Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: ippy on January 09, 2017, 07:31:05 PM
-
Whilst I think most of us know the history of the origins of our universities, I don't think their history bears any relevence to the following; it should be timely to start calling time on theology as a suitable subject for universities now, only if we're going to continue with theology, there might just as well be courses on Astrology, Tarot reading or Witch Hunting; none of them really subjects worthy of serious study, any more.
I wouldn't expect subjects like theology etc, to dissapear overnight but their gradual decline should be releasing valuable space and funding, all be it gradually, for more science and other productive subjects and the remaining followers of these old ideas have still got their oganisations that should be able to follow up with assisting any of those wishing to continue with them and at the same time seperate them from any of the present state funding.
Ippy
-
Why not jusrt get rid of all subjects you deem frivolous? Next philosophy because, let's be honest, most philosophers just talk bollocks. Neither do you need a degree to paint a picture.
-
Why not jusrt get rid of all subjects you deem frivolous? Next philosophy because, let's be honest, most philosophers just talk bollocks. Neither do you need a degree to paint a picture.
More nonsense that doesn't stand up to examination than frivolous, mainly in its magical, mystical and superstition departments.
At least philisopohy is usefull and there are a multitude of skills and diffent processes to learn about turning out good paintings and you only need to be gullible to take up religious belief.
ippy
-
Whilst I think most of us know the history of the origins of our universities, I don't think their history bears any relevence to the following; it should be timely to start calling time on theology as a suitable subject for universities now, only if we're going to continue with theology, there might just as well be courses on Astrology, Tarot reading or Witch Hunting; none of them really subjects worthy of serious study, any more.
I wouldn't expect subjects like theology etc, to dissapear overnight but their gradual decline should be releasing valuable space and funding, all be it gradually, for more science and other productive subjects and the remaining followers of these old ideas have still got their oganisations that should be able to follow up with assisting any of those wishing to continue with them and at the same time seperate them from any of the present state funding.
Ippy
You might as well get rid of the Sciences and the Humanities, ippy. After all, they're no more relevant to real life than Theology. In fact, you might just as well get rid of education as a whole.
-
More nonsense that doesn't stand up to examination than frivolous, mainly in its magical, mystical and superstition departments.
At least philisopohy is usefull and there are a multitude of skills and diffent processes to learn about turning out good paintings and you only need to be gullible to take up religious belief.
ippy
Sorry, ippy, can you provide any evidence that science is relevant to real life that doesn't rely on science itself?
-
More nonsense that doesn't stand up to examination than frivolous, mainly in its magical, mystical and superstition departments.
At least philisopohy is usefull and there are a multitude of skills and diffent processes to learn about turning out good paintings and you only need to be gullible to take up religious belief.
ippy
You're talking bollocks. Using your logic you could argue that we shouldn't waste money on space missions because the money could be used to feed the starving. Yet somehow I doubt you would argue such a thing. Exactly the same logic though.
-
Theology is a junior branch of philosophy. To be fair most subjects at university have little to do with much real life, and most of those that do could be better served by some reimagining as complex apprenticeships
-
Whilst I think most of us know the history of the origins of our universities, I don't think their history bears any relevence to the following; it should be timely to start calling time on theology as a suitable subject for universities now, only if we're going to continue with theology, there might just as well be courses on Astrology, Tarot reading or Witch Hunting; none of them really subjects worthy of serious study, any more.
I wouldn't expect subjects like theology etc, to dissapear overnight but their gradual decline should be releasing valuable space and funding, all be it gradually, for more science and other productive subjects and the remaining followers of these old ideas have still got their oganisations that should be able to follow up with assisting any of those wishing to continue with them and at the same time seperate them from any of the present state funding.
Ippy
Theology departments are and have been repositories of philosophical study in dark times. Since New Atheist philosophy is in such a parlous state now is the time to actually support since a chiefly secular Britain has made a complete pigs ear of national education.
If there are savings to be made they should cut things like having chairs of the public awareness of science who IMHO squander that to promote antitheism.
-
Theology departments are and have been repositories of philosophical study in dark times. Since New Atheist philosophy is in such a parlous state now is the time to actually support since a chiefly secular Britain has made a complete pigs ear of national education.
If there are savings to be made they should cut things like having chairs of the public awareness of science who IMHO squander that to promote antitheism.
If you're fantasizing about Dick again, that wasn't public money.
-
I read something in yesterday's Sunday Times about Theology at University in the UK and how it is watered down now, leaving out any gory details like the crucifixion in deference to students of a sensitive nature. The journalist, whom I think was Rod Liddle, called the universities a particular name (such as Zombie or Moron), but I will have to fish the paper out of the bin to be sure. You can't get it online without subscribing. Maybe someone else has it.
Oh ad_o, as you mentioned it, I think money spent on space missions could be better spent, quite frankly. It's not a question of logic but of priority. Putting tin cans in the sky is not going to help people who struggle to top up the electricity and have to go to food banks. When I think of those on the breadline, I can understand why they latch on to politicians who promise change; they do not have the time or energy to go into politics in more detail.
However, I digress.
-
I read something in yesterday's Sunday Times about Theology at University in the UK and how it is watered down now, leaving out any gory details like the crucifixion in deference to students of a sensitive nature. The journalist, whom I think was Rod Liddle, called the universities a particular name (such as Zombie or Moron), but I will have to fish the paper out of the bin to be sure. You can't get it online without subscribing. Maybe someone else has it.
Oh ad_o, as you mentioned it, I think money spent on space missions could be better spent, quite frankly. It's not a question of logic but of priority. Putting tin cans in the sky is not going to help people who struggle to top up the electricity and have to go to food banks. When I think of those on the breadline, I can understand why they latch on to politicians who promise change; they do not have the time or energy to go into politics in more detail.
However, I digress.
Liddle is an idiot. The crucifixion is not left out but when they are going to watch certain dramatisations of it, there is a warning that some may find the gore disturbing.
As for the second paragraph if it wasn't for 'pointless scientific' investigation, there wouldn't be electricity to top up. We spend way more on pet food. than space exploration
-
I don't care for Liddle but I was interested in that article, not saying I believe it was all true though it wouldn't surprise me.
Found it, it wasn't in the bin. The title is: Pass me a bludgeon: zombie universities are cosseting students
The course is called: "Creation to Apocalypse: Introduction to the Bible."
-
The crucifixion was certainly part of the mainstream course I attended at the Glasgow University faculty of Divinity too long ago to easily remember......
-
I amended my above post having found the article. Looking at it, it doesn't seem to be a mainstream course, Anchor. Frankly, I'd have thought anyone doing Honours in Theology would have already been introduced to the Bible, and more.
-
Didn't stop us trying to fall asleep during certain lectures, though! Mind you, there were great lecturers and visiting lecturers as well, not to mention some famous semi retired faces such as Willie Barclay, who still taught and debated when I was there.
-
Explains a lot! A Universalist.
-
I don't care for Liddle but I was interested in that article, not saying I believe it was all true though it wouldn't surprise me.
Found it, it wasn't in the bin. The title is: Pass me a bludgeon: zombie universities are cosseting students
The course is called: "Creation to Apocalypse: Introduction to the Bible."
Liddle certainly belongs in the bin! ... hope you've disposed of it now :)
-
My cat has designs on it.........
-
Whilst I think most of us know the history of the origins of our universities, I don't think their history bears any relevence to the following; it should be timely to start calling time on theology as a suitable subject for universities now, only if we're going to continue with theology, there might just as well be courses on Astrology, Tarot reading or Witch Hunting; none of them really subjects worthy of serious study, any more.
I wouldn't expect subjects like theology etc, to dissapear overnight but their gradual decline should be releasing valuable space and funding, all be it gradually, for more science and other productive subjects and the remaining followers of these old ideas have still got their oganisations that should be able to follow up with assisting any of those wishing to continue with them and at the same time seperate them from any of the present state funding.
Ippy
'physics is the only subject ,everything else is just stamp collecting'.
Ernest Rutherford (not)
-
'physics is the only subject ,everything else is just stamp collecting'.
Ernest Rutherford (not)
Well at least science is going somewhere, better to finance science, than the kind of subject that amounts to little more than the exploits of your friendly local Ju Ju man.
ippy
-
Why not jusrt get rid of all subjects you deem frivolous? Next philosophy because, let's be honest, most philosophers just talk bollocks. Neither do you need a degree to paint a picture.
The difference between all those other sugjects and theology is that the latter has absolutely nothing at the core of it to study. Last year I started atopic on this on Ship of Fools and after pages and pages, not one single fact had emerged about the God that is supposedly at the heart of all the writings about it, or any other god.
I'm right with Ippy on this one.
-
The difference between all those other sugjects and theology is that the latter has absolutely nothing at the core of it to study. Last year I started atopic on this on Ship of Fools and after pages and pages, not one single fact had emerged about the God that is supposedly at the heart of all the writings about it, or any other god.
I'm right with Ippy on this one.
But Ippy's a fucking heathen, that's why. I expected better of you.
-
The difference between all those other sugjects and theology is that the latter has absolutely nothing at the core of it to study. Last year I started atopic on this on Ship of Fools and after pages and pages, not one single fact had emerged about the God that is supposedly at the heart of all the writings about it, or any other god.
I'm right with Ippy on this one.
theology as with most philosophy iand much of the humanities is about the study of what we think, what we have thought and how we do that thinking. You can study theology just as you do Marxism without a belief and it is taught just as Marxism is. Should we get rid of political study at university as well?
-
I don't care for Liddle but I was interested in that article, not saying I believe it was all true though it wouldn't surprise me.
Found it, it wasn't in the bin. The title is: Pass me a bludgeon: zombie universities are cosseting students
The course is called: "Creation to Apocalypse: Introduction to the Bible."
Why wouldn't it surprise you?
-
theology as with most philosophy iand much of the humanities is about the study of what we think, what we have thought and how we do that thinking. You can study theology just as you do Marxism without a belief and it is taught just as Marxism is. Should we get rid of political study at university as well?
The subject of politics is a study of human behaviour; no-one thinks there is some mystical, invisible, supernatural being who started it.
Since religious beliefs result from a belief in a God/god/s, then theology has a vacuum at its core.
Definition of theology:the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
-
Since religious beliefs result from a belief in a God/god/s, then theology has a vacuum at its core.
Definition of theology:
And? Politics is studied in the examination of what people believe and so is theology. Both cover elements of human behaviour. Trying to airbrush religion from human behaviour is odd. Why is it that studying this aspect of human behaviour causes you issues?
-
And? Politics is studied in the examination of what people believe and so is theology. Both cover elements of human behaviour. Trying to airbrush religion from human behaviour is odd. Why is it that studying this aspect of human behaviour causes you issues?
I'm off to the gym now - I'll reply later!
-
Theology in Universities goes back a long way in history, especially the role of religion when many of the established Universities were founded. A couple of quotes from Wiki (below) suggests that the study of theology isn't necessarily a form of proselytising, and in any event I can't see how human culture, history, politics or philosophy can be studied without some awareness of the nature of religious belief.
In some contexts, scholars pursue theology as an academic discipline without formal affiliation to any particular church (though members of staff may well have affiliations to churches), and without focussing on ministerial training. This applies, for instance, to many university departments in the United Kingdom, including the Faculties of Divinity at the University of Cambridge and University of Oxford, the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Exeter, and the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Leeds.
In some contemporary contexts, a distinction is made between theology, which is seen as involving some level of commitment to the claims of the religious tradition being studied, and religious studies, which by contrast is normally seen as requiring that the question of the truth or falsehood of the religious traditions studied be kept outside its field. Religious studies involves the study of historical or contemporary practices or of those traditions' ideas using intellectual tools and frameworks that are not themselves specifically tied to any religious tradition and that are normally understood to be neutral or secular.[62] In contexts where 'religious studies' in this sense is the focus, the primary forms of study are likely to include:
Anthropology of religion
Comparative religion
History of religions
Philosophy of religion
Psychology of religion
Sociology of religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology
-
But Ippy's a fucking heathen, that's why. I expected better of you.
Out of interest is a fucking heathen more heathen-y, than just your everyday heathen? If so, in what way?
-
At an early point in the film The Paper Chase Professor Kingsfield tells his students in his Contract Law class at (a close copy of) Harvard Law School that they teach themselves the law, but he teaches them to think.
And this is an important element of higher education. A university should not be concerned with training but with education. What a university should be doing is developing high level skills - the ability to evaluate, to analyse, to synthesise, to inform and convince, and to apply. These are all skills that are vital for effective performance at tactical and strategic organisational levels and can be important in operations. Anyone entering a university should be aware that the acquisition of these skills is the real purpose of tertiary level education and that the subject area is the context within which they are developed.
There is no reason why any subject area may not be an appropriate forum for higher-level skill development - even Theology (or media Studies, for that matter). To the best of my understanding, Theology is not taught as a belief-enhancing subject but as an aspect of human behaviour and culture which is worthy of involved study and investigation and which does not require the holding of any beliefs. A Theology department could be staffed entirely by atheists and still be effective. The important considerations are the depth and complexity of the subjects being studied and the fact that they are amenable to investigation, analysis and argument.
The majority of graduates do not find employment related to the subject areas they studied, and most of those do, eventually rise above the operational levels of their organisations to become administrators away from the detail of their academic subjects.
Providing the high-level cognitive skills have been acquired, a Theology graduate should be as capable as an English, or History, or Mathematics, or Biology or Geography ... or even Media Studies ... graduate of being an effective manager.
One of the problems of the massive expansion in university places that took place a couple of decades ago is that all university entrants are not necessarily well-fitted to higher education. That was a shallow political move to reduce levels of structural unemployment. A further problem with higher education has been the introduction of fees - this has resulted in students perceiving themselves as consumers of a product (teaching) rather than as participants in the process of learning.
-
And? Politics is studied in the examination of what people believe and so is theology. Both cover elements of human behaviour. Trying to airbrush religion from human behaviour is odd. Why is it that studying this aspect of human behaviour causes you issues?
I think what she means is its not a serious subject for a university, a church maybe, in your own time and financial support
-
Lovely post, HH but to me even removing the issues of the expansion and fees, both of which I see as separate arguments, it seems somewhat rose tinted in its portrayal of what was university life. As someone who sat in a Contracts class, it concentrated on the ability to recall and regurgitate more than thinking. Some courses at the universities I have attended were good but many were run by people whose teaching or educating skills were no more developed than a carrot.
Even then the hand of needing to publish haunted the idea of tenure to such an extent that the educational nous was a lucky add on.
-
You might as well get rid of the Sciences and the Humanities, ippy. After all, they're no more relevant to real life than Theology. In fact, you might just as well get rid of education as a whole.
You don't seem to have noticed the part of my post where I referred to the various religion based organisations, could continue with these studies because it's really now time they should be finding and funding their own places without the very convenient state funding assisting them to stand on the front foot any more.
Philosophy is a legitimate study at our universities and during the course of teaching philosophy of course there would be a need to refer back to he old relious beliefs from time to time, but as time goes by wethether you like it or not modern life is calling time on religious beliefs and should be throttling back on state funding/support of any relgion based studies, the gradual phasing out of theology would only be a part of the inevitable demise of mythical beliefs; characters like Zeus etc have now more or less disappeared.
Set up your own colleges of theology Hope, with your own funding, no one is going to stop you, me least of all.
ippy
-
The difference between all those other sugjects and theology is that the latter has absolutely nothing at the core of it to study. Last year I started atopic on this on Ship of Fools and after pages and pages, not one single fact had emerged about the God that is supposedly at the heart of all the writings about it, or any other god.
I'm right with Ippy on this one.
On another forum I once asked a question which met with a similarly deafeningly silent response: is there such a thing as good and bad theology, and how do you tell the difference?
-
I thought I covered posts 27 and 29 in my posts; can't see any areas where I expressed anything would differ with anything said in either of these posts.
ippy
-
Why shouldn't people be able to study whatever they like as long as someone is available and wants to teach it at that level?
-
Lovely post, HH but to me even removing the issues of the expansion and fees, both of which I see as separate arguments, it seems somewhat rose tinted in its portrayal of what was university life. As someone who sat in a Contracts class, it concentrated on the ability to recall and regurgitate more than thinking. Some courses at the universities I have attended were good but many were run by people whose teaching or educating skills were no more developed than a carrot.
Even then the hand of needing to publish haunted the idea of tenure to such an extent that the educational nous was a lucky add on.
I was just about to post but you beat me to it . Your assessment is rather more gentle than mine .
I would add not all university degrees have equal value , a bit like a swimming certificate compared with a Olympic gold medal .
