Here is a contemporary theologian's definition of theology

[BurtWorm]

What do you think? Do you agree? The theologian in question is Donald Bloesch:

http://www.luthersem.edu/ctrf/JCTR/Vol01/Colyer.htm#fnref4

...

Theology: A "Faith-responsive Science"

62. In much of Bloesch's discussion, theology sounds like an essentially practical discipline:

Theology endeavors to present a true picture of the activity of divinity that serves to illumine the pilgrimage of faith. Its purpose is not to give abstract knowledge of God but to direct humanity to its spiritual home for the glory of God. (Word and Spirit 116)

Bloesch is, however, willing to grant that theology is a science, not in the sense of natural science, but in the sense that it is true and certain (Word and Spirit 115). We can have real knowledge of God, though it is partial, broken, and only open to the eyes of faith. "God makes himself an object of our understanding, but this can be perceived only in faith" (Word and Spirit 118-9).20

63. For this reason Bloesch calls theology a "faith-responsive science" (Word and Spirit 118). Its goal is to hear the Word of God through Scripture as the medium under the illumination of the Holy Spirit and then 1) systematically reflect upon that Word utilizing the resources of the history of Christian thought, 2) explicate the Word for the church, and 3) relate it to the particular age and cultural milieu in which the church finds itself.

64. True theology, in Bloesch's perspective, is self-transcending in that it constantly points beyond itself to Jesus Christ. It also has an eschatological orientation. The doctrine that the church develops in theological inquiry "will not become one with the dogma of revelation until the eschaton--when we will know even as we are known" (Word and Spirit 19). The holy catholic faith can never be definitively formulated by human beings.

...

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. 42. nt

[cosmik debris]

2. Theology is a science?

I guess astrology is a science too. It was my understanding that the -ology ending meant "study of". That doesn't mean "scientific study of".

Perhaps I could understand better if someone could tell me how theology uses scientific principles to study god, faith or such things.

[Meshuga]

5. Yep, Donald Bloesch lost me already

at the title by using the word "science".

[BurtWorm]

9. His definition of science (if this summary of his thought is accurate) is shaky

"Bloesch is, however, willing to grant that theology is a science, not in the sense of natural science, but in the sense that it is true and certain (Word and Spirit 115)."

Science is anything but certain, which is what distinguishes it from things like theology.

In my excursion into theology yesterday, I was struck by the number of professional theologians--the highly respected ones, presumably, whom Dawkins has been criticized for not taking seriously enough in The God Delusion--who hold as a central tenet of their profession that its labors are for the glory of Christ (not just god, which, in this atheist's opinion, would be odd enough). Of course, this mandated bias disqualifies it as a science.

[trotsky]

10. "Certain"???

:rofl:

I guess the proof is how every person in the world agrees on what god is and what it wants. :sarcasm:

[Meshuga]

11. I disagree with him...

...saying that theology is "true and certain", maybe a believer might be certain about his/her theology being true but theology is a system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions. Perhaps Bloesch is certain about his theology but theology is not a science and if he takes a scientific approach to explain his theology then he is opening himself up for ridicule. :-)

[damntexdem]

3. Yeah, sure, theology used to be the 'queen of the sciences' --

back when the church ruled intellectual life. Now, they're wannabes.

Science has nothing to do with theology, can say nothing about its topics. Faith is faith, and science is science -- they simply differ. Neither science nor theology are well served when theologians come sniffing around science for legitimacy.

[cosmik debris]

6. Fifteen or twenty years ago

There was a case before the Arkansas Supreme Court about teaching creation science. The Justices ruled that "science is what you do, not what you believe." I'm not sure that applies, but I like to think about it. :)

[GeorgeGist]

4. BS

[skepticscott]

7. Nahhhhhhhh

Theology is the art of devising palatable answers to all of the embarrassing questions we atheists keep asking about the Bible. And a full time job it is....

[Dorian Gray]

8. It's classified

as a social science, much like sociology and philosophy. It's not a true science, like all the natural sciences that we know and love.

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. I'm not a big Bloesch fan, but he is partly correct here, esp. about theology being a science.

Theology SHOULD be done as a science - that is, as something actually studied in a scientific method, not just made up. Now, I know some of you naysayers will have (and already have had) your automatic knee-jerk reaction of crying FOUL! when anyone mixes the word "science" with the word "theology" or "religion", BUT, like any academic discipline done in a scholarly way, theology is a science. (sadly, not for all theologians, but then neither is all science done properly, nor all economics, nor all history, nor all dentistry, nor all literature... and so on).

