The Post-Theological Umbrella by David Niose

[YankeyMCC]

(snip)
Another way to address the issue is to attempt to improve the public's perception of the atheist identity. This is a worthy goal, and surely it should be encouraged. Given time, the image of atheism in America might improve, as people slowly realize that atheists are more likely to be found in research labs than in prisons or drug hideouts. But this approach, even if it works, will take time, and one must consider whether other strategies might be possible.

This question of atheism, and specifically how the public's poor image of atheists makes the advancement of humanism difficult, became a topic of discussion with a friend at a recent conference. Her response pointed to a third way to address the issue: "When people ask me about atheism," she said, "I just tell them I consider myself post-theological."

How brilliant, I thought. Rather than discuss and debate the existence of God, she focuses attention on the concept of theology itself. She dismisses not God, but the entire notion of theology as an area of inquiry that is worthy of consideration. By calling herself post-theological, she isn't making the rejection of God-belief the key ingredient in her identity; she is pointing out that, from a historical perspective, theological inquiry itself is no longer a valid means of finding truth or morality.
(snip)

(snip)
It's noteworthy that humans aren't the first animals to reach the theological stage. Scientists tell us that our older cousins, the Neanderthals, buried their dead and had religious relics that suggest that they also asked deep questions that required theological answers. Hence, we can see that theological speculation is a natural stage in the development of extremely advanced animals.
(snip)

http://thehumanist.org/humanist/Umbrella-Niose.html

The motivation for this might be part of the idea of some to reject the label 'atheist' which I don't agree with. We are atheist and we should insist on our own rational definition of it not accept the definition given by most theist, but this 'post-theological' frame is an interesting one.

What do you all think?

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. 'Post-theological' sounds a bit theoretical to me

It might be one thing to write a review of a book saying "the author takes a post-theological approach to ethics", but to call yourself 'post-theological' seems strange. 'Theology' isn't really a word people apply to people, but to an academic (or at least intellectual) study.

'Post-religious' might be better (and fits better with phrases like 'lapsed Catholic'), because people do call themselves 'religious' - or maybe 'post-spiritual' (because of the large numbers of people who say "I'm not religious, but I am spiritual" - which tends to mean "I don't like organised religion, but I still believe in supernatural events", IMHO).

I'm happy with 'atheist', myself.

[YankeyMCC]

2. That was my second reaction

my first was "Oh no more 'lets not use the word atheist' stuff' then as I read I thought it was an awkward phrase and not really appropriate to be anti-thestudyofsomething

But further on it's clear what they mean is something ore akin to your suggestion of post-religious - I like that better, but like you I'll stick to 'atheist' for the quick and easy answer. I just think this post-religious approach and the ideas discussed in the article might be useful as discussion points if I get into a discussion with a little more depth with a theist.

[phantom power]

3. It's an economic way of alluding to choices of epistemology.

Received wisdom is a bad way to learn anything about the world. Science, ethics, culture, or anything. Religion is fundamentally about received wisdom.

Saying "post theological" is saying, "the best way to acquire knowledge is by continuous dialog amongst ourselves, and referring to our observations about the world"

[Warpy]

4. Post theological might fit parts of northern Europe already

since most people are deists, if they believe at all. The nice, comfy, Sunday school god who looked out for little children and never sent you more than you could handle was killed off by two world wars and a depression between them. If they're still believers at all, they believe in a very impersonal deity and go to church to connect with the past and congregate with the present, not believe a single word of rubbish from the pulpit.

I'm definitely living in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, I'm not post theological. I'm an atheist.