-
Sorry, ippy, can you provide any evidence that science is relevant to real life that doesn't rely on science itself?
Your normal ref to N P F, again Hope.
ippy
-
I thought I covered posts 27 and 29 in my posts; can't see any areas where I expressed anything would differ with anything said in either of these posts.
ippy
I think you did but it would seem some people feel a tad rattled .
-
Lovely post, HH but to me even removing the issues of the expansion and fees, both of which I see as separate arguments, it seems somewhat rose tinted in its portrayal of what was university life. As someone who sat in a Contracts class, it concentrated on the ability to recall and regurgitate more than thinking. Some courses at the universities I have attended were good but many were run by people whose teaching or educating skills were no more developed than a carrot.
Even then the hand of needing to publish haunted the idea of tenure to such an extent that the educational nous was a lucky add on.
My views are ... err ... conditioned by the fact that I spent the best part of a quarter of a century teaching in HE. I started doing HE work (post-A level) in an FE college and, without moving, ended up in a new university. I know what I wanted my students to do and to achieve and it was also disappointing to see many who would end up with a degree which they didn't really deserve. But then, there were also the ones who were a delight to teach.
One of the most disappointing aspects of my work was the "efficiency driving" of HM government. Pushing up student numbers without any real increase in resources so that class sizes increased, reducing opportunities to get to know students as individuals.
Perhaps the strongest weapon that I had in my armoury, though, was the ability to set assignments and state assessment criteria which would reward thinking skills rather than fact regurgitation. There is no reason why Theology should not be amenable to such an approach.
-
NS: Theology is not taught as a belief-enhancing subject but as an aspect of human behaviour and culture which is worthy of involved study and investigation and which does not require the holding of any beliefs. A Theology department could be staffed entirely by atheists and still be effective. The important considerations are the depth and complexity of the subjects being studied and the fact that they are amenable to investigation, analysis and argument.
Valid points.
HH: ...set assignments and state assessment criteria which would reward thinking skills rather than fact regurgitation. There is no reason why Theology should not be amenable to such an approach.
That is excellent, you have the right approach (imo).
-
And I am sure you, HH, were a great educator, but that doesn't stop many of those who are attempting to educate in HE being there because they are academically good but incompetent at best at educating. And yes that is a factor to an extent off the Govt approach as the need to generate research cash drives a lot of this but it was and has been my experience as one of those being 'educated' at different tines for over three decades that this gas been a constant (even if the individual circs change).
Despite enjoying my time immensely when I attending university full time, my experience is that it would be better for many if it was part time and we looked at the whole concept of life long learning in a much more flexible way. Indeed, it's one of the things that pains me about current political thinking on the subject that we seem as ever to be solving the last problem but one.
As for theology, I absolutely agree it is amenable to being a subject in being taught how to think, and as I would even suggest that there is an argument that a basic primer should be compulsory if doing philosophy or politics as the need to understand it as a motivation seems all the more pressing.
-
Out of interest is a fucking heathen more heathen-y, than just your everyday heathen? If so, in what way?
;D
A heathen is someone who does not subscribe to an established religion, having or not having sexual intercourse does not alter that one bit.
ad_o, your remark is hardly an articulate, well thought out argument. I thought better of you!
-
I think what she means is its not a serious subject for a university, a church maybe, in your own time and financial support
Why us understanding the motivation and thinking about something that is part of the lives of billions not a serious subject?
-
I thought I covered posts 27 and 29 in my posts; can't see any areas where I expressed anything would differ with anything said in either of these posts.
ippy
Could you point out where saying theology shouldn't be a university topic and HH's post in #29 which argues that it should be are in line? Or indeed where you are in line with Gordon's post in #27?
-
Why us understanding the motivation and thinking about something that is part of the lives of billions not a serious subject?
I didn't say it wasn't , just that it should not take up space and money in a university. Once a student learns that billions of people around the world are engaged in activities related to mythological beliefs , which in my case was in secondary education, then that's the end of it . If a person wants to further their own learning in that subject then they are free to do so ,as a kind of hobby , like a geography student might collect stamps.
-
I didn't say it wasn't , just that it should not take up space and money in a university. Once a student learns that billions of people around the world are engaged in activities related to mythological beliefs , which in my case was in secondary education, then that's the end of it . If a person wants to further their own learning in that subject then they are free to do so ,as a kind of hobby , like a geography student might collect stamps.
Once a person learns people think there are different ways to organise society round the world then surely that iis it for politics too?
-
Could you point out where saying theology shouldn't be a university topic and HH's post in #29 which argues that it should be are in line? Or indeed where you are in line with Gordon's post in #27?
Mayby not in the amount of lineage written but if you take a combined read of my posts on this thread I'm more or less in line with his line of thought.
Where religions have no verifiable evidence that can backup their magical, mystical and superstitious content, I find child like, I also find it easy to afford them all of the respect I feel is due to them, maybe that's where we differ N S, perhaps being polite about the religious beliefs people hold is a better way, but when I look back on my experiences with these people it looks like my approach differs from yours, I don't see religion as an overall benifit to society.
I have refered to references to religions during a course on philosophy where necessary, why not? It's a fact that religions are a part of our history.
As I keep explaining, I don't do numerous pages of foollscap where I feel commonly understood colloquial English should be enough; I don't mean any offence to you N S, but I don't see you as any kind of a dimwit, my posts arn't that obscure, if they're obscure at all.
ippy
-
I always wonder who should decide on university subjects. It seems a bit weird that because some people think theology is a non-subject, therefore they should decide. But I don't know who does decide, I guess it's partly tradition. I would be in favour of maximum freedom to study what you want. This reminds me of Feyerabend, who used to argue for astrology and rain-dancing. Well, not yet.
-
It would be useful to know the extent to which studying theology in universities currently was a precursor to a career in the ministry - from the link I posted early it seems this isn't necessarily the case here in the UK. I think the RCC consume their own smoke regarding the training of priests, and in institutions that are specifically religious it is to be expected that theology will figure, although these seem to be more an American model of higher education.
Given the role of religion throughout history and across cultures I'd have thought that theology in a non-proselytising sense was a valid area of academic study, similar to the likes of anthropology and ethnography, where there is possibly some crossover. English literature and literary criticism are well-established academic subjects and I'm struggling to understand why, for instance, 18th century poetry would be a respectable area of study but, again for instance, comparing creation myths wouldn't.
-
;D
A heathen is someone who does not subscribe to an established religion, having or not having sexual intercourse does not alter that one bit.
ad_o, your remark is hardly an articulate, well thought out argument. I thought better of you!
Yep.
I'd point out that the head of the Glasgow University faculty of theology (after my time, and but recently translated elswere, was a Moslem - Mona Sedequi.
That didn't stop many of all faiths, and none, studying the discipline.
Divinity with a view toward Christian ministry's a whole different issue here - part funded by the sate, part private, and part subsidised by the church(es) which sponsor the student.
-
And? Politics is studied in the examination of what people believe and so is theology. Both cover elements of human behaviour. Trying to airbrush religion from human behaviour is odd. Why is it that studying this aspect of human behaviour causes you issues?
I can see this thread has been busy while I was (a) at the gym, then (b) *sigh* shopping at Tesco. My Assisted Shop assistant was very helpful as they always are. I will write this before putting everything away. *another sigh*!!
I did not say or indicate that religion should be air-brushed, or in any way removed from human behaviour or the study of such behaviour. It has of course been an integral part of human existence since pre-historic times. (as always, I'll mention here that I'd love to have been a fly on the wall observer in order to have heard the thoughts of those long-ago atheists, of whom there must have been quite a few, who would, of course, have kept quiet.)
There are no aspects of human behaviour which should remain unstudied, but a degree in theology cannot include a fact about the God/god/s believed in by anyone.
As for Theology being taught by a staff of atheists, well, I'd like to hear of where this has happened and to investigate the philosophy and beliefs of those teachers!
I've read through other posts already, but think there were one or two points I'd like to refer to, so - back later.
ETA to add that, no, I do not have 'issues' with university courses except about truth; anything or anyone which/who tells children that a God/god/s exists in any form except as an idea in human minds is where I have an 'issue'. I speak as one who was assured of the existence of God when young, even though no other religious doctrines were involved.
And final edit: Just because I said, 'I'm with Ippy on this one' does not mean that I think Theology should not be a university course, it is not my job to choose university courses, but I wish I was young enough to go and heckle at one!! They should be on the decline if they are not already.
-
I can see this thread has been busy while I was (a) at the gym, then (b) *sigh* shopping at Tesco. My Assisted Shop assistant was very helpful as they always are. I will write this before putting everything away. *another sigh*!!
I did not say or indicate that religion should be air-brushed, or in any way removed from human behaviour or the study of such behaviour. It has of course been an integral part of human existence since pre-historic times. (as always, I'll mention here that I'd love to have been a fly on the wall observer in order to have heard the thoughts of those long-ago atheists, of whom there must have been quite a few, who would, of course, have kept quiet.)
There are no aspects of human behaviour which should remain unstudied, but a degree in theology cannot include a fact about the God/god/s believed in by anyone.
As for Theology being taught by a staff of atheists, well, I'd like to hear of where this has happened and to investigate the philosophy and beliefs of those teachers!
I've read through other posts already, but think there were one or two points I'd like to refer to, so - back later.
ETA to add that, no, I do not have 'issues' with university courses except about truth; anything or anyone which/who tells children that a God/god/s exists in any form except as an idea in human minds is where I have an 'issue'. I speak as one who was assured of the existence of God when young, even though no other religious doctrines were involved.
Theology in UK universities isn't taught in a way that god+s) are taken as facts. Perhaps both you and ipoy need to consider that you have been objecting to a strawman based on your lack of knowledge of what happens? As for atheists, I don't know of any departments that are manned entirely by atheists but both the university lecturers in theology that are friends are atheists, one bring completely secular, the other being a Buddhist.
-
Yep.
I'd point out that the head of the Glasgow University faculty of theology (after my time, and but recently translated elswere, was a Moslem - Mona Sedequi.
That didn't stop many of all faiths, and none, studying the discipline.
Divinity with a view toward Christian ministry's a whole different issue here - part funded by the sate, part private, and part subsidised by the church(es) which sponsor the student.
I think you may have identified the issue here. Anchorman, in that what ippy and Susan Doris might be addressing is Divinity rather than Theology.
-
On another forum I once asked a question which met with a similarly deafeningly silent response: is there such a thing as good and bad theology, and how do you tell the difference?
No deafening silence on SofF!! All sorts of ideas, suggestions, etc, etc and an occasional point of view that I didn't know what I was talking about, but a very interesting discussion. I can't remember if I had the last word! :D
-
Why shouldn't people be able to study whatever they like as long as someone is available and wants to teach it at that level?
Absolutely agree; however, how can you teach about God - because that point - i.e. existence of God(/god/s) - cannot be ignored in theology, can it.
-
On another forum I once asked a question which met with a similarly deafeningly silent response: is there such a thing as good and bad theology, and how do you tell the difference?
is there such a thing as good and bad philosophy and how do you tell the difference? Is there such a thing as good and bad politics and how do tpyou tell the difference? I can study Marxism and indeed critique it without having to be a Marxist. I can also gain an understanding of why people might believe it, how they have been challenged in their thought and what the responses have been. To he honest, I find most coverage of politics and philosophy at university follows the need to critique, and show flaws rather than understand. When you have read thirty junior politics essays on why Marx was wrong, you begin to wonder why Marx is read at all when there are all these hugely clever 19 year olds who know exactly why he ead wrong.
Similarly with theology, it's a fascinating subject with many ramifications for political thought, and an understanding of the human condition.
-
Absolutely agree; however, how can you teach about God - because that point - i.e. existence of God(/god/s) - cannot be ignored in theology, can it.
Again you don't seem to understand that this isn't how theology is taught at university in the UK. You seem to have it as a branch of philosophy confused with Divinity courses.
-
Susan, at one time the Open University Theology/Religion module was taught by atheists. It may still be the case but I am not up to date with what goes on there.
Ninian Smart was an agnostic Professor of Theology.
-
I think you may have identified the issue here. Anchorman, in that what ippy and Susan Doris might be addressing is Divinity rather than Theology.
No, I am not thinking of the subject of divinity, nor is my post bringing up a strawman, unless you can show me to be wrong. Since whatever the content of courses in theology is I doubt very much whether there is one which does not involve the study of some works of those who believe in the existence of God. Therefore, at the core of theology is an absence.
Break for lunch; and if my computer shows 'This page can't be displayed' when I come back, I shall NOT BE PLEASED"""
-
My husband, then a 'born again' Christian, studied theology and science for his first degree, loosing his faith as a result of his studies.
-
No, I am not thinking of the subject of divinity, nor is my post bringing up a strawman, unless you can show me to be wrong. Since whatever the content of courses in theology is I doubt very much whether there is one which does not involve the study of some works of those who believe in the existence of God. Therefore, at the core of theology is an absence.
Break for lunch; and if my computer shows 'This page can't be displayed' when I come back, I shall NOT BE PLEASED"""
. Of course it involves studying works by people who believe in god, are you honestly saying that we could study Marxism without reading those who believed in Marx and so therefore must all be Marxists if we study it.
By the way nice user of the Negative Proof Fallacy in the first sentence.
-
I think you may have identified the issue here. Anchorman, in that what ippy and Susan Doris might be addressing is Divinity rather than Theology.
I assume we are supposed to be living in an enlightened world and as such why is there still a subject like theology being put forward by universities, where and if any relevent aspect of theology is needed it can and should be brought up within the overall subject of philosophy.
I wouldn't expect to see state funding of the study of astrology in our universities, nor divinity or theology for an exactly similar reason.
ippy
-
Agree with NS that the study of Religion/Theology will include works by people of faith, it is frequently taught and studied by people who have no faith or are agnostic.
(Floo, many have a loose faith ;). Your old man obviously loosed it so much, it fell off!
Susan, just had Ocado delivery, Tesco arrives tomorrow.)
-
I assume we are supposed to be living in an enlightened world and as such why is there still a subject like theology being put forward by universities, where and if any relevent aspect of theology is needed it can and should be brought up within the overall subject of philosophy.
I wouldn't expect to see state funding of the study of astrology in our universities, nor divinity or theology for an exactly similar reason.
ippy
You seem to be clinging to your strawman that it is taught as factually true in theology courses that god(s) exist, why is this?
-
My husband, then a 'born again' Christian, studied theology and science for his first degree, loosing his faith as a result of his studies.
-
And?
Part of my degree course involved 'british' history.
That was not realluy succesful in helping me be a nice little brit.
-
I get the impression ippy thinks it is a pointless subject, whether or not students have religious beliefs.
-
You seem to be clinging to your strawman that it is taught as factually true in theology courses that god(s) exist, why is this?
What makes you think of straw men NS, the only thing is perhaps your idea of the dictionary definition of theology differs from mine, I don't feel any need to describe things within you terms nor I guess visa versa for you; you, it seems to me, love long drawn our discussions about semantics, you can have them to your hearts content, just don't involve me in any of them.
ippy
-
What makes you think of straw men NS, the only thing is perhaps your idea of the dictionary definition of theology differs from mine, I don't feel any need to describe things within you terms nor I guess visa versa for you; you, it seems to me, love long drawn our discussions about semantics, you can have them to your hearts content, just don't involve me in any of them.
ippy
Then you're in the wrong place, pal.
-
I get the impression ippy thinks it is a pointless subject, whether or not students have religious beliefs.
Yes that would be about right Brownie, I find religious belief to be irrational especially the magical, mystical and superstitious parts of them, zero evidence and all of that.
ippy
-
Then you're in the wrong place, pal.
I see you're still here, A O?
ippy
-
Again you don't seem to understand that this isn't how theology is taught at university in the UK. You seem to have it as a branch of philosophy confused with Divinity courses.
Theology, then, is a study of what people over the centuries have believed about a God they believe exists? It is a study of human beliefs. It cannot contain a study of the 'nature of God', unless they provide the God first.
-
Theology, then, is a study of what people over the centuries have believed about a God they believe exists? It is a study of human beliefs. It cannot contain a study of the 'nature of God', unless they provide the God first.
which is how it is taught at UK universities, and why it is a perfectly sensible subject.
-
Yes that would be about right Brownie, I find religious belief to be irrational especially the magical, mystical and superstitious parts of them, zero evidence and all of that.
ippy
all human activity in that sense is irrational.
-
Theology in UK universities isn't taught in a way that god+s) are taken as facts. Perhaps both you and ipoy need to consider that you have been objecting to a strawman based on your lack of knowledge of what happens? As for atheists, I don't know of any departments that are manned entirely by atheists but both the university lecturers in theology that are friends are atheists, one bring completely secular, the other being a Buddhist.
