Formulation of the Claim
The text favors Lacoste’s definition of theology as a more precise conceptual delimitation than the others.
Explanation
This atom indicates that Arkoun does not treat the term theology as a word with a fixed meaning, but chooses a specific definition for it because it is better suited to delimiting the field in which the discussion moves. The preference here is not a merely linguistic detail; rather, it signals that the meaning of the term itself lies at the heart of critical inquiry.
This choice appears within Arkoun’s manner of questioning inherited concepts and reorganizing them according to the degree of clarity or ambiguity they allow. Hence the reference to Lacoste suggests that defining theology is not a neutral matter, but part of constructing a reading and revising the boundaries drawn by religious and epistemic discourse.
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This atom appears in a broader context that gives special attention to concepts and makes defining terms a necessary step before any judgment or analysis. From this perspective, the preference for Lacoste’s definition of theology accords with Arkoun’s tendency to examine the conceptual tools themselves rather than merely using them as they have settled into traditional usage.
The atom also belongs to theses closer to a critique of closed uses of religious concepts and to a search for definitions that enable a more open and precise reading. It thus indicates that the struggle is not with content alone, but with the way that content is defined.
Limits of the Claim
This atom should not be loaded with more than it can bear in terms of detail about Lacoste’s definition itself, or about Arkoun’s full position on theology. It establishes a conceptual preference, but by itself it is not sufficient to infer a broad theoretical framework.