Ologies and ersatz ologies.

Getting real

Ology comes from the Greek word meaning to study. We have a wide variety of ologies: things we can measure.  All matter can, of course, be measured because of a simple fact—matter has measurable properties. Thus science properly concerns itself with such areas of study as biology, meteorology, physiology, geology, cosmology, etc., all of that, and more are accepted as legitimate science, and anything objective is continuously changing. 

Some times these changes are subtle (as in the case of quantum changes), and other times they are sudden and undeniable (as in the case of a hurricane). But whether we can detect and measure such changes does not alter the fact: matter changes. Little disagreement 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. 

There are, and have been times, when politics, vested interests, and other biases have dominated scientific evidence.  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, or more immediately when we refuse to accept the evidence that we can throw caution to the wind, not wear proper protection and avoid becoming infected by a virus we can’t see.

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 I see. 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) possess consciousness? It is assumed that while a subject (the immeasurable me) is conscious, my skin and bones are not, without the union of subject and 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 transformed into an objective entity, convenient for exploration. 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 the agreement that God can’t be contained, limited, or measured. So who is fooling whom? Nevertheless, theology continues as it has for centuries based on the assumption that we can know God as a biologist knows about 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.