You may argue that what theologians are talking about is bullshit - that's fine, and that's your right.

But the good theologians ARE doing their theology scientifically, or academically - which is to say, it's research --> make a hypothesis --> test it with more research/experiments --> re-evaluate hypothesis --> do it all over again, include some peer review and peer input, and so on.

Bloesch, unfortunately, is an obnoxious theologian, though - he is utterly Christocentric and basically ignores the possibility of truth of any other religion or of atheism, and he is very biased toward more traditional (though not quite fundamentalist) Christianity and seems to have shortsightedness in distinguishing between what's properly Christian and what is merely socially constructed in America by Christians. I differ with him there. He is a United Church of Christ member, and was trained in one of our seminaries, but he has often spoken out against the liberal tendencies of UCC theology (and also spoken out against fundamentalist theologies and the theology of the evangelical right; but he comes down as too much of a narrow-focused Barthian, IMO, which makes him just as myopic and narrow as the ones who only do liberation theology or Creation Science).

[cosmik debris]

14. Wow! How do you design an experiment to test the

existence or impact of god? How do you design an experiment to test the efficacy of faith? How do you quantify the results of prayer?

I'm pretty sure you will dodge those questions, but I had to ask.

Edit: and when you talk about peer review, are you talking about scientists or theologian peers?

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. Easy

1. You can't.

2. Depends on what you mean by "efficacy", and what you mean by "faith", but one could do some statistical modeling of faithful versus those who do not practice a faith, but setting up such a thing would be difficult.

3. Statistical modeling would be the only solution to that question.



Those are not, however, questions that theology is interested in. Physical scientists might be interested in them, or maybe psychologists; perhaps atheists or that small subset of theology called Christian (or whatever religion) apologetics.

And by peer review, I mean review by peers - which for theologians would be fellow theologians. Just like physicists are peer reviewed by fellow physicists and not shoe salesmen or the guys in marketing, so theologians would be peer reviewed by theologians.

[cosmik debris]

22. If you can't prove the validity of your first principles

Then there is no basis for calling it science...anymore than astrology is a science. Just substitute astrology for theology and see how lame it sounds.

And if it was a science that is not reviewed by scientists, it has no value.

So do tell, what experiments are these theologians conducting?
What questions do they ask or attempt to answer? What hypothesis do they test?

keep digging

[Meshuga]

15. I have a question

"But the good theologians ARE doing their theology scientifically, or academically - which is to say, it's research --> make a hypothesis --> test it with more research/experiments --> re-evaluate hypothesis --> do it all over again, include some peer review and peer input, and so on."

Can you give us a name and an example of this in practice?

[cosmik debris]

16. I prayed that you would answer that post

and it happened. There's your proof. Shall we repeat the experiment? :)

[Meshuga]

18. If you prayed for this one as well

then I think we have enough proof. :-)

[cosmik debris]

19. Two for two! We need peer review now.

Pray harder for peer review.

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. sure

Don Bloesch (the guy under question here)
James Cone
Karl Barth
Schillebeeckx
Calvin
Luther
Russel
Panenberg
Carter Hayward
Christopher Morse
Larry Rasmussen
Hans Kung
Niebuhr
Tillich
Comstock
Chung Kyung Yung
Brueggemann
Fackre
Borg
Crossan
Bonnhoeffer
Oduyoye
Bev Harrison
Cornel West
Robin Scroggs
Martin Marty
William Willimon
Yancey
Shinn
Copenhaver


Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

[Meshuga]

21. But the second part of my question was...

...can you give me an example of the quote below in practice?

"But the good theologians ARE doing their theology scientifically, or academically - which is to say, it's research --> make a hypothesis --> test it with more research/experiments --> re-evaluate hypothesis --> do it all over again, include some peer review and peer input, and so on."

[Rabrrrrrr]

23. The example would be their bodies of work.

Take a gander at the theology of James Cone as an example that is quite obvious to see - check out his first book ("God of the Oppressed") versus his last couple of books, written decades later after years of peer review and dialogue with other theologians, his students, and even people of other faiths.

[cosmik debris]

24. Dialog may equal research, but does not equal experiments.

You'll have to do better than that.

[varkam]

13. A Faith-responsive science?

Apparently, we simply can't use the language that we've all agreed upon. It strikes me that some theists have a deep and unrelenting urge to cast religion as a science and science as a religion. :eyes: