Monday, October 14, 2013

Ologies and ersatz ologies.

Getting real
We have a wide of variety of ologies: things we subscribe to measure and study. Ology comes from the Greek word meaning to study. All matter can of course be measured because of a simple fact—matter has perceptible, objective and measurable properties. Thus science properly concerns itself with such areas of study as biology, meteorology, physiology, geology, cosmology, etc., all of that, and more is accepted as legitimate science and anything objective is changing constantly. Some times these changes are subtle (as in the case of quantum changes) and other times they are sudden and obvious (as in the case of a hurricane). But whether we can detect and measure such changes does not alter the fact: matter changes. Little controversy arises over that issue, unless a person stays locked into egotistically vested interests or remains in a state of denial and refuses to accept clear scientific givens. Such was the case before Galileo while humans insisted that the earth was the center of the universe and believed it was flat. It applies now when people (for vested political reasons) refuse to acknowledge that we affect environmental conditions.

The question is, can something imperceptible, immeasurable and unchanging properly be an ology? If I were to write the sentence, “I see myself,” according to grammatical construction, “I” would be the subject, “see” the verb and “myself” the object being seen. But if we should flip that sentence around so that it reads, “Myself sees I” we would agree over the absurdity of the statement and properly ask how can an object (the measurable me) be in possession of consciousness? It is assumed that while a subject (the immeasurable me) is conscious, my skin and bones are not without the union of subject with object.

This same analogy applies to our supreme creator, the apparent object of study in theology: the study of God. The necessary presumption in this study is that God can be turned into an objective entity, convenient for study. Does that presumption stand the proof of an ology? Any intelligent, and unbiased person will quickly answer that theology can’t be anything other than an ersatz science. Even among religious radicals there is agreement that God can’t be contained, limited or measured. So who is fooling whom? Nevertheless theology continues on as it has for centuries based on the assumption that we can know God in the ordinary way that a biologist knows about biological matter.

Without question the presence of God can be experienced but that can never be a matter of proof. All agree on that score, so just perhaps it is time to face the truth and change theology to thepístis (pístis being the Greek word for faith): thus faith in God. So long as we continue to label this area of interest an ology we engage in pretense and continue to fuel the fires of radicals who claim things that can only be a matter of speculation.
Post a Comment