Okay; how do they teach Theology without reference to God?
-
What makes you think of straw men NS, the only thing is perhaps your idea of the dictionary definition of theology differs from mine, I don't feel any need to describe things within you terms nor I guess visa versa for you; you, it seems to me, love long drawn our discussions about semantics, you can have them to your hearts content, just don't involve me in any of them.
ippy
No,I'm dealing with the facts i9f how and why it is taught in UK universities. You are dealing in the semantics and false representation of them.
-
. Of course it involves studying works by people who believe in god, are you honestly saying that we could study Marxism without reading those who believed in Marx and so therefore must all be Marxists if we study it.
No, I do not doubt that Marx existed and that he wrote a great deal about what he thought and knew and therefore his work can be studied. By the same token of course all the works and ideas of those who did, or did not, believe in God/god/s can be studied, but all the studies there are do not, to my knowledge, contain one FACT about God/god/s.
By the way nice user of the Negative Proof Fallacy in the first sentence.
Yeah!! But at 80 I'm unfazed by my personal use of such things!!!
-
You seem to be clinging to your strawman that it is taught as factually true in theology courses that god(s) exist, why is this?
I've read Ippy's post twice and I do not see this.
-
No, I do not doubt that Marx existed and that he wrote a great deal about what he thought and knew and therefore his work can be studied. By the same token of course all the works and ideas of those who did, or did not, believe in God/god/s can be studied, but all the studies there aree do not, to my knowledge, contain one FACT about God/god/s. Yeah!! But at 80 I'm unfazed by my personal use of such things!!!
But the people who wrote and beluved the theology existed just as Marx did. Marxism may or may not contain any facts about why it us correct. It contains fact in the sane way as theology.
I don't see why age has anything to do with using logical fallacies. Does that mean that Hope will be allowed to use them in a few years and no one should point out the illiucality? Or is it just you want to have double standards for your beliefs?
-
I've read Ippy's post twice and I do not see this.
it's in his comparison to astrology directly implying that it would be taught as fact. Of course you might struggle to get that it is there as you have been arguing against the same strawman continually throughout this thread.
-
But the people who wrote and beluved the theology ...
What do you mean - 'beloved the theology? I think, you know, that you are avoiding the central point that there is not one fact about the God (or god/s) which is a human idea and which started off all theology.
... existed just as Marx did.
Of course the people existed, but unless evidence is available, the God/god/s did not. Marxism may or may not contain any facts about why it us correct. It contains fact in the sane way as theology.
Tell me one fact in theology which is not an entirely human idea. I don't see why age has anything to do with using logical fallacies. Does that mean that Hope will be allowed to use them in a few years and no one should point out the illiucality? Or is it just you want to have double standards for your beliefs?
I was joking! I should have put a couple of smileys!! :) :)
-
What do you mean - 'loved the theology? I think, you know, that you are avoiding the central point that there is not one fact about the God (or god/s) which is a human idea and which started off all theology.Of course the people existed, but unless evidence is available, the God/god/s did not.Tell me one fact in theology which is not an entirely human idea. I was joking! I should have put a couple of smileys!! :) :)
it was a typo, a misspelling of believed. And no I'm not avoiding any point. I don't think the value of understanding what people think is based on the truth of what they think. I don't think Marxism is true, nor do u think any political system can be built on truth in the sense that it is true that one should be a Marxist.
Theology as a subject is not taught in UK universities as if god(s) exist, as if there is the one fact that you are asking about. So your objection is as already covered based on a strawman.
Why would a smiley apply to your use of a logical fallacy? Does that make your argument any less based in the falfalkacy and therefore any less wrong?
-
What makes you think of straw men NS, the only thing is perhaps your idea of the dictionary definition of theology differs from mine, I don't feel any need to describe things within you terms nor I guess visa versa for you; you, it seems to me, love long drawn our discussions about semantics, you can have them to your hearts content, just don't involve me in any of them.
ippy
and that includes me too , ippy
-
and that includes me too , ippy
So you are another one content to argue against a strawman and ignore facts about what theology is at university?
-
it was a typo, a misspelling of believed. And no I'm not avoiding any point. I don't think the value of understanding what people think is based on the truth of what they think.
I quite agree.I don't think Marxism is true, nor do u think any political system can be built on truth in the sense that it is true that one should be a Marxist.
Also agree. Theology as a subject is not taught in UK universities as if god(s) exist, as if there is the one fact that you are asking about. So your objection is as already covered based on a strawman.
Whichever way Theology is taught, whatever the contents of the course, whoever are the students, however many texts they study, however many debates they might have on whether this person was wiser than that, there is still no God(/god/s) seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted anywhere, at any time ... ... unless someone comes up with a fact. And if that counts as the NPF I would point out that I am not claiming that a God is impossible, but those who believe that a God(/god/s)exists are responsible for producing a fact about he/she/it.
Why would a smiley apply to your use of a logical fallacy? Does that make your argument any less based in the falfalkacy and therefore any less wrong?
Pass.
-
I quite agree.Also agree. Whichever way Theology is taught, whatever the contents of the course, whoever are the students, however many texts they study, however many debates they might have on whether this person was wiser than that, there is still no God(/god/s) seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted anywhere, at any time ... ... unless someone comes up with a fact. And if that counts as the NPF I would point out that I am not claiming that a God is impossible, but those who believe that a God(/god/s)exists are responsible for producing a fact about he/she/it.
Pass.
You seem to be arguing here about whether theism is true or gas any facts that are true? Why? That's got nothing to do with theology as a subject at university, just as whether Marxism is true, or has a fact to support it doesn't affect whether it is it should be a subject at university.
-
So you are another one content to argue against a strawman and ignore facts about what theology is at university?
tell me the facts then.
-
Doesn't matter what theology is or isn't, if students are interested in something and want to study it, what business is it of ippy, Walter or anyone else to tell them that they can't?
Universities aren't there to teach "facts" or even anything useful. Newton spent more time studying theology and alchemy than physics or maths. Many brilliant scientists and mathematicians studied completely pointless subjects at various times.
-
tell me the facts then.
it's already been covered in the thread. Theology is not taught as if it is true. If you argue against it in that basis as ippy has been it's a strawman.
-
In some places, theology is taught as if it is true:
https://www.wycliffehall.org.uk/
http://www.stmarys.ac.uk/undergraduate/theology-and-religious-studies/
-
Doesn't matter what theology is or isn't, if students are interested in something and want to study it, what business is it of ippy, Walter or anyone else to tell them that they can't?
Universities aren't there to teach "facts" or even anything useful. Newton spent more time studying theology and alchemy than physics or maths. Many brilliant scientists and mathematicians studied completely pointless subjects at various times.
I'm with you, buddy. I find all this talk of truth, facts, and so on, completely Gradgrindian, and bizarre, actually. It also boils down to personal prejudice - I don't like X, therefore X should not be studied. I live near the Royal Ballet School, and I'm not a fan of ballet, but I would find it horrific if someone said that ballet should not be subsidized. My son did a degree in photography, completely pointless really, but it was a good training for him.
-
In some places, theology is taught as if it is true:
https://www.wycliffehall.org.uk/
http://www.stmarys.ac.uk/undergraduate/theology-and-religious-studies/
Both of which private institutions, not public ones,though Wycliffe is associated with Oxford
-
You seem to be arguing here about whether theism is true or gas any facts that are true? Why? That's got nothing to do with theology as a subject at university, just as whether Marxism is true, or has a fact to support it doesn't affect whether it is it should be a subject at university.
No, I am talking a bout Theology as a subject. A definition of theology includes studying the 'nature of God'. If every university wants to run a course for students to take a degree in Theology or not, and whether they believe there is a theistic truth in it or not, they are of course free to do so, but since it is a subject based - unless evidence appears otherwise - that does not contain a fact about God(/god/s), then it is, as I have seen quoted quite often, a study of no thing, I,e. a study of the millions of human words, beliefs philosophies and ideas about God/god/s.. I do not see how that has 'nothing to do with the study of theology at university.
No doubt the understanding of our human history, the psychology of belief, etc greatly enhances a student's wisdom, etc, and if a student's critical thinking is also much greater at the end of the course, more power to their elbows, but if the student comes away with a belief that all those millions of words and thoughts prove that there is some God/power/something at the core, than I think they will be very much mistaken.
P.S. In between last post and this, I've had one of those 'page can't be displayed' windows, but fortunately it didn't last long and I'd remembered to copy what I'd typed!
-
(To NS) Ah! I didn't know they were private. For some reason I thought St Mary's was part of London Uni and, as you say, Wycliffe is part of the University of Oxford.
I've known people who have gone to them.
Still, private or not, they are universities.
Then there's this: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/trs/index.aspx
A study of the nature of God as believed by......
-
N?No, I am talking a bout Theology as a subject. A definition of theology includes studying the 'nature of God'. If every university wants to run a course for students to take a degree in Theology or not, and whether they believe there is a theistic truth in it or not, they are of course free to do so, but since it is a subject based - unless evidence appears otherwise - that does not contain a fact about God(/god/s), then it is, as I have seen quoted quite often, a study of nothing, I,e. a study of the millions of human words, beliefs philosophies and ideas about God/god/s.. I do not see how that has 'nothing to do with the study of theology at university.
No doubt the understanding of our human history, the psychology of belief, etc greatly enhances a student's wisdom, etc, and if a student's critical thinking is also much greater at the end of the course, but if the student comes away with a belief that all those millions of words and thoughts prove that there is some God/power/something at the core, than I think they will be very much mistaken.
P.S. In between last post and this, I've had one of those 'page can't be displayed' windows, but fortunately it didn't last long!
a definition of it may be that but definitions are not prescriptive. If a student cones away from studying Marxism thinking that Marxism is true, are you saying that we shouldn't study Marxism? Whether a student is in some way wrong after a course according to you seems to be what you want stopped. You post seems to imply that we shouldn't have theology as a subject because while it might help many people's wisdom,someone might end up being a theist. Are you really suggesting that the study of what people have thought and believed should be suppressed in case people become theists?
Again you seem to want to ignore how theology is studied because you have decided your strawman about it trumps facts. There is a thread of anti intellectualism in your position where you think opinion is better than facts.
-
(To NS) Ah! I didn't know they were private. For some reason I thought St Mary's was part of London Uni and, as you say, Wycliffe is part of the University of Oxford.
I've known people who have gone to them.
Still, private or not, they are universities.
Then there's this: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/trs/index.aspx
A study of the nature of God as believed by......
Not sure what I am supposed to be looking at on the last link, takes me through to a page with a lot of courses but I can't see the words following your link. Note St Mary's welcomed non RC and non theists so it's not clear what the approach to the teaching is.
-
No worries.
-
Whichever way Theology is taught, whatever the contents of the course, whoever are the students, however many texts they study, however many debates they might have on whether this person was wiser than that, there is still no God(/god/s) seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted anywhere, at any time ... ... unless someone comes up with a fact. And if that counts as the NPF I would point out that I am not claiming that a God is impossible, but those who believe that a God(/god/s)exists are responsible for producing a fact about he/she/it.
Pass.
It is a fact though that neither Winston Smith nor the Ancient Mariner exist and yet their portrayal in literature: along with the likes of Holden Caulfield, Tom Joad, Ebenezeer Scrooge and a host of others - and then there is poetry - is considered meaningful by readers and worthy of serious academic study.
So, while I don't buy into the divine being in any sense 'real' I do think that theology has its cultural, literary and historical merits even if it has its limitations: in some ways just like the academic study of fictional literature.
-
it's already been covered in the thread. Theology is not taught as if it is true. If you argue against it in that basis as ippy has been it's a strawman.
It seems to me that you have deliberately misunderstood ippy's OP for reasons known only to you (though I have strong suspicions) in order to create a straw man to attack him with. And as a consequence , me.
Also you are misunderstanding SusanDoris , why?
-
It seems to me that you have deliberately misunderstood ippy's OP for reasons known only to you (though I have strong suspicions) in order to create a straw man to attack him with. And as a consequence , me.
Also you are misunderstanding SusanDoris , why?
then you are incorrect. And I disagree that I am misunderstanding. Can I suggest that you attempt some arguments if you want to progress the discussion?
-
all human activity in that sense is irrational.
I'll say it again, with slightly different wording, drop the theology title and replace it by putting philosophy on the front foot, because that is the direction being taken more and more away from the present front footedness of theology and then sure as night follows day religious history can't be completly seperated from philosophy, nor should it be, then when necessary religion can still be refered to where it's relevent to philosophy.
In this modern world it's about time these religious places should be relegated to the level playing field area where as it seems to me they don't want be unless they are dragged there kicking and fighting, most religious believers still think making a level playing field for all involves them being persecuted without the realisation of how many privileges they have and will be losing.
I still say Astrology is as relevent as theology is and any teaching of gods and superstitions, it's about time all of that lot was relegated.
ippy
-
Please note - I modified my post while you were typing.
a definition of it may be that but definitions are not prescriptive. If a student cones away from studying Marxism thinking that Marxism is true, are you saying that we shouldn't study Marxism?
No we should study everything we can. The students of theology are studying human words, beliefs, ideas, etc as I said before.Whether a student us in some way wrong after a course according to you seems to be what you want stopped.
No, I do not want anything stopped In the end, the total lack of evidence for any God/god/s will be the majority view, and Theology courses willll become fewer and fewer. They will , i.e. all the words, thoughts and ideas, become a part of Philosophy. The funding for such courses is a separate question, I think.You post seems to imply that we shouldn't have theology as a subject because while it might help many people's wisdom,someone might end up being a theist. Are you really suggesting that the study of what people have thought and believed should be suppressed in case people become theists?
Of course not. Unsurprisingly, I think it would be a progressive move if more ended up by moving away from theism though.
Again you seem to want to ignore how theology is studied because you have decided your strawman about it trumps facts.
It is irrelevant how theology is studied. There is a thread if anti intellectualism in your position where you think opinion is better than facts.
You can think that if you wish, but you are incorrect.
-
No, I am talking a bout Theology as a subject. A definition of theology includes studying the 'nature of God'. If every university wants to run a course for students to take a degree in Theology or not, and whether they believe there is a theistic truth in it or not, they are of course free to do so, but since it is a subject based - unless evidence appears otherwise - that does not contain a fact about God(/god/s), then it is, as I have seen quoted quite often, a study of no thing, I,e. a study of the millions of human words, beliefs philosophies and ideas about God/god/s.. I do not see how that has 'nothing to do with the study of theology at university.
No doubt the understanding of our human history, the psychology of belief, etc greatly enhances a student's wisdom, etc, and if a student's critical thinking is also much greater at the end of the course, more power to their elbows, but if the student comes away with a belief that all those millions of words and thoughts prove that there is some God/power/something at the core, than I think they will be very much mistaken.
P.S. In between last post and this, I've had one of those 'page can't be displayed' windows, but fortunately it didn't last long and I'd remembered to copy what I'd typed!
Studies concerning the nature of God are philosophical questions (theology in the academic sense is mearly a branch of philosophy) and fall under metaphysics. It does not require a belief in God.
-
I'll say it again, with slightly different wording, drop the theology title and replace it by putting philosophy on the front foot, because that is the direction being taken more and more away from the present front footedness of theology and then sure as night follows day religious history can't be completly seperated from philosophy, nor should it be, then when necessary religion can still be refered to where it's relevent to philosophy.
In this modern world it's about time these religious places should be relegated to the level playing field area where as it seems to me they don't want be unless they are dragged there kicking and fighting, most religious believers still think making a level playing field for all involves them being persecuted without the realisation of how many privileges they have and will be losing.
I still say Astrology is as relevent as theology is and any teaching of gods and superstitions, it's about time all of that lot was relegated.
ippy
Sorry I am not sure Iunderstand what you are trying to say here but it seems to be that what is currently studied under the title of 'theology' is not general OK to he studied but ypu want it not to be called theology. Whereas the strawman 'theology' is something different?
-
Please note - I modified my post while you were typing.No we should study everything we can. The students of theology are studying human words, beliefs, ideas, etc as I said before.No, I do not want anything stopped In the end, the total lack of evidence for any God/god/s will be the majority view, and Theology courses willll become fewer and fewer. They will , i.e. all the words, thoughts and ideas, become a part of Philosophy. The funding for such courses is a separate question, I think.Of course not. Unsurprisingly, I think it would be a progressive move if more ended up by moving away from theism though.
It is irrelevant how theology is studied.You can think that if you wish, but you are incorrect.
