Can Theology Be Realistic?

What if you have an understanding about God and its relationship with humanity that doesn't rely on magic or a Disneyland cartoon faith-based narrative? Is it still a theology? If your understanding of God includes the notion that this entity did engineer and initiate the evolution of all that you are and know as a corporeal human, while not being the be-all/end-all of physical existence, can you still claim your understanding to be theological in nature?

It seems that unless you can't explain it in terms other than esoteric poetry and ethereal inverted phraseology, then it is mere philosophy, and not theology. And yet, if this entity is responsible for the physical existence of you and all that you know to exist, isn't that entity your god? Especially if your existence serves an end result on behalf of this entity?

What constitutes a theology? Does it require the embrace of the unknowable? Does it have to be logically impossible? Is blind faith and the grateful acceptance of inherent ignorance the only measure of a proper theological devotion?

Originally posted by NorEaster
It seems that unless you can't explain it in terms other than esoteric poetry and ethereal inverted phraseology, then it is mere philosophy, and not theology.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mere" philosophy?

Regardless, the distinction between philosophy of religion and theology is vague. They both use the same methods and have the same subject matter.

A (crude) way of defining it is that philosophy of religion is thinking about religion in an abstract and analytical manner. Theology is philosophy of religion with God's existence as a basic undoubtable fact.