It's still all make-believe. And I say this as someone who has had an interest in Fortean and occult lore for years - it's just folklore people choose to pretend is real.
How can theology be a metaphor for truth when the core of what it's trying to reason about is unknowable?
"Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief" [1]. The latter part I get, lots of people and groups (and regions) have religious beliefs and differences, so it's definitely worth some effort to figure out (from a sociological or anthropological view) what's going on within and between groups of people.
I also get the ethics and philosophy parts, trying to what it means to be "good" etc. But this study of the divine is pure horses*t - even if it's not all just made up, then by definition it's still unknowable. If it's something that someone has just concocted on a whim and claimed it was dictated to them by the Almighty, then it's at best a 2nd or 3rd hand source and a dubious one at that.
In my estimation it is, in its basest explanation, a means of hacking religious reward system of ones own brain. We have this spiritual nature to us which cannot be explained, but the study of the divine is an excercise in honing and directing that spiritual aspect. This can absolutely affect real change in ones own mindset and behaviour. In this way, I say it is metaphor that reveals truth. It reveals truth about the way our brains work, what motivates us, how to direct ones own will, etc.
Now, on a more abstract and heady level, I would posit that because these techniques do induce real change in our brains, that they may point at a truth outside of ourselves. For instance- when I hear of occult practicioners worshipping demons of greed in order to obtain personal wealth- it makes me think that the idea of "demons" ought mot to be tossed out ebtirely. In a certain sense, theyre real. Worship of these demons amounts to giving oneself over to the spirit of that demon (e.g. greed) now does this mean there is a real flying bat like demon creature - no, but it is a lesson in the nature of these demons within ourselves. We all have inner aspects which are base and immoral, and when we choose to feed them, it is akin to worshiping a deity- i creasing the influence and control it has over your thought processes.
Hope this made sense. I find the intersection of occult practice, jungian psychology, and judeo christion demonology to be a very very rich subject where surprising insights abound.
You might like to look at some apologetical writing. Christian apologetics, for example, are often split into three layers, essentially:
1. Is there a God - this is actually fairly straightforward to argue, simply because we can use analytical philosophy to reason about the unknowable and first causes and so on.
2. Is Jesus God - much tougher to approach for obvious reasons, but can at least be reasoned about if you've gone through step 1.
3. Should I be x sort of Christian - easier to reason about if you accept 1 & 2.
That first step is very approachable if you're already interested in things like logical proofs and higher physics.
Your first layer isn't really "Is there a God" but "Does the Judeo-Christian God exist?" Like Pascal's Wager, Christian apologetics begins by assuming that the only God that can possibly exist is the one Christians already believe in.
And neither logic nor higher physics proves that Christianity has the right idea out of the multitude of human religions and infinitude of possibilities beyond.
@krapp - Disagree on that point. Obviously the three above are going to break down into further stages, but there are plenty of apologetic arguments which squarely fall into a broad question of "is there a God?" and not a more specific question.
You're right about the starting point though. By its very nature it has to start there, but it doesn't assume that the people it'll be arguing with will be in the same place.
