MT36. In process.
Copyright © 2004 by Kevin Sharpe. All rights reserved.
In process. Submitted for presentation at the 2005 URAM conference.
by
Kevin Sharpe
Graduate College, Union Institute and University, Cincinnati, Ohio
Harris Manchester College, Oxford University
kevin.sharpe@tui.edu
www.ksharpe.com
QUESTIONS AND TO DO.
ABSTRACT.
A previous presentation to this conference argued that we discover the nature of Ultimate Reality from our spiritual nature, and we discover that with science. What then is theology? It creates frameworks of meaning centered on the idea ‘God.’ This means that its subject is the universe and everything in it (in other words, all and any part of our experience), and can be seen as an anthropomorphizing of the universe. This presentation explores the nature and limitations of such frameworks of meaning.
KEY WORDS.
CONTENTS.
Old paper: Because scientific research suggests how the universe, including ourselves, operates and comes to be, science can – and does – suggest how we might increase our happiness. These strategies have evolved into us. This is an aspect of Ultimate Reality at work, however, and thus the happiness strategies say something about how we might live in tune with the work of Ultimate Reality. The present article reports scientific studies of happiness and other human qualities in the hope that such undertakings might offer us the opportunity to learn about our spiritual selves and the nature of Ultimate Reality in relation to us. // We discover the nature of Ultimate Reality from our spiritual nature and we discover that with science. Conversely, the nature of Ultimate Reality as it pertains to our lives is our spiritual selves. Scientific knowledge of our (spiritual) selves, therefore, goes hand in hand with knowledge of Ultimate Reality.
1. Start with the last URAM paper and add TM01 (or vice versa). Where to then? What then is theology?
2. My assumptions, including monism Þ God Í the universe, and the spiritual = happiness, etc.
3. Theology is a FOM (framework of meaning) centered on the idea ‘God.’
4. Theology’s reference is the universe, i.e., God Í the universe or God = the universe. This plus (3) Þ theology is anthropomorphizing the universe.
5. Theology must be compatible with or conform to all other knowledge and be open to testing. (It’s a shame it must subject itself this way, but it has tried too long to lord it over everything else.)
6. Need a FOM have a supreme power (the universe, God)? To unify our lives (Kaufman)? Makes sense but I’m not sure we need this or if this the best way to do it.
7. Then, how do existing theological FOMs stack up? Can they be adjusted to this starting point? Or do we need to start theology from scratch? E.g., the Christian one in which JC = X = God…yuck! Problems with JC = God in a literal sense. Look at my MT01 piece on this as this is my last attempt at theology. MT33 on meaning: attempts to show a biological need for and then to build a FOM.