of Holy Books or religion isn't only tied to the reliability of their supernatural claims. Like I said, I don't think people are going to church to debate the epistemologically of miracles. If anything, religion provides an accessible, "practical philosophy" for how people are to live their lives and treat other people. Even if the supernatural or miracle claims are unverifiable, the impact religion has on peoples' lives is verifiable. It improves health, learning, economic well-being, self-control, self-esteem, and empathy.

The problem is when the opinion holder who has no justification to his beliefs, proselytizes his opinion. If it is mere fantasy, it's good as a private thing, but disseminating fantasy as reality -- other than for entertainment -- is a moral crime.

This happens all the time: someone gets sent to prison who committed a crime, they find God or Jesus or religion in prison, turn their life around, and then start proselytizing about the transformation that they had. Would you say they have no justification for their belief in the "truth" of the claims behind their transformation? Or that their proselytizing to other inmates or sharing their transformation is somehow a "moral crime"?

I agree that knowingly disseminating fantasy as reality is immoral. But there is a difference between knowingly spewing fantasy as if it were reality, and sharing your experience because you believe it is true or your belief in it changed *your* life.