There is a historical reason and cultural continuation from the ages past when theology was the main subject studied by the learned men and that is why it is still considered a science and taught in universities. However, today as sciences have evolved, theology has become a rudiment of the past. A non-science. The modern scientific approach may begin with a premeditated premise, but it also will accept the results, that would deny the possibility of the premise. In theology the researchers have allready decided what the result will be and only work to prove it. This is not a very good method to reach any objective conclusions. And even if something objective information was ever found this way, it could not be evaluated to be such, because of the preassumption eating away any credibility. If other sciences worked the same way, they would hardly ever develope anything new.

Culturally there is a traditional place among sciences for theology, but in reality and in the field of realistic research, it has been replaced by the religion studies, that actually study how and why people believe rather than what gods want from us. We have given up on alchemy in favour of chemistry and physics. Is it time to do the same with theology in favour of religion studies and sociology?

Theology serves as a perfect example of cultural evolution (yes there is that horrible word again). How people sincerely come to different conclusions about the logic and will of the gods, from their own cultural traditions, holy books and personal subjective perspective. And naturally all the other people who percieve gods differently have got it wrong. Right? But why is it gods do not set these wrong impressions right? Are gods malicious? Do gods want us to argue, fight and even kill each other for the different theological interpretations? They certainly do not interfere, if we do. To be more precise, gods do not interfere in human life in any way. None that could be proven,  anyway. People have faith that gods do influence their lives, even when more natural explanations are readily awailable. The lack of natural explanation does not lead to the knowledge, that a god did it. But it is often assumed to be the explanation. Why would people not choose to want to know what really happened, rather than to believe and have faith on obscure and often ancient explanations that can not be proven, but rely on not having been disproven? Is it some form of serious lack of emotional security that is enhanced by faith in a destiny set by the cultural projections of their hopes and fears?

Throughout history millions of people worshipping a multitude of different gods and even same god as percieved by their respective cultures have genuienly believed that it is the case, that their god actually expects them to kill other people. Does it make any sense? Historically and sociologically yes. It is quite typical for humanity, but it really paints a very strange picture of the gods. At this point perhaps the concept of free will should be mentioned. It really has nothing to do with that. The followers of this or that theologian (read demagogue) who have done terrible things by the divine commands of their god have mostly been very religious, had faith in their god to guide them and obeyed blindly what their god has demanded from them. Oddly enough the divine orders have never been given by these gods directly, but allways releyed by this or that shaman, magos, prophet, priest, scripture, or what have you. No god has ever appeared to stop innocents from being killed. Little kids and newborn babies have been killed by the millions without any god ever interfering in any way. Sometimes the murderers have been fanatics of this or that god, and sometimes not. No divine power has been spent to save them. Why? Because the murderers simply used their free will to do the evil they did. Often enough their motivation was to do good or to obey this or that command from their god. If no god appeared to interfere, it only goes to prove that the gods evaluated the free will of the murderers more valuable than the free will of their victims. The free will of the murdered would no doubt have been to continue their lives while the free will of the murderer was to murder, so letting the free will of the murderer happen, what ever god was watching only proved to show more value on the free will of the aggressor. Unless the god was so weak it could not interfere, but gods are hardly ever described to be so weak.

The problem about theology is that by existing it makes itself obsolete. To explain the divine will and meaning of the words of gods, only goes to prove there are no gods. You see, if there were gods they, with the help of their divine powers, could communicate with us humans without the help of theology. Unless they chose not to communicate with us, in wich case theology would be an act of prying into things the gods do not wish to expose to us humans.