How on earth can how theology is studied be irelevant when you are stating opinions about how it should be studied?
BTW what does 'progressive move' in terms of people moving away from theism mean, and when you have explained it could you put forward your evidence for the claim.
-
Doesn't matter what theology is or isn't, if students are interested in something and want to study it, what business is it of ippy, Walter or anyone else to tell them that they can't?
Universities aren't there to teach "facts" or even anything useful. Newton spent more time studying theology and alchemy than physics or maths. Many brilliant scientists and mathematicians studied completely pointless subjects at various times.
You have misread my posts.
ippy
-
Apologies if this has been picked up already, but as I understand it Theology these days is taught at undergraduate level pretty much as RE is taught at school level - essentially "this is what various peoples believe and why". Which seems fine to me.
Divinity on the other hand is more "this stuff is true" in character. Whether universities should teach as true subjects they have no method to demonstrate to be true is another matter - on the one hand the libertarian in me says "why not?", but on the other if public funding is involved then I'd view it in the same way I think as I view the NHS funding homeopathy.
(Cue Nearly asking "so is Eng Lit methodologically "true" either?" but ok...)
-
In this modern world it's about time these religious places should be relegated to the level playing field area where as it seems to me they don't want be unless they are dragged there kicking and fighting, most religious believers still think making a level playing field for all involves them being persecuted without the realisation of how many privileges they have and will be losing.
Which has nothing to do with the relevance of human thought, including theology, to the development and history of the various cultural scenarios that people are/were part of. For example, it would be impossible to fully understand the events in the 17th century which lead to Charles I losing his head without taking into account the related theological issues that occurred here in Scotland.
I still say Astrology is as relevent as theology is and any teaching of gods and superstitions, it's about time all of that lot was relegated.
ippy
Which accredited UK university teaches astrology as fact these days?
-
Sorry I am not sure Iunderstand what you are trying to say here but it seems to be that what is currently studied under the title of 'theology' is not general OK to he studied but ypu want it not to be called theology. Whereas the strawman 'theology' is something different?
You seem to have made up your mind about what you want to think I'm saying, so sorry I'm not sure I understand what it is you want me to say, most other people that post here are not quite so pedant or picky about the perfectly ordinary English I use, if everybody else was expressing the same things you are about my posts you may of had something, but there.
See if you can clarify whatever it is you're saying without Involving three or four full pages of foollscap, however I somehow get the feeling if I was to say it's a nice day to you on nice day you'd still want to argue some point or another so have your last word please.
ippy
-
Nicholas Marks would know the answer to that, Gordon!
Cultural Astronomy and Astrology is taught at the University of Wales but that isn't teaching astrology as fact.
How about the Paranormal? I would think that is taught as part of the study of society.
They do seem strange things to admit to studying at university level. Quite embarrassing.
However Ippy feels the same way about theology.
-
Which has nothing to do with the relevance of human thought, including theology, to the development and history of the various cultural scenarios that people are/were part of. For example, it would be impossible to fully understand the events in the 17th century which lead to Charles I losing his head without taking into account the related theological issues that occurred here in Scotland.
Which accredited UK university teaches astrology as fact these days?
I have addressed the first part of your post in previous postings of mine, as for your question at the end of this post of yours, well, where did that come from, I know I mentioned astrology and theology and in the context I used when writing about those two, doesn't really relate to your question.
ippy
-
Well at least science is going somewhere, better to finance science, than the kind of subject that amounts to little more than the exploits of your friendly local Ju Ju man.
ippy
ippy, I'm not aware of any university that runs courses that deal with anything remotely related to 'the exploits of your local friendly Ju Ju man'. On second thoughts, there are some: the courses study superhero comics. Not media studies, but related I believe.
-
Your normal ref to N P F, again Hope.
ippy
Just asking you for evidence to support your position as stated in so many posts on this board.
-
I assume we are supposed to be living in an enlightened world and as such why is there still a subject like theology being put forward by universities, where and if any relevent aspect of theology is needed it can and should be brought up within the overall subject of philosophy.
I wouldn't expect to see state funding of the study of astrology in our universities, nor divinity or theology for an exactly similar reason.
ippy
What makes you think that 'enlightenment' doesn't include matters spiritual and therefore theological. I notice that you have still failed to provide any evidence in support of your particular stance.
-
It is a fact though that neither Winston Smith nor the Ancient Mariner exist and yet their portrayal in literature: along with the likes of Holden Caulfield, Tom Joad, Ebenezeer Scrooge and a host of others - and then there is poetry - is considered meaningful by readers and worthy of serious academic study.
Yes, but no-one thinks they are supernatural spirits or beings, no-one thinks they should be worshipped, or thinks they have texts going back more than two thousand years. The authors who created those characters are known to be human beings whose work merits study and admiration.
So, while I don't buy into the divine being in any sense 'real' I do think that theology has its cultural, literary and historical merits even if it has its limitations: in some ways just like the academic study of fictional literature.
Yes, but all those merits have human sources,and do not need 100% faith alone in order to believe that their source is other than human.
I've read that through several times - I'm not quite sure that it says what I intend!
-
I think what she means is its not a serious subject for a university, a church maybe, in your own time and financial support
the term 'Theology' covers all aspects of belief, Walter. It is certainly not confined to a single religious philosophy and I known of at least one theology department that deals as much with the philosophy behind atheism as it does that behind Hinduism, Jainism, Islam or Christianity. Not sure that restricting the study of such a massive subject to a religious building is necessarily appropriate.
-
Yes, but no-one thinks they are supernatural spirits or beings, no-one thinks they should be worshipped, or thinks they have texts going back more than two thousand years.
Science has texts going back more than two thousand years, Susan. Does that mean it shouldn't be studied, especially when there are those who claim that they base their lives on its precepts.
-
Studies concerning the nature of God are philosophical questions (theology in the academic sense is mearly a branch of philosophy) and fall under metaphysics. It does not require a belief in God.
I have not at any time said that it does.
-
I suppose ippy and others are arguing that theology equals belief in God. I don't think that has been true for a long time, has it? I did some week-end courses in theology a long time ago, and it was not about that at all.
Ah well, straw men grow and grow, if you water them with your prejudices.
-
the term 'Theology' covers all aspects of belief, Walter. It is certainly not confined to a single religious philosophy and I known of at least one theology department that deals as much with the philosophy behind atheism as it does that behind Hinduism, Jainism, Islam or Christianity. Not sure that restricting the study of such a massive subject to a religious building is necessarily appropriate.
I do .
-
I have not at any time said that it does.
So what's your problem?
-
How on earth can how theology is studied be irelevant when you are stating opinions about how it should be studied?
In which post did I state how it 'should be' studied?
Edited to add that when I said how it is studied is irrelevant, I mean that theology is in the end to do with God, so lack of evidence for that means that it is 100% human ideas etc etc which are being studied.In the end Theology is a house of cards! Okay, that is not well expressed, but it's the best I can do in a hurry!
BTW what does 'progressive move' in terms of people moving away from theism mean, and when you have explained it could you put forward your evidence for the claim.
For me, a progressive move away from theism would indicate a growing confidence in provable (not 100% of course) a far better understanding of reality, of the vast amount of knowledge available to us today on the facts about the sciences, and a better understanding of the total lack of facts about anything supernatural..
-
Yes, but no-one thinks they are supernatural spirits or beings, no-one thinks they should be worshipped, or thinks they have texts going back more than two thousand years.
indeed, but there is no doubt that while fictional characters aren't real their portrayal can be a vehicle to explore aspects of humanity, thus the likes of Holden Caulfield is notable, albeit rooted in place and time. I think theology, once putting claims of the divine to one side, can have a similar role as well as being a summary of thought in the context of its place and time in history.
The authors who created those characters are known to be human beings whose work merits study and admiration. Yes, but all those merits have human sources,and do not need 100% faith alone in order to believe that their source is other than human.
I'd say that there are aspects of theology that are just as human, including notions of the divine. Even so I still think there are valid reasons for studying theology: in terms of reviewing history, ignoring prevailing theology would lead to an incomplete understanding just as ignoring politics in relation to perspectives on Brexit would be a mistake.
You don't have to buy into what theology might claim by way of the divine to see its wider relevance.
-
Hope,
Science has texts going back more than two thousand years, Susan. Does that mean it shouldn't be studied, especially when there are those who claim that they base their lives on its precepts.
There's a big difference though. A 2,000 year old science text would be treated now as either valid or invalid. If the latter, then it would be studied only as, "here's what people thought to be true 2,000 years ago".
Old religious texts can of course be studied too, but there's no means to validate claims of, say, resurrections of people riding winged horses.
-
Gordon #122
What is your definition of Theology then? What do you think it is in Theology that makes it a separate subject from history, philosophy, etc?
-
What makes you think that 'enlightenment' doesn't include matters spiritual and therefore theological.
You are right, it does, encouraging and celebrating reason and independent thought.
-
Gordon #122
What is your definition of Theology then? What do you think it is in Theology that makes it a separate subject from history, philosophy, etc?
I'd say it is a subset of philosophy with links to anthropology and ethnography. Moreover I think it can be studied without accepting that specific claims in different theologies are factually true.
In short I'd tend to see it as an aspect of cultural history.
-
It is a fact though that neither Winston Smith nor the Ancient Mariner exist and yet their portrayal in literature: along with the likes of Holden Caulfield, Tom Joad, Ebenezeer Scrooge and a host of others - and then there is poetry - is considered meaningful by readers and worthy of serious academic study.
So, while I don't buy into the divine being in any sense 'real' I do think that theology has its cultural, literary and historical merits even if it has its limitations: in some ways just like the academic study of fictional literature.
A thesis I've often seen advanced, by some atheists and some liberal-minded believers alike, is that a feeling for religion is akin to an appreciation for art in much the way you suggest here, Gordon.
It always comes from deeply well-meaning people who show every sign of completely having failed to follow this idea through to its logical conclusion. This stems from overlooking, accidentally or deliberately, a rather salient fact: religions - especially "organised" and monotheistic ones - seek to control people's behaviour. They attempt to dictate what they do, what they wear, what they eat and when they eat it, who is a permissible sexual partner, all this and a thousand and one other attempts at making people act, even think in a certain way. This would be less objectionable - no less ridiculous, but less objectionable - if they attempted to do this only within their own ranks, but they don't. As sure as my arse points downwards, each and every time a religion thinks that it can control the behaviour of those outwith its own group, it will try to do so. Only three or four years ago, the established state church in England (not to mention all the other religious groupings sticking their snouts in likewise) was exerting pressure to prevent same-sex couples from getting married, even though this was a wholly secular, civil affair which had absolutely nothing whatever to do with them at all. Despite this, the staunch conviction of some that their entirely brain-bound idea of deity disapproved of equal marriage led them to attempt to scupper the government's plans to make it a reality. Thank goodness they failed - but that didn't stop them trying, because of their conviction that their idea of a god's likes and dislikes trumps anything as mundane as equal civil rights. Many, many other places in the world are not nearly as fortunate.
If religion really were in any way comparable to art this wouldn't be the case. It would be recognised that these are subjective matters hanging upon individual taste and inclination; I like this, you like that, we can discuss why I like this and why you don't, and come to an opposite but amicable conclusion to the matter. For the most part each side leaves each other alone: admirers of traditionalist representational art tend not to come to blows with votaries of abstract art, for example, or vice versa. I'm willing to listen to any evidence but I think I'm on firm ground in saying that nobody, anywhere, ever has put someone else's feet to the flames for liking Pound's Pisan Cantos over Pam Ayres. Religions rarely get to this stage, and if they do, it's after a very very long period of having their teeth pulled by increasing secularism. Religions can't have it both ways, though needless to say they will try at any and every opportunity. Either they dictate how people behave based on a belief in external, objective deities and their assumed likes and dislikes, or it's more like an opinion on the value of formalist poetry over vers libre. It's either "You should/shouldn't do this because this or that interpretation of a supposedly immaterial entity that I think exists - but can never demonstrate - says so", or it's "Well, whatever floats your potatoes, man", essentially, thereby giving up all and any pretensions of controlling people's behaviour. One or the other: it can't be both.
Fictional characters in literature doing fictional things in fictional settings are indeed worthy of serious academic study; but there's a consensus that they're fictional characters which doesn't exist in the same arena when it comes to religion. No doubt there are exceptions, but theologians presumably think that their endless lucubrations actually have some referent to some real state of affairs somewhere and somehow (though they're notably silent when it comes to explaining how this is supposed to work). There's not the same agreement that what is being discussed is imaginary and imaginative as there is in literature. I will be the first one to applaud when religionists come to that self-same conclusion.
And we'll have a damned sight more peaceful a world for it as well.
-
Shaker #127
*thumbs up emoticon*
-
I've often seen advanced, by some atheists and some liberal-minded believers alike, that a feeling for religion is akin to an appreciation for art in much the way you suggest here, Gordon.
It always comes from deeply well-meaning people who show every sign of completely having failed to follow this idea through to its logical conclusion. This stems from overlooking, accidentally or deliberately, a rather salient fact: religions - especially "organised" and monotheistic ones - seek to control people's behaviour. They attempt to dictate what they do, what they wear, what they eat and when they eat it, who is a permissible sexual partner, all this and a thousand and one other attempts at making people act, even think in a certain way. This would be less objectionable - no less ridiculous, but less objectionable - if they attempted to do this only within their own ranks, but they don't. As sure as my arse points downwards, each and every time a religion thinks that it can control the behaviour of those outwith its own group, it will try to do so. Only three or four years ago, the established state church in England (not to mention all the other religious groupings sticking their snouts in likewise) was exerting pressure to prevent same-sex couples from getting married, even though this was a wholly secular, civil affair which had absolutely nothing whatever to do with them at all. Despite this, the staunch conviction of some that their entirely brain-bound idea of deity disapproved of equal marriage led them to attempt to scupper the government's plans to make it a reality. Thank goodness they failed - but that didn't stop them trying. Many, many other places in the world are not nearly as fortunate.
If religion really were in any way comparable to art this wouldn't be the case. It would be recognised that these are subjective matters hanging upon individual taste and inclination; I like this, you like that, we can discuss why I like this and why you don't, and come to an opposite but amicable conclusion to the matter. For the most part each side leaves each other alone: admirers of traditionalist representational art tend not to come to blows with votaries of abstract art, for example, or vice versa. I'm willing to listen to any evidence but I think I'm on firm ground in saying that nobody, anywhere, ever has put someone else's feet to the flames for liking Pound's Pisan Cantos over Pam Ayres. Religions rarely get to this stage, and if they do, it's after a very very long period of having their teeth pulled by increasing secularism. Religions can't have it both ways, though needless to say they will try at any and every opportunity. Either they dictate how people behave based on a belief in external, objective deities and its assumed likes and dislikes, or it's more like an opinion on the value of formalist poetry over vers libre. It's either "You should/shouldn't do this because this or that interpretation of what I think exists - but can never demonstrate - says so", or it's "Well, whatever floats your potatoes, man", essentially, thereby giving up all and any pretensions of controlling people's behaviour. It can't be both.
Fictional characters in literature doing fictional things in fictional settings are indeed worthy of serious academic study; but there's a consensus that they're fictional characters. I will be the first one to applaud when religionists come to that self-same conclusion.
I'd agree with you: my view is that theology is relevant in terms of cultural and social history doesn't extent to the idea that what these theologies claim is necessarily true: thus I see all claims of the divine as being fallacious in one way or another and, like you, lacking in any supporting method or justifiable authority.
The stance of some elements in Christianity towards homosexual people is utterly abhorrent in this day and age irrespective of what they think their theologies prescribe.
-
It seems to me that you have deliberately misunderstood ippy's OP for reasons known only to you (though I have strong suspicions) in order to create a straw man to attack him with. And as a consequence , me.
Also you are misunderstanding SusanDoris , why?
I'm begining to think N S gets the posts mixed up and it looks like that's the problem and if you try to explain that you're being asked to explain things that you haven't expressed in the first place, either that or we may have used every day English that most people understand.
ippy
-
The stance of some elements in Christianity towards homosexual people is utterly abhorrent in this day and age irrespective of what they think their theologies prescribe.
No disagreement from me there: but remember that for these people, if it's in the book, it's in the book and it's there for all time. If it comes from a god, either directly or via humans, it makes no difference; it's what the creator says, end of. The plain text is there, no ifs or buts or maybes; and the only way to get around the truly obnoxious bits and to continue to live freely as a member of a civilised society is to play the "interpretation" card and say that it doesn't actually mean what it plainly says, it says what I think it means it says.
-
I'm begining to think N S gets the posts mixed up and it looks like that's the problem and if you try to explain that you're being asked to explain things that you haven't expressed in the first place, either that or we may have used every day English that most people understand.
ippy
English ain't your strong point.
-
ad,
English ain't your strong point.
Do you really want to criticise someone else's use of English?
Here's you in Reply 102:
"(theology in the academic sense is mearly a branch of philosophy)"
-
English ain't your strong point.
ooh, that was a mistake.
-
It sure was!
-
No disagreement from me there: but remember that for these people, if it's in the book, it's in the book and it's there for all time. If it comes from a god, either directly or via humans, it makes no difference; it's what the creator says, end of. The plain text is there, no ifs or buts or maybes; and the only way to get around the truly obnoxious bits and to continue to live freely as a member of a civilised society is to play the "interpretation" card and say that it doesn't actually mean what it plainly says, it says what I think it means it says.
But how can you interpret it without studying it? Whether or not the content is obnoxious shouldn't affect whether people are able to study it.
-
There is no reason why anyone shouldn't study what interests them; the argument is that it should not be state funded.
-
There is no reason why anyone shouldn't study what interests them; the argument is that it should not be state funded.
V close.
ippy
-
I'm begining to think N S gets the posts mixed up and it looks like that's the problem and if you try to explain that you're being asked to explain things that you haven't expressed in the first place, either that or we may have used every day English that most people understand.
ippy
. You know it warms the cockles of my kidneys to be talked about as a derail, but I would suggest that if you want to make arguments and have discussion, then you do it about the subject. And if you want to talk about anything I've written that you disagree with that you give examples because otherwise it's just you having borrowed the assertatron for a little test drive.
And the plain English thing, you know with the best will in the solar system, it's merely a version of the courtier's reply. Try and make arguments, ipsissimus, and get over this personalising schtick.
-
Apologies if this has been picked up already, but as I understand it Theology these days is taught at undergraduate level pretty much as RE is taught at school level - essentially "this is what various peoples believe and why". Which seems fine to me.
Divinity on the other hand is more "this stuff is true" in character. Whether universities should teach as true subjects they have no method to demonstrate to be true is another matter - on the one hand the libertarian in me says "why not?", but on the other if public funding is involved then I'd view it in the same way I think as I view the NHS funding homeopathy.
(Cue Nearly asking "so is Eng Lit methodologically "true" either?" but ok...)
the predictive argument function on your device is malfunctioning. I'm not the one on this thread arguing that things should be true to be of significant interest. And since my position on this is essentially the same as your's, the argument wouldn't apply.
-
... the argument is that it should not be state funded.
How totalitarian.
Since undergraduates now pay about £30,000 for the privilege of becoming a graduate, why assume that it is "state funded".
-
Indeed.
Even if the financial arrangement were that the state funds all courses, that does not mean that the state should be able to dictate what can and cannot be studied.
-
A thesis I've often seen advanced, by some atheists and some liberal-minded believers alike, is that a feeling for religion is akin to an appreciation for art in much the way you suggest here, Gordon.
It always comes from deeply well-meaning people who show every sign of completely having failed to follow this idea through to its logical conclusion. This stems from overlooking, accidentally or deliberately, a rather salient fact: religions - especially "organised" and monotheistic ones - seek to control people's behaviour. They attempt to dictate what they do, what they wear, what they eat and when they eat it, who is a permissible sexual partner, all this and a thousand and one other attempts at making people act, even think in a certain way. This would be less objectionable - no less ridiculous, but less objectionable - if they attempted to do this only within their own ranks, but they don't. As sure as my arse points downwards, each and every time a religion thinks that it can control the behaviour of those outwith its own group, it will try to do so. Only three or four years ago, the established state church in England (not to mention all the other religious groupings sticking their snouts in likewise) was exerting pressure to prevent same-sex couples from getting married, even though this was a wholly secular, civil affair which had absolutely nothing whatever to do with them at all. Despite this, the staunch conviction of some that their entirely brain-bound idea of deity disapproved of equal marriage led them to attempt to scupper the government's plans to make it a reality. Thank goodness they failed - but that didn't stop them trying, because of their conviction that their idea of a god's likes and dislikes trumps anything as mundane as equal civil rights. Many, many other places in the world are not nearly as fortunate.
If religion really were in any way comparable to art this wouldn't be the case. It would be recognised that these are subjective matters hanging upon individual taste and inclination; I like this, you like that, we can discuss why I like this and why you don't, and come to an opposite but amicable conclusion to the matter. For the most part each side leaves each other alone: admirers of traditionalist representational art tend not to come to blows with votaries of abstract art, for example, or vice versa. I'm willing to listen to any evidence but I think I'm on firm ground in saying that nobody, anywhere, ever has put someone else's feet to the flames for liking Pound's Pisan Cantos over Pam Ayres. Religions rarely get to this stage, and if they do, it's after a very very long period of having their teeth pulled by increasing secularism. Religions can't have it both ways, though needless to say they will try at any and every opportunity. Either they dictate how people behave based on a belief in external, objective deities and their assumed likes and dislikes, or it's more like an opinion on the value of formalist poetry over vers libre. It's either "You should/shouldn't do this because this or that interpretation of a supposedly immaterial entity that I think exists - but can never demonstrate - says so", or it's "Well, whatever floats your potatoes, man", essentially, thereby giving up all and any pretensions of controlling people's behaviour. One or the other: it can't be both.
Fictional characters in literature doing fictional things in fictional settings are indeed worthy of serious academic study; but there's a consensus that they're fictional characters which doesn't exist in the same arena when it comes to religion. No doubt there are exceptions, but theologians presumably think that their endless lucubrations actually have some referent to some real state of affairs somewhere and somehow (though they're notably silent when it comes to explaining how this is supposed to work). There's not the same agreement that what is being discussed is imaginary and imaginative as there is in literature. I will be the first one to applaud when religionists come to that self-same conclusion.
And we'll have a damned sight more peaceful a world for it as well.
This reads Luke the opposite of those who argue by analogy, e.g. DNA is like a code so it has a designer. The point being made by Gordon is that we teach things that do not have as basis in truth so that theology might not have a basis in truth is no sensible reason not to study it. That it is not like literature in all of ays in mi way addresses that, since the specific point of the analogy against the specific argument based on 'facts'.
The rest of your post seems a complete non sequitur to the discussion.
-
I'd say that there are aspects of theology that are just as human.
Are there any aspects which are not?!
quote]
-
This reads Luke the opposite of those who argue by analogy, e.g. DNA is like a code so it has a designer.
Well of course it's the opposite, since that particular analogy is woeful.
The point being made by Gordon is that we teach things that do not have as basis in truth so that theology might not have a basis in truth is no sensible reason not to study it. That it is not like literature in all of ays in mi way addresses that, since the specific point of the analogy against the specific argument based on 'facts'.
The rest of your post seems a complete non sequitur to the discussion.
My post was a response to Gordon's comparison with literary fiction - he agreed with me so presumably understood the point and didn't consider it a non sequitur. If you do, not my problem.
-
In which post did I state how it 'should be' studied?
Edited to add that when I said how it is studied is irrelevant, I mean that theology is in the end to do with God, so lack of evidence for that means that it is 100% human ideas etc etc which are being studied.In the end Theology is a house of cards! Okay, that is not well expressed, but it's the best I can do in a hurry!
Except you gave been agreeing with ippy that it shouldn't be a university subject. That's surely taking an opinion on how it should be studied?
And you keep on harking back to a soecifuc dictionary definition, rather than looking at how it's studied so you are both prescribing the way you think it is actually taught because of the definition, and saying it cannot actually be taught the way it is because of that definition. Indeed the whole use if a specific definition is very similar to those who say 'It's just a theory' as regards evolution ignoring the specific meaning in science.
For me, a progressive move away from theism would indicate a growing confidence in provable (not 100% of course) a far better understanding of reality, of the vast amount of knowledge available to us today on the facts about the sciences, and a better understanding of the total lack of facts about anything supernatural..
Which is not affected by understanding what and how people believe. You actually seem to want to ignore some of the facts that we would generally accept, e.g. that theism is an important aspect of billions of peoples' lives and is therefore is significant in understanding the world. Again going back to the earlier example, which I appear not to have explained d fully, we study Marxism the belief, despite it not being about facts, it's about opinion. Yes, we know Marx existed, but the equivalent is that we know theists exist. The belief has been subject to change, interpretation but not facts in the same way theism is. This is not because of Marxism being supernatural but because you can't get an ought from an is.
-
I'm not the one on this thread arguing that things should be true to be of significant interest.
Could you point me to the post where this is argued?
-
Well of course it's the opposite, since that particular analogy is woeful.My post was a response to Gordon's comparison with literary fiction - he agreed with me so presumably understood the point and didn't consider it a non sequitur. If you do, not my problem.
It's a non sequitur because of what I spargued, and you have ignored. Using analogy badly either way is a mistake about what analogy is useful for. You are making the opposite error from the argument by analogy, and it's just as illogical approach. Do f you don't consider arguments against you position to be in anyway 'your problem' , it gives you an easy walk at any time from discussion.
-
Could you point me to the post where this is argued?
You have spent the entire thread arguing that theology is not worthy of study because it doesn't have a fact at its core.
-
V close.
ippy
Well ippy, if it isn't full or partially state funded or if you think the study of theology is pointless, that is not a reason to ban the subject from universities.
HH mentioned a good point: that students pay a fortune to study anything at university, the state only play a part.
It doesn't bother me what people study, nothing is wasted. If someone does Honours in Theology/Religious Studies, they will have to study other things because the main subject cannot be taken out of context at that level. History, sociology, languages, literature, philosophy, psychology, archeology, anthropology, in no particular order, are all involved.
-
Shaker's post 127
Brilliant...... :)
-
Hi Brownie,
Well ippy, if it isn't full or partially state funded or if you think the study of theology is pointless, that is not a reason to ban the subject from universities.
HH mentioned a good point: that students pay a fortune to study anything at university, the state only play a part.
It doesn't bother me what people study, nothing is wasted. If someone does Honours in Theology/Religious Studies, they will have to study other things because the main subject cannot be taken out of context at that level. History, sociology, languages, literature, philosophy, psychology, archeology, anthropology, in no particular order, are all involved.
I agree with the sentiment, but there’s a contextual issue here too. For Divinity (rather than Theology) at least as I understand it people teach as true claims they cannot know to be true. Even if the students pay every penny of the cost of the course, is that wasted time and money? And even if it is, does that matter – does no-one lose but the students, or does society as a whole suffer from the annual influx of graduates who think that epistemically faith should be privileged over just guessing about stuff?
And even if society does suffer from that, is the gain of protecting free speech greater than the cost of some people treating nonsense as facts, and for all I know because of their beliefs eventually finding their way into the legislature that effects all of us?
I don’t know the answers to these questions by the way, but they might be worth asking.
-
NS,
the predictive argument function on your device is malfunctioning. I'm not the one on this thread arguing that things should be true to be of significant interest. And since my position on this is essentially the same as your's, the argument wouldn't apply.
I said it tongue in cheek Nearly, not as as a pre-emptive strike against your next reply.
-
Shaker's post 127
Brilliant...... :)
it sure is , and in addition, an attempt to derail this thread through semantics and deliberate misunderstanding is bewildering .
-
Except you gave been agreeing with ippy that it shouldn't be a university subject. That's surely taking an opinion on how it should be studied?
Oh dear, do you mean that all the way through this thread I am supposed to remember every word of Ippy's OP in order not to diverge even slightly from its every word?!! I do not think it should not be a university subject, especially since my opinion alters things not a jot, but have, I think, consistently referred to the fact that every single part of theology is based on human ideas and not at all on any God/god/s on which all theology must have derived.
As for how it should be studied, I think it would be much better as part of philosophy where a god of any sort is not assumed.
By the way, may I ask, entirely non-critically, whether your h key is a problem? Every time Synthetic Dave reads the word 'gave' in your posts, I do know of course whether it should have been 'have', but just thought I'd mention it.
And you keep on harking back to a soecifuc** dictionary definition, rather than looking at how it's studied so you are both prescribing the way you think it is actually taught because of the definition, and saying it cannot actually be taught the way it is because of that definition.
But this is a discussion, an exchange of views and opinions, and at the end of each topic, we can all go and have a nice cup of tea and look forward to the next topic. I love being here as in everyday life these discussions do not take place, but the world chugs along with all its ups and downs without taking any notice of us here!! I have no hesitation in saying that of course I might well make errors by the dozen.:) Indeed the whole use if a specific definition is very similar to those who say 'It's just a theory' as regards evolution ignoring the specific meaning in science.
Which is not affected by understanding what and how people believe. You actually seem to want to ignore some of the facts that we would generally accept, e.g. that theism is an important aspect of billions of peoples' lives and is therefore is significant in understanding the world.
I would have thought it goes without saying that theism is an important part of the lives of billions, but it still lacks a single fact about any God/god/s. You are reading far too much into what I say. I am not trying to change the world, much as I'd like to change a few things here and there! Again going back to the earlier example, which I appear not to have explained d fully, we study Marxism the belief, despite it not being about facts, it's about opinion. Yes, we know Marx existed, but the equivalent is that we know theists exist. The belief has been subject to change, interpretation but not facts in the same way theism is. This is not because of Marxism being supernatural but because you can't get an ought from an is.
I can assure you I quite understood what you said about Marx. Do your words here mean, then, that you think there is a fact about God/god/.s somewhere? I don't suppose so! And if you could state where you think I have suggested an 'ought' from an 'is', I'd be grateful. As you know, I'm not knowledgeable about the subject of philosophy and its terms, soI avoid using them.
** What is this (bolded) word?
-
Oh dear, do you mean that all the way through this thread I am supposed to remember every word of Ippy's OP in order not to diverge even slightly from its every word?!! I do not think it should not be a university subject, especially since my opinion alters things not a jot, but have, I think, consistently referred to the fact that every single part of theology is based on human ideas and not at all on any God/god/s on which all theology must have derived.
As for how it should be studied, I think it would be much better as part of philosophy where a god of any sort is not assumed.
By the way, may I ask, entirely non-critically, whether your h key is a problem? Every time Synthetic Dave reads the word 'gave' in your posts, I do know of course whether it should have been 'have', but just thought I'd mention it.But this is a discussion, an exchange of views and opinions, and at the end of each topic, we can all go and have a nice cup of tea and look forward to the next topic. I love being here as in everyday life these discussions do not take place, but the world chugs along with all its ups and downs without taking any notice of us here!! I have no hesitation in saying that of course I might well make errors by the dozen.:)I would have thought it goes without saying that theism is an important part of the lives of billions, but it still lacks a single fact about any God/god/s. You are reading far too much into what I say. I am not trying to change the world, much as I'd like to change a few things here and there!I can assure you I quite understood what you said about Marx. Do your words here mean, then, that you think there is a fact about God/god/.s somewhere? I don't suppose so! And if you could state where you think I have suggested an 'ought' from an 'is', I'd be grateful. As you know, I'm not knowledgeable about the subject of philosophy and its terms, soI avoid using them.
** What is this (bolded) word?
The bolded word is specific. And it"s not the keyboard at fault, it's the idiot user for the h.
I'm not expecting you to remember every thing ippy says, just the OP. If there is no issue for you in theology being studied at university in terms of it being a subject, then what is the proposal that you agree with in the OP? If theology as in the vast majority of cases is taught as if there is no facts about god(s), what is the issue that is being raised?
But leaving that aside, let's move all the way down to the Marxism bit at the end. I don't get how you think that what I should could be read as implying that there are facts about god(s) as opposed to the belief in god(s). The point of the analogy is that there aren't facts about Marxism as opposed to facts about the belief in Marxism, and yet it is suitable for study. The separation of ought from is simply covers that no matter how many facts you have (the is), then there is no way to derive an action that you should do (the ought) without having an aim which is never in itself factually based.
Given that it seems you have no objection to teaching of theology as it is generally done, and as was frequently pointed out throughout the thread, the analogy is probably moot, other than as a point of clarification about its purpose, which I hope the above addresses.
-
Hi Brownie,
I agree with the sentiment, but there’s a contextual issue here too. For Divinity (rather than Theology) at least as I understand it people teach as true claims they cannot know to be true. Even if the students pay every penny of the cost of the course, is that wasted time and money? And even if it is, does that matter – does no-one lose but the students, or does society as a whole suffer from the annual influx of graduates who think that epistemically faith should be privileged over just guessing about stuff?
And even if society does suffer from that, is the gain of protecting free speech greater than the cost of some people treating nonsense as facts, and for all I know because of their beliefs eventually finding their way into the legislature that effects all of us?
I don’t know the answers to these questions by the way, but they might be worth asking.
They are worth asking, bluehillside. They are questions that have gone around my head too - for years.
Certainly, some of the lecturers will believe what they are teaching to be true and will teach from that point of view.
I don't know for certain but I would think that people who decide to study Divinity and Theology are believers of one kind or another. The ones I've known have been.
So - preaching to the converted.
However it is a fact that at the end of their study, many decide they don't believe after all, or are universalist in their beliefs; indeed their years of study have brought them to different conclusions altogether than those anticipated at the start. Perhaps they intended to go into church ministry but that is no longer an option.
Their study has given them a greater understanding of many things, including people, and they will be well educated people who go on to pursue a different career.
If study of Theology/Divinity at Uni is banned, it will go underground and change. There is no point in making martyrs out of would-be students. University is a time for exploration and for changing of one's mind, I'd rather that was an option.
Comparative Religion must be included in any religious course. Christians do not stand alone in the world.
However, like yourself, I don't know all the answers. These are just my opinions.
(We mustn't forget there are colleges such as Spurgeons and the London Bible College who prepare people for ministry but don't give an all round education like universities. I presume they are privately funded and the students are supported by churches and parents, etc.)
-
I've just had one of those page can't be displayed, just in the middle of posting and I'm not sure how the right post #155 got there
Also I was going to change 'derived' to 'have been based'.!
-
Well ippy, if it isn't full or partially state funded or if you think the study of theology is pointless, that is not a reason to ban the subject from universities.
HH mentioned a good point: that students pay a fortune to study anything at university, the state only play a part.
It doesn't bother me what people study, nothing is wasted. If someone does Honours in Theology/Religious Studies, they will have to study other things because the main subject cannot be taken out of context at that level. History, sociology, languages, literature, philosophy, psychology, archeology, anthropology, in no particular order, are all involved.
First Brownie, my P C has gone to hospital for major sergery, so I have no spell check at the moment, my spell check normaly runs at red hot, so there will be quite a few bummers without it, it never gets any better, my spelling that is.
I have read and taken in a lot from these posts, most of them very interesting and informative, of course any subject that anybody wishes to study in one of our universities, should be free to do so, my wife mentioned a course studying the "Beetles", the pop group.
On going back to the super duper A + post 127 of Shakers and reading from others how the uni system works, mosly from first hand experience.
My gripe on taking this info on board, is more to do with dropping the title of theology and bring theology under the heading of philosophy where it, theology, can be refered to when necessary, not locked away in a cupboard, metaphoricaly.
Following the secular over a serious number of years inevitably it opens the eyes to how the religious organisations spread themselves about, by not being to much in the face, little and often mentions and signs and be relentless with it, never miss and things like having a course at universities titled 'Theology', this amounts to a 'this must be very important badge', which has and will continue to, as I see it, project far more importance to the theology propaganda slot than it should be getting, so by grouping theology under philosophy would place it where it should be, no longer in the front seat and as I have said previously, it, theology, doesn't need to be ignored.
ippy
-
I get your points, ippy.
Hope your PC recovers soon, bless it. I've never intentionally used a spellchecker. A red line appears under some words occasionally and, unless I have made an obvious typo, am more confused than ever, so move on quickly. I think my PC understands American spelling and I speak English.
I've ignored the red line under "ippy" in this post :D.
-
Incidentally, there are university courses on astrology, but of course, they are about astrology, not teaching you how to do a chart. There is one on 'cultural astronomy', which sounds interesting, university of Wales I think.
-
My computer keeps coming up with different modes on SuperNova, so there are probably mistakes here, until I've managed to sort them out.
Okay, I think I've done that now.
The bolded word is specific. And it"s not the keyboard at fault, it's the idiot user for the h.
Thank you! Synth Dave had a problem with the pronunciation of the word!!:)
I'm not expecting you to remember every thing ippy says, just the OP.
Yes the OP was the only part I was referring to, but at 158 words, I didn’t learn it off by heart!!If there is no issue for you in theology being studied at university in terms of it being a subject, then what is the proposal that you agree with in the OP?
I agreed with the general idea of the OP; that theolology is, in the end, based on false assumptions, so could well be considered as equivalent to astrology etc. Just because billions of people find theism to be an important part of their lives does not make its base idea tru and the sooner more peopleacknowledge this, the better, in my opinion, things will be. It is, as I said, a house of cards and the emperor’s new clothes story fits well too.If theology as in the vast majority of cases is taught as if there is no facts about god(s), what is the issue that is being raised?
Is that statement true? I suppose then that those who write the courses are perpetuating the falsehood involved especially since they cannot provide one fact about God(/god/s). Does no-one question the fact that courses are being studied based on zero facts? Sounds like a totally daft idea to me! But leaving that aside, let's move all the way down to the Marxism bit at the end. I don't get how you think that what I should could be read as implying that there are facts about god(s) as opposed to the belief in god(s). The point of the analogy is that there aren't facts about Marxism as opposed to facts about the belief in Marxism,…
But there is a worldof difference between Marxism and theology. The former concerns the beliefs and philosophy of a well-known human being and the latter concerns Theology and theism and the beliefs and philosophies of the humans who believed there was a god to theologise about. …and yet it is suitable for study.
Yes, all philosophies and ideas are suitable for study, but if those who study or teach Theology without a clear understanding that all the texts and ideas etc have no God at the base of it all are, surely, failing in their - moral? - duty.The separation of ought from is simply covers that no matter how many facts you have (the is), then there is no way to derive an action that you should do (the ought) without having an aim which is never in itself factually based.
I don’t think I did that – I certainly did not intend it if I did and stand corrected.
As a matter of interest, the Chairman of our Local Humanist Group studied to be a priest but his years at University studying Theology made him an atheist (as Floo’s husband became too).
Given that it seems you have no objection to teaching of theology…
If anyone will make me a placard I will join a protest march in order to make a small dent in the dominance of religious beliefs in the world.
-
SusanDoris
you have my support.
when you've finished with it please send it back, thanks ;)
-
Incidentally, there are university courses on astrology, but of course, they are about astrology, not teaching you how to do a chart. There is one on 'cultural astronomy', which sounds interesting, university of Wales I think.
Do you know if any such courses claim that astrology has any actual influence on anyone's genetic make-up?!
-
Wiggi, that's right, Cultural Astronomy and Astrology. I must admit when I saw the Astrology bit, I was surprised but I suppose it is a study of people and how astrology figured in their lives, etc. Yet it is an odd subject to have prominence.
Each to their own I suppose.
-
Wiggi, that's right, Cultural Astronomy and Astrology. I must admit when I saw the Astrology bit, I was surprised but I suppose it is a study of people and how astrology figured in their lives, etc. Yet it is an odd subject to have prominence.
Each to their own I suppose.
In BBC Radio 4's 'Beyond Belief' on MOnday the subject was numerology(*roll eyes* emoticon should be here!) there was a woman giving a 'reading' to Ernie Rae about his character from numerology. talk about crackpot ideas on a major programme ... and it was not dismissed out of hand either ... except, fortunately, by Marcus du Sotoy.
-
Do you know if any such courses claim that astrology has any actual influence on anyone's genetic make-up?!
I don't know, but I doubt it. It sounds like a course on methods of using the sky as a kind of code. Here is the blurb, 'a unique course which deals with the ways in which human beings attribute meaning to the planets, stars and sky, and construct cosmologies which provide the basis for culture and society'.
http://www.uwtsd.ac.uk/ma-cultural-astronomy-astrology/
-
Where is Nicholas Marks? Though I doubt he would know much about it, he'd probably have a lot to say.
-
A course on electro-Judaic-Christian prognostication.
-
Do you know if any such courses claim that astrology has any actual influence on anyone's genetic make-up?!
Wouldn't it depend on their star sign?
ippy
-
Interesting point, that if you study Jungian psychology in Zurich, part of the course will cover astrology. But this is a private course, although it trains you as an analyst.
-
😆
I get your points, ippy.
Hope your PC recovers soon, bless it. I've never intentionally used a spellchecker. A red line appears under some words occasionally and, unless I have made an obvious typo, am more confused than ever, so move on quickly. I think my PC understands American spelling and I speak English.
I've ignored the red line under "ippy" in this post :D.
Funny thing about spelling you'd think practice would in some way improve the bad spelling, not in my case.
All to often I can't get close enough for the spell checker to pick up the word I'm trying to use; still my vocab's not that bad so I can use another route that I can get near enough for the checker.
It's an abosute pain, bad spelling, when you're trying to make a serious point, there again I suppose you can't have every thing, when I think of some of the ugly people you see walking around.
Yes I have to keep taking ugly pills and keep having to up the dose.😆
ippy
-
Hi Brownie,
They are worth asking, bluehillside. They are questions that have gone around my head too - for years.
Certainly, some of the lecturers will believe what they are teaching to be true and will teach from that point of view.
I don't know for certain but I would think that people who decide to study Divinity and Theology are believers of one kind or another. The ones I've known have been.
So - preaching to the converted.
I’m not sure at all that Theology and Divinity should be treated the same way here. As I understand it, academic theology is about religious beliefs rather than proselytising for them: a mix of history, anthropology, cultural studies etc. Divinity on the other hand teaches the content of religious beliefs as true, which is a fundamentally different approach.
For Theology, it seems to me that it’s quite possible to study it without believing to be true a word of the claims the religious make; for Divinity though, I’m not sure that that’s possible.
However it is a fact that at the end of their study, many decide they don't believe after all, or are universalist in their beliefs; indeed their years of study have brought them to different conclusions altogether than those anticipated at the start. Perhaps they intended to go into church ministry but that is no longer an option.
Their study has given them a greater understanding of many things, including people, and they will be well educated people who go on to pursue a different career.
Again, I don’t have figures to hand but broadly I’d have thought that those who study Divinity are less likely to emerge as atheists than those who study Theology merely as an interesting academic field.
If study of Theology/Divinity at Uni is banned, it will go underground and change. There is no point in making martyrs out of would-be students. University is a time for exploration and for changing of one's mind, I'd rather that was an option.
Comparative Religion must be included in any religious course. Christians do not stand alone in the world.
However, like yourself, I don't know all the answers. These are just my opinions.
Yes, but how would you change your mind on a Divinity course and still complete it? Wouldn’t that be like studying medicine but thinking part way through that it was all nonsense and that homeopathy was the real way to cure illnesses?
-
Hi Brownie,
I’m not sure at all that Theology and Divinity should be treated the same way here. As I understand it, academic theology is about religious beliefs rather than proselytising for them: a mix of history, anthropology, cultural studies etc. Divinity on the other hand teaches the content of religious beliefs as true, which is a fundamentally different approach.
For Theology, it seems to me that it’s quite possible to study it without believing to be true a word of the claims the religious make; for Divinity though, I’m not sure that that’s possible.
Again, I don’t have figures to hand but broadly I’d have thought that those who study Divinity are less likely to emerge as atheists than those who study Theology merely as an interesting academic field.
Yes, but how would you change your mind on a Divinity course and still complete it? Wouldn’t that be like studying medicine but thinking part way through that it was all nonsense and that homeopathy was the real way to cure illnesses?
Wouldn't it be about the right place for divinity/theology positioned as a footnote to philosophy?
ippy
-
Ippy, as long as your posts can be understood, the spelling is not so important. There are a lot of intelligent people who have difficulty spelling.
Bluehillside, I honestly don't know the answer to that one but it does happen. I suppose if someone goes so far with a subject, they feel as though they might as well complete it and get their degree. If they really hated it as opposed to losing faith, they'd probably take time out and/or change to something else but not every situation is so extreme.
Thinking about it, it must be quite depressing and there will be people telling them that they are being tested, everyone has periods in the wilderness, etc.
After their degree they can go off somewhere and decide what they want to do with their life, their hard work at uni won't be wasted.
-
😆
Funny thing about spelling you'd think practice would in some way improve the bad spelling, not in my case.
Poor spelling can be as much about being dyslexic or various other learning difficulties as being lazy, ippy. Many extremely bright people have the former.
-
Wouldn't it be about the right place for divinity/theology positioned as a footnote to philosophy?
ippy
No doubt that would hold ippy, if the same applied to, say, chemistry as being a footnote to biology. However, the latter doesn't and nor does it for theology/philosophy. Yes there are elements of theology that cross-over into philosophy, in the same way that there are elements of chemistry that cross over into biology, but all 4 subjects are distinct in themselves.
-
Poor spelling can be as much about being dyslexic or various other learning difficulties as being lazy, ippy. Many extremely bright people have the former.
I don't enjoy this lifelong inability of mine but I have come to terms with it and now feel sorry for those that have nothing better to do than pick up on spelling, rather than the things I have written.
I have noticed that your spelling has suffered since I believe you had an event a while back, much as I dislike a lot of your general outlook, I genuinly wish you well.
ippy
-
I have noticed that your spelling has suffered since I believe you had an event a while back, much as I dislike a lot of your general outlook, I genuinly wish you well.
ippy
Thanks for that, ippy. I think that my hand-eye coordination has suffered slightly and I'm not as precise with my finger- to-keyboard positioning. As an English teacher, I get annoyed with myself when this happens and I don't pick it up before sending the post. The advantage with a site like this is that, whilst we may disagree with each other over a variety of issues, we can still support and encourage each other when more fundamental issues seem to go pear-shaped - such as health and well-being.
-
No doubt that would hold ippy, if the same applied to, say, chemistry as being a footnote to biology. However, the latter doesn't and nor does it for theology/philosophy. Yes there are elements of theology that cross-over into philosophy, in the same way that there are elements of chemistry that cross over into biology, but all 4 subjects are distinct in themselves.
Yes in your opinion Hope, chemistry is a subject where the elements and processes evidentially exist, likewise, well more or less, the same would apply to biology.
Philosophy is a legitimate subject on its own, once the woo is removed from theology it could be worth giving it a mention in the odd few places where it might be of some use.
Theology is no longer taken as seriously as it once was and the woo of it is for certain on its way out, but there are historical parts of theology that might be of use, well, what would be the problem finding out.
It's about time theology as a subject for university students was taken off of the front foot, even if you don't like it Hope, these old beliefs are no longer due any particular prescense, they're no longer as important as they once were, so back to the previous paragraph.
Slipping theology into the philosophy slot doesn't mean get rid of.
ippy
-
Hi Ipster,
Yes in your opinion Hope, chemistry is a subject where the elements and processes evidentially exist, likewise, well more or les, the same would apply to biology.
Philosophy is a legitimate subject on its own, once the woo is removed from theology it could be worth giving it a mention in the odd few places where it might be of some use.
Theology is no longer taken as seriously as it once was and the woo of it is for certain on its way out, but there are historical parts of theology that might be of use, well, what would be the problem finding out.
It's about time theology as a subject for university students was taken off of the front foot, even if you don't like it Hope, these old beliefs are no longer due any particular prescense, they're no longer as important as they once were, so back to the previous paragraph.
Slipping theology into the philosophy slot doesn't mean get rid of.
I really think your target should be Divinity here rather than Theology. Religious belief (of many types) is a global phenomenon that has changed and continues to affect the lives of billions, and it would be perverse not to study it as if that wasn’t the case. I don’t think there’s much philosophy in it either by the way – it’s essentially more sophisticated RE.
Divinity on the other hand is a different matter, and here the content is taught as factually true albeit that any pretensions to a philosophical underpinning are thin gruel. Indeed, putting “faith” front and centre is itself a negation of philosophy – what need have you of rational argument when faith does the heavy lifting for you?
-
Hi Ipster,
I really think your target should be Divinity here rather than Theology. Religious belief (of many types) is a global phenomenon that has changed and continues to affect the lives of billions, and it would be perverse not to study it as if that wasn’t the case. I don’t think there’s much philosophy in it either by the way – it’s essentially more sophisticated RE.
Divinity on the other hand is a different matter, and here the content is taught as factually true albeit that any pretensions to a philosophical underpinning are thin gruel. Indeed, putting “faith” front and centre is itself a negation of philosophy – what need have you of rational argument when faith does the heavy lifting for you?
Well yes, yes but, the divinity bit would, I'm sure, would be found crouching down behind the theology sign, therfore taking a subttle approach with a 15inch naval gun it would be necessary to make your aim and let off a couple of shells at theology to knock out divinity.
It's a tad embaressing to me when I see theology put forward by our universities as a serious subject on offer for study and as I have allready said on this thread why not astrology or homeopothy too.
On reading through the posts, some compare theology to a grown up's version of R E and others refer to historical content that can be of use and it appears that there is some crossover with philosophy, this input made sense to me but didn't do anything to dispell divinity's and theology's lack of substance.
Your targeting of divinity, well of course other than, it's place in history and the need to understand those that chose to get involved with it, it would be best for all if it was reserved and passed back to the seminaries away from our unies.
Considering that we are now in the early years of the 21st century I also think, not only because of the lack of factual content in rather vacuous subjects like theology and divinity, it would be more reflective of our present age to still use the knowledge contained within these subjects where necessary, but include them under the more fitting, acceptable title of philosophy.
ippy
-
Ippy #182
Well said. I was trying to think yesterday evening of how to say, i.e. simply!, that if the title Divinity replaced the too vague title Theology, then more potential students would realise that the teachers of this subject were talking about something supposedly real but in fact entirely without evidence, unlike any other subject. There would, therefore, be a much faster realisation that all god stories are fiction and that the emperor did indeed have no clothes.
-
I agree - there's either divinity or comparative religion.
-
It's a tad embaressing (sic) to me when I see theology put forward by our universities as a serious subject on offer for study and as I have allready (sic) said on this thread why not astrology or homeopothy (sic) too.
In an earlier post, I provided my considered opinion that the purpose of higher education is to develop high level cognitive skills in students which will enable them to work constructively at high levels in organisations. The subject studied to achieve development of these skills is irrelevant. The subject area is the context within which these skills can be developed.
What you think this context should be is not relevant. What is important is what the students themselves wish to study. The university's role then is to ensure that within this context high levels skills can be developed.
The fact that you have no interest in a particular subject or have objections to its existence and so would deny others the freedom to choose that subject is little short of totalitarian censorship. It reminds me a a story some years ago when some students in the USA were campaigning to end the study of the fiction of Dead White Europeans (generally - English Literature).
..... theology's lack of substance.
What is substance?
.....................
I know that I am making myself a hostage to fortune by identifying your orthographical errors, but are you not undermining your own argument by permitting your post to contain what might be considered to be examples of sloppy scholarship? You have my permission to comment on my spelling and grammar. ::)
Edited to correct orthographical errors.
-
HH
Yes of course students should, by the time they leave further education, be better able to think clearly, to view information more impartially, to have studied what they chose to study, to have the confidence to know when they are wrong and how to search for information better backed up by independent, verified research. If they end up with a degree in Theology , still believing that an invisible, unmeasurable, untestable something exists, which apparently requires worship, a feeling of unworthiness in its presence, prayers and rituals involving expense, other than solely in the minds of humans, then somewhere along the line they have put blinkers on. This will be, I suppose, because the teachers themselves with whom they have studied believe this god/god/entity has a real existence. Such a pity, when they are, in the opinion of many, missing out on the most exciting thing of all in life and that is that humans thought it all up themselves and thus they spend their whole lives believing a myth.
-
I have a certificate in Divinity (gained as a part of recent blood, sweat and attempts at sleep) toward my OLM course. Whilst not the full blown shebang students go through when they go for the whole four year degree course (in Scotland, anyway), the subject is much wider in scope than theology, dealing with the nuts and bolta of ministry of Word and Sacrement, and legal matters related to various aspects of ministerial work such as marriage,. funerals, child protection, etc - not to mention the almost soul destroying Church law stuff.
-
HH
Yes of course students should, by the time they leave further education, be better able to think clearly, to view information more impartially, to have studied what they chose to study, to have the confidence to know when they are wrong and how to search for information better backed up by independent, verified research. If they end up with a degree in Theology , still believing that an invisible, unmeasurable, untestable something exists, which apparently requires worship, a feeling of unworthiness in its presence, prayers and rituals involving expense, other than solely in the minds of humans, then somewhere along the line they have put blinkers on. This will be, I suppose, because the teachers themselves with whom they have studied believe this god/god/entity has a real existence. Such a pity, when they are, in the opinion of many, missing out on the most exciting thing of all in life and that is that humans thought it all up themselves and thus they spend their whole lives believing a myth.
A couple of points, SD:
First of all, I am not considering further education but higher education.
Secondly, I am considering higher level, transferable, cognitive skills. Perhaps the best known characterisation of such skills is that of Benjamin Bloom, whose higher level skills are analysing, evaluating and creating. Note that these skills are transferable - not subject specific. The skills may be learned in one situation but applied in many others.
You appear to think that studying theology requires a belief in the subject matter being delivered. Does this mean that an English Literature student reading Macbeth must believe in witches? There is no requirement for anyone studying Theology (or teaching it, for that matter) to hold any beliefs - and many don't.
Others have already listed the very wide range of topics likely to be encountered in a Theology degree so I will not do so again.
I have no interest in Theology at all, but I defend the right for it to be taught, studied and researched in British universities. To deny freedom of access to this subject area to others purely because you do not value it is an action of dictatorship.
-
I think I've got the qquote tags wrong - I'll see if I can sort them out.
A couple of points, SD:
First of all, I am not considering further education but higher education.
Thank you, HH. I used the word 'further' to include all levels of education beyond school years. I should have made that clear.Secondly, I am considering higher level, transferable, cognitive skills. Perhaps the best known characterisation of such skills is that of Benjamin Bloom, whose higher level skills are analysing, evaluating and creating. Note that these skills are transferable - not subject specific. The skills may be learned in one situation but applied in many others.
Okay - thank you.You appear to think that studying theology requires a belief in the subject matter being delivered.
No, that is not so and I have tried to word my posts so that they cannot be misconstrued in that way. There should be no problems about understanding that all the works, ideas, facts about historical and present beliefs can be shown to originate with people. However, as soon as someone on such a course says - and I have no idea whether this happens - 'these are the words of God', or 'God said/wrote these words', then warning bells should ring all over the place.Does this mean that an English Literature student reading Macbeth must believe in witches?
Of course not, since I can't imagine any uni student studying English literature would believe that all or any characters must be real, that would be ridiculous. There is no requirement for anyone studying Theology (or teaching it, for that matter) to hold any beliefs - and many don't.
Fine, but I imagine that such theology courses must include mention and discussion of God/god/s connected with the subject? Others have already listed the very wide range of topics likely to be encountered in a Theology degree so I will not do so again.
I have no interest in Theology at all, but I defend the right for it to be taught, studied and researched in British universities. To deny freedom of access to this subject area to others purely because you do not value it is an action of dictatorship.
As I said to NS some posts back, I did not memorise all of the OP, but took its content and meaning as something that, at its basic origins, lacks the one thing on which it grew and from which it developed.
I think I’ve got the tags right …the last sentence needs improvement though ….
Hmmm, not quite sure about the quote tags.
-
I have a certificate in Divinity (gained as a part of recent blood, sweat and attempts at sleep) toward my OLM course. Whilst not the full blown shebang students go through when they go for the whole four year degree course (in Scotland, anyway), the subject is much wider in scope than theology, dealing with the nuts and bolta of ministry of Word and Sacrement, and legal matters related to various aspects of ministerial work such as marriage,. funerals, child protection, etc - not to mention the almost soul destroying Church law stuff.
Does this type of certificate deal with how to overcome the, not so minor difficulty, of the complete lack of evidence that could back up, the magical, mystical and superstition based parts of these beliefs that people like yoursef adhere to?
ippy
-
Hi SD
Thank you for your comprehensive reply. I couldn't see any problems with any tags, so I guess you managed OK.
-
In an earlier post, I provided my considered opinion that the purpose of higher education is to develop high level cognitive skills in students which will enable them to work constructively at high levels in organisations. The subject studied to achieve development of these skills is irrelevant. The subject area is the context within which these skills can be developed.
What you think this context should be is not relevant. What is important is what the students themselves wish to study. The university's role then is to ensure that within this context high levels skills can be developed.
The fact that you have no interest in a particular subject or have objections to its existence and so would deny others the freedom to choose that subject is little short of totalitarian censorship. It reminds me a a story some years ago when some students in the USA were campaigning to end the study of the fiction of Dead White Europeans (generally, 0- English Literature).
What is substance?
.....................
I know that I am making myself a hostage to fortune by identifying your orthographical errors, but are you not undermining your own argument by permitting your post to contain what might be considered to be examples of sloppy scholarship? You have my permission to comment on my spelling and grammar. ::)
Edited to correct orthographical errors.
No I don't like this post of yours and I don't feel phased by it either.
I have, as I see it, good reasons for my point of view, presenting theology and divinity as subjects for study by our universities is a continuance of lending these subjects in particular, lending them far more importance than I feel is due to them.
We now live, whether you like it or not, in a country where less than a half of the current population follow any of these theistic beliefs and we've had centuries of having them pushed at us, placed on front foot most of the time, I want an end to theism having the front foot position, in the same way society here in the U K is demonstrating by the way they are directing their feet
Why you think I want to prevent these subjects being taught at uni?
Theology and divinity can come under an umbrella of philosophy, unlike things as they are at present where philosophy gets grouped in with those two ecclesiastical, magical, mystical superstitional based subjects and I don't see why philosophy sould be lending of it's dignity to theology and divinity any more, those days should be over.
I think we all understand the need for education to produce the next well rounded generation, that's something that understood easily even by those of us without a degree.
Any of the parts of theology or divinity that make sense can be taught along with philosophy, as opposed to dropping them, including the place they have played in our history.
Censorship? What's that all about?
I don't really want to get into semantics, I'll leave that to you, mind if you read something you don't want to understand.
ippy
-
Ippy
I wonder if there are statistics which show whether the number of students on Theology courses is gradually decreasing.
I think there is quite often confusion between (a) teaching a subject ; and (b) teaching about it, especially as the only subject which implies the existence of some great power/god/etc is Theology. not one other subject includes such a thing as any supernatural power.
-
Ippy
I wonder if there are statistics which show whether the number of students on Theology courses is gradually decreasing.
I think there is quite often confusion between (a) teaching a subject ; and (b) teaching about it, especially as the only subject which implies the existence of some great power/god/etc is Theology. not one other subject includes such a thing as any supernatural power.
I don't know about the numbers but I don't think it would be surprising if the figures reflect the general trend of declining numbers of people taking up superstitious beliefs here in the U K.
The religious and their organizations want the hubris they think they gain from rubbing themselves up against anything they see as an intellectual persuit, probably thinking this action lends credibility to the incredible claims they continue to make when expressing their beliefs, if we can take this away from them it'll help, in the long term, stop them spreading their nonsense on to future generations.
Admittedly it's more distastefull where the religious believers spread their nonsense on to young children than spreading their stuff to university age students; having said that is it such a small move to put theology and divinity as uni subjects, into a sub divisional part of philosophy studdies?
Regards ippy
-
Ippy
There is though a caveat I would make with regard to the violent versions of Islam because an absence of Christianity would leave a gap which such dangerous groups would seek to fill.
-
Ippy
There is though a caveat I would make with regard to the violent versions of Islam because an absence of Christianity would leave a gap which such dangerous groups would seek to fill.
I hadn't thought of that but when thinking about that, it is an area that any other religious view than theirs has to be on guard 24/7.
I try to avoid making comments in that direction, being the devout coward I am.
Regards ippy
-
I hadn't thought of that but when thinking about that, it is an area that any other religious view than theirs has to be on guard 24/7.
I try to avoid making comments in that direction, being the devout coward I am.
Regards ippy
:D Save that until you're nearly 81 like me!!
-
:D Save that until you're nearly 81 like me!!
You tell 'em Su, :o
-
:D Save that until you're nearly 81 like me!!
Free T V licence later this year, does that make me a mere spring chicken?
ippy
-
Free T V licence later this year, does that make me a mere spring chicken?
ippy
I've never bought one , what does that make me? ;)
-
Free T V licence later this year, does that make me a mere spring chicken?
ippy
Well,I suppose that when one reaches 80, it is just the teensiest bit difficult to be referred to as a 'spring chicken' but we must do our best!
-
Whilst I think most of us know the history of the origins of our universities, I don't think their history bears any relevence to the following; it should be timely to start calling time on theology as a suitable subject for universities now, only if we're going to continue with theology, there might just as well be courses on Astrology, Tarot reading or Witch Hunting; none of them really subjects worthy of serious study, any more.
I wouldn't expect subjects like theology etc, to dissapear overnight but their gradual decline should be releasing valuable space and funding, all be it gradually, for more science and other productive subjects and the remaining followers of these old ideas have still got their oganisations that should be able to follow up with assisting any of those wishing to continue with them and at the same time seperate them from any of the present state funding.
Ippy
As soon as you start to make judgements about this knowledge being worthy and that knowledge being unworthy you being to undermine the very purpose of a university.
The whole point of unfettered discourse and research is that you never know where the useful / important discoveries or ideas are going to come from. Better to give space and nourishment to free thought. If you choose to curtail it, where do you stop?
-
As soon as you start to make judgements about this knowledge being worthy and that knowledge being unworthy you being to undermine the very purpose of a university.
The whole point of unfettered discourse and research is that you never know where the useful / important discoveries or ideas are going to come from. Better to give space and nourishment to free thought. If you choose to curtail it, where do you stop?
What theologians do or do not believ, or whatever they are teaching or discussing, they have zero knowledge about any God/god/s which are at the core of the subject of theology.
-
As soon as you start to make judgements about this knowledge being worthy and that knowledge being unworthy you being to undermine the very purpose of a university.
The whole point of unfettered discourse and research is that you never know where the useful / important discoveries or ideas are going to come from. Better to give space and nourishment to free thought. If you choose to curtail it, where do you stop?
Sam, if you have another read, my coments were more to do with where the funding of any godly subject came from, because the god stuff is in exponential decline here in the U K and is now at only 49% believers, so really it might be better for them if they organised their own colleges or whatever and run them in their own time at their own expence.
The above is to do with funding and then if they want to run and fund their own colleges on a denominational basis I can't think of any reason, other than the former, to object to theology being studied as a subject at our universities.
Just as an after thought, I can't see any important dicoveries or usefull ideas comming out of the study of theology, more shades of the Mongolian Horseman closed culture syndrome, but you never know?
ippy
-
Sam, if you have another read, my coments were more to do with where the funding of any godly subject came from, because the god stuff is in exponential decline here in the U K and is now at only 49% believers, so really it might be better for them if they organised their own colleges or whatever and run them in their own time at their own expence.
The above is to do with funding and then if they want to run and fund their own colleges on a denominational basis I can't think of any reason, other than the former, to object to theology being studied as a subject at our universities.
Just as an after thought, I can't see any important dicoveries or usefull ideas comming out of the study of theology, more shades of the Mongolian Horseman closed culture syndrome, but you never know?
ippy
do you see important or useful ideas coming from the study of poetry?
-
do you see important or useful ideas coming from the study of poetry?
The same as my previous post, you never know.
I'm a great fan of Stevie Smith, atheist one minute and godaholic the next, such an ordinary person from ordinary Palmers Green.
ippy
-
The same as my previous post, you never know.
I'm a great fan of Stevie Smith, atheist one minute and godaholic the next, such an ordinary person from ordinary Palmers Green.
ippy
So as with your previous post then you that that anyone interested in poetry should 'run and fund it on their own'?
-
There's not much use for Anglo-Saxon these days. We don't want to waste public money on that shit. Better just forget it and concentrate in offering degrees in tourism and leisure, unless the Anglo-Saxons stump up the cash for it.
-
So as with your previous post then you that that anyone interested in poetry should 'run and fund it on their own'?
What do you think?
ippy
-
There's not much use for Anglo-Saxon these days. We don't want to waste public money on that shit. Better just forget it and concentrate in offering degrees in tourism and leisure, unless the Anglo-Saxons stump up the cash for it.
It looks to me you haven't read my previous posts, Rhi.
ippy
-
There's not much use for Anglo-Saxon these days. We don't want to waste public money on that shit. Better just forget it and concentrate in offering degrees in tourism and leisure, unless the Anglo-Saxons stump up the cash for it.
;D Same for ancient Greeks I suppose.
Ippy, poetry is wonderful and literature is definitely worth studying, imo.
(Glad you are a Stevie Smith fan, I love "Not waving but drowning" (in a scary way). She was quite an interesting character too. Did you ever see the film on TV about her, with Glenda Jackson as Stevie and Mona Washbourne as her aunt?)
-
do you see important or useful ideas coming from the study of poetry?
How can you compare the study of poetry with theology? The first is a branch of literature, understood as a human activity and not in any way the source of thousands of years of faith belief including worship , whereas Theology is all about what people have said, thought and, apparently, experienced of God/god/s.
-
Susan, at one time the Open University Theology/Religion module was taught by atheists. It may still be the case but I am not up to date with what goes on there.
Ninian Smart was an agnostic Professor of Theology.
I did a module on religion with the OU ( and passed level 2 degree level). You learnt about religion of various sorts, a bit like the teach it at schools now.
No belief was needed.
I haven't done the theology one though.
I would have thought Theology at university level would be a lot about history and where certain practices originated, what made them do things a certain way.
Rituals, how they came about. What was the thinking behind them.
Why the cloth of the alter changes colour, what the colours signify, where did it come from.
I'd find all that quite interesting.
Yes some probably do go on to be ministers, but knowing how it's all put together and the people's thinking at the time would be interesting, and I disagree with Ippy.
I could be interested in all that, without necessarily believing anything, just being interested that the belief exists.
I think you have to just stop judging things for a minute and take an interest.
I think a lot would be lost, if it was removed. So much is part of our culture.
You do have to be able to stand back to be objective though.
-
I have already clashed with ippy in this thread.
I fear that he does not understand the nature and purpose of the university. A university is a place of intellectual freedom where anything can be studied. The first sign of totalitarianism is interference with universities.
For reasons of efficiency, most universities limit the range of subject areas that are studied in them, but within a range of universities it should be possible to find someone who can teach or supervise study in almost every imaginable subject area. There are plenty of subjects that offend my sensibilities but to deny someone the opportunity to investigate that subject is anathema to me.
-
I have already clashed with ippy in this thread.
I fear that he does not understand the nature and purpose of the university. A university is a place of intellectual freedom where anything can be studied. The first sign of totalitarianism is interference with universities.
For reasons of efficiency, most universities limit the range of subject areas that are studied in them, but within a range of universities it should be possible to find someone who can teach or supervise study in almost every imaginable subject area. There are plenty of subjects that offend my sensibilities but to deny someone the opportunity to investigate that subject is anathema to me.
Hi there H H, yes we have our differences but on this subject where have I suggested on this thread that theology should be removed from the university syllabus?
The nearest I got to anything near to that was a suggestion that it could be downgraded as a small part of
a phillosophy course rather than a stand alone subject, (not using those exact words).
ippy
-
;D Same for ancient Greeks I suppose.
Ippy, poetry is wonderful and literature is definitely worth studying, imo.
(Glad you are a Stevie Smith fan, I love "Not waving but drowning" (in a scary way). She was quite an interesting character too. Did you ever see the film on TV about her, with Glenda Jackson as Stevie and Mona Washbourne as her aunt?)
Lived 50 yards around the corner from where she lived.
Oh yes just have a scan at my post to H H, post 215.
ippy
-
Hi ippy
And where do I say that you said Theology should be removed?
I said "interference".
And differentiating the conditions under which a particular subject is studied, compared with other subjects, is interference.
-
Hi ippy
And where do I say that you said Theology should be removed?
I said "interference".
And differentiating the conditions under which a particular subject is studied, compared with other subjects, is interference.
Well as things have progressed and religion, overall, is a minority persuit here in the U K now, there becomes even less demarnd for it in any form, so whilst not completly chucķing it out, it could be worth the occasional historical reference from time to time under the philosophy heading and in some of other areas it might be of use, possibly for comparrison.
Not so much an interference more a revision and putting theology into a more appropriate place.
ippy
Your words implied I wish to deny people the opportunity to study subjects I don't care for; I plainly didn't.
-
I did a module on religion with the OU ( and passed level 2 degree level). You learnt about religion of various sorts, a bit like the teach it at schools now.
No belief was needed.
I haven't done the theology one though.
I would have thought Theology at university level would be a lot about history and where certain practices originated, what made them do things a certain way.
Rituals, how they came about. What was the thinking behind them.
Why the cloth of the alter changes colour, what the colours signify, where did it come from.
I'd find all that quite interesting.
Yes some probably do go on to be ministers, but knowing how it's all put together and the people's thinking at the time would be interesting, and I disagree with Ippy.
I could be interested in all that, without necessarily believing anything, just being interested that the belief exists.
I think you have to just stop judging things for a minute and take an interest.
I think a lot would be lost, if it was removed. So much is part of our culture.
You do have to be able to stand back to be objective though.
Rose I haven't even suggested removing theology from universities, if you read my posts you will soon understand where I'm comming from, (Not guilty of that one Rose).
Ippy
-
Whilst I think most of us know the history of the origins of our universities, I don't think their history bears any relevence to the following; it should be timely to start calling time on theology as a suitable subject for universities now, only if we're going to continue with theology, there might just as well be courses on Astrology, Tarot reading or Witch Hunting; none of them really subjects worthy of serious study, any more.
I wouldn't expect subjects like theology etc, to dissapear overnight but their gradual decline should be releasing valuable space and funding, all be it gradually, for more science and other productive subjects and the remaining followers of these old ideas have still got their oganisations that should be able to follow up with assisting any of those wishing to continue with them and at the same time seperate them from any of the present state funding.
Ippy
It looks as though you are suggesting that, ippy, albeit gradually.
-
It looks as though you are suggesting that, ippy, albeit gradually.
Yes but only by stages in line with the declining numbers of people that can still imagine some credibility in theology.
Even then I think you'll find I suggested filing theology under the philosophy umbrella, so no Brownie I didn't suggest stopping it being taught about in our universities, (not guilty).
ippy
-
Ah, yes, just making it hard to find? That should make sure only the really determined will take it...
-
Yes but only by stages in line with the declining numbers of people that can still imagine some credibility in theology.
Even then I think you'll find I suggested filing theology under the philosophy umbrella, so no Brownie I didn't suggest stopping it being taught about in our universities, (not guilty).
ippy
Religious beliefs have formed a central part of world history too, so that would be a very important part of the subject coming under the umbrella of philosophy. If religious authorities had to pay for the courses, maybe those taking them would investigate more closely whether the God/god/s which were originally, and unfortunately are still, believed in actually had any substance at all. The mature and rational understanding of such students would take a large step forward in human progress.
Not well said, but close enough.
-
Ah, yes, just making it hard to find? That should make sure only the really determined will take it...
It's not so much hiding theology but because theology has been put forefront as a university subject as it has been in the past for long enough, lends theology more credibility it can realistically command in these more enlightened times; so it would be far better to place, to place these subjects within a more secular level playingfield perspective, like including theology within the study of philosophy would in my opinion be the appropriate place for these subjects that have such a rapidly/evidentially declining following.
ippy
-
If belief is declining, surely the study of theology will decline naturally and eventually it will become a small part of another discipline, as you suggest it should be. I haven't put that well and hope you know what I mean.
It strikes me that, as interest in any subject fades, academic study of it will fade too. Eventually, universities will no longer have theology as a main subject because there will be little interest. It will all happen quite naturally.
-
If belief is declining, surely the study of theology will decline naturally and eventually it will become a small part of another discipline, as you suggest it should be. I haven't put that well and hope you know what I mean.
It strikes me that, as interest in any subject fades, academic study of it will fade too. Eventually, universities will no longer have theology as a main subject because there will be little interest. It will all happen quite naturally.
I thought that was what I was saying Brownie, with, admittedly, perhaps a little impatience on my part, where I'd like to kick things like theology having a place in the forefront into touch as soon as, if not sooner.
ippy
-
Maybe ippy but however any of us feel about it, if people of faith are declining then study of the subject will decline. I don't understand why you feel so strongly about it but I'm not you.
People of faith are declining on this forum, I didn't really notice until just before going to bed last night; very soon there will be no-one left to be pounced on, moaned at and scapegoated. Then the forum can be renamed Ethics rather than Religion and Ethics. I'm wondering what I can do to be permanently banned, I'd be in good company.
-
Moderator posts solely discussing the banning of members have been removed as a derail.
-
If belief is declining, surely the study of theology will decline naturally and eventually it will become a small part of another discipline, as you suggest it should be. I haven't put that well and hope you know what I mean.
It strikes me that, as interest in any subject fades, academic study of it will fade too. Eventually, universities will no longer have theology as a main subject because there will be little interest. It will all happen quite naturally.
This is exactly what I was going to say - that in the course of things, if interest in theology dwindles below the point where it's no longer viable to offer it (probably financially), universities will quietly retire it.
-
Moderator posts solely discussing the banning of members have been removed as a derail.
I missed that, suppose I kicked it off but am not going to apologise.
Shaker: This is exactly what I was going to say - that in the course of things, if interest in theology dwindles below the point where it's no longer viable to offer it (probably financially), universities will quietly retire it.
Quietly retiring is far better than being quashed, not only in the context of university courses.
It sounds like a contrasting mixture of peace and defeatism - I could say "Hopeless".
-
Maybe ippy but however any of us feel about it, if people of faith are declining then study of the subject will decline. I don't understand why you feel so strongly about it but I'm not you.
People of faith are declining on this forum, I didn't really notice until just before going to bed last night; very soon there will be no-one left to be pounced on, moaned at and scapegoated. Then the forum can be renamed Ethics rather than Religion and Ethics. I'm wondering what I can do to be permanently banned, I'd be in good company.
Ethics as a title?That shouldn't be so surprising other than, he opinions of all should be taken into consideration and that would have to include believers, even though religious belief isn't really that necessary in a discussion about ethics.
I don't really mind the religious view it's more to do with any one point of view automaticaly assuming it has the right to the front foot position, like titling a university course theology when all theology should be is a small part of an overall course on philosophy let's all start from a level playing field with no one case placed in a position of accendency.
ippy
-
I'm all for level playing fields, Ippy.
-
Maybe ippy but however any of us feel about it, if people of faith are declining then study of the subject will decline. I don't understand why you feel so strongly about it but I'm not you.
to the first part of this paragraph: on the contrary, the study of a subject called theology should continue but with a growing understanding of how all the people who have ever written, lectured and philosophised about it were talking about thousands of years of belief in something which has zero evidence for it. The credit for all the words, thoughts, ideas and opinions would then, correctly, be ascribed to human beings.
As to the second part, , however strongly one feels about it, it is going to take a long time to change and in the meantime millions of children will be indoctrinated into belief in God/god/s, however, lovingy such teaching is done.
ETA to correct spelling of were. Cojuldn't do it earlier - went to haridresser's!]
-
Yeah well people are indoctrinated into all sorts of things, every day. Those who do the indoctrinating don't realise they are doing it and, anyway, they think they are right.
Kids are pretty astute nowadays and generally have more confidence than in times past. They don't mind speaking out against ideas that adults express.
There are families who adhere to an exclusive type of closed religion which they believe they are duty bound to pass on to the next generation. That sort of things is more worrying to me and I've no idea what anyone can do about it.
-
Yeah well people are indoctrinated into all sorts of things, every day. Those who do the indoctrinating don't realise they are doing it and, anyway, they think they are right.
Can you name any other subject for indoctrination which resembles religious beliefs in any way?
]
-
Can you name any other subject for indoctrination which resembles religious beliefs in any way?
]
Ethics, politics
-
Ethics, politics
But they do not have a god belief at their source and are understood for what they are - human ideas.
-
Yeah well people are indoctrinated into all sorts of things, every day. Those who do the indoctrinating don't realise they are doing it and, anyway, they think they are right.
Kids are pretty astute nowadays and generally have more confidence than in times past. They don't mind speaking out against ideas that adults express.
There are families who adhere to an exclusive type of closed religion which they believe they are duty bound to pass on to the next generation. That sort of things is more worrying to me and I've no idea what anyone can do about it.
One thing for a start would be to stop giving undue prominence to religious ideas, such as having a university subject headed as theology, when theology should come under the general heading of philosophy.
Brownie what is it you can't see about how religious indoctrination works, a major part of it is little and often; small schools with a bloody great cross nailed in a prominent position, oh, it's only a nativity play, the C of E has more infant schools than others, why? Theology not philosophy, etc etc
Your R C lot have seminaries, why not keep your theology there?
ippy
-
But they do not have a god belief at their source and are understood for what they are - human ideas.
that would mean you were asking which beliefs other than beliefs that have god at their core have god at their core, which is nonsensical. People can be told that there are absolute ethical and political goods not dependent on gods, and that there are absolute ethical and political goods (and wrongs) even if they are only human derived.
-
One thing for a start would be to stop giving undue prominence to religious ideas, such as having a university subject headed as theology, when theology should come under the general heading of philosophy.
...
Theology could be seen as a branch of philosophy, or philosophy could be seen as an offshoot of theology. Why don't you go the whole hog and ask for it to be renamed "God bothering"?
-
Theology could be seen as a branch of philosophy, or philosophy could be seen as an offshoot of theology. Why don't you go the whole hog and ask for it to be renamed "God bothering"?
Or: 'ideas I don't like, and therefore should be banned'.
-
Theology could be seen as a branch of philosophy, or philosophy could be seen as an offshoot of theology. Why don't you go the whole hog and ask for it to be renamed "God bothering"?
Mmm perhaps because while I am not sure exactly what ippy's position is, that doesn't seem to be it?
-
Seems to me that he just doesn't want anyone taking it seriously?
-
Seems to me that he just doesn't want anyone taking it seriously?
mmm tbf I think he just wants to make sure it isn't taught as 'fact' and doesn't get special privileges, one of which he sees is it as having a separate faculty anywhere
-
that would mean you were asking which beliefs other than beliefs that have god at their core have god at their core, which is nonsensical. People can be told that there are absolute ethical and political goods not dependent on gods, and that there are absolute ethical and political goods (and wrongs) even if they are only human derived.
Apologies, NS, but even with the speed slowed down, I can't hold all of that in my head and sort it out at the same time!!
-
Apologies, NS, but even with the speed slowed down, I can't hold all of that in my head and sort it out at the same time!!
This could run to ten pages BUT what are your criteria for things that 'are subject to indoctrination which resembles religion'? You seemed to suggest that the things put up didn't have 'god' in them, which is surely then mostly a tautology?
-
This could run to ten pages BUT what are your criteria for things 'are subject to indoctrination which resembles religion'? You seemed to suggest that things put up didn't have 'god' in them, which is surely then more stly a tautology?
Okay! First, is there a word missing between 'things' and 'are'? Do you mean 'more style than tautology'?
-
Okay! First, is there a word missing between 'things' and 'are'? Do you mean 'more style than tautology'?
Modified the post so hope it makes more sense.
-
Or: 'ideas I don't like, and therefore should be banned'.
Bannning theology, nothing to do with anything I have written on this thread ?
ippy
-
Ippy: One thing for a start would be to stop giving undue prominence to religious ideas, such as having a university subject headed as theology, when theology should come under the general heading of philosophy.
You've said that umpteen times on this thread, ippy, we all get that is what you mean! It may well pan out that way too in the near future.
I get what you mean about religious indoctrination too, subtle and not so subtle, and your hatred for it comes across clearly. However there is plenty of subtle and not so subtle indoctrination of other ideas which we all come across every day, we only have to put on the TV to experience that and it is far more prevalent than god-bothering.
We are not going to be able to ban personal opinion or stop people expressing their opinions to others. Whether it be obsession with religion (for or against), politics, money, cosmetic surgery, criminology, sport or whatever. Many of those subjects have dangers and are studied at university in one form or another. We can't ban things just because they make us see red or because we fear our children might take them up and come to harm.
As for my "RC lot", I've said several times that I am not a practicing Catholic and haven't been so for many a long year.
-
Ippy: One thing for a start would be to stop giving undue prominence to religious ideas, such as having a university subject headed as theology, when theology should come under the general heading of philosophy.
You've said that umpteen times on this thread, ippy, we all get that is what you mean! It may well pan out that way too in the near future.
I get what you mean about religious indoctrination too, subtle and not so subtle, and your hatred for it comes across clearly. However there is plenty of subtle and not so subtle indoctrination of other ideas which we all come across every day, we only have to put on the TV to experience that and it is far more prevalent than god-bothering.
We are not going to be able to ban personal opinion or stop people expressing their opinions to others. Whether it be obsession with religion (for or against), politics, money, cosmetic surgery, criminology, sport or whatever. Many of those subjects have dangers and are studied at university in one form or another. We can't ban things just because they make us see red or because we fear our children might take them up and come to harm.
Sorry Brownie, banning things? I don't see the connection to anything I have written here on this thread?
Sorry about the repeats but to be fair, the point I'm trying to make is taking some conciderable time to sink in in some quarters, necessititating repeat performances.
Not quite so much hate of religion, yes dislike of, more they keep on getting away with it and why should they.
(Grabing unwarented positions and privilleges, just in case anyone wondered what it is they keep getting away with).
As for standing on some sort of mythical high horse and then targeting very young children, does incline me to think religionists in general are in a kind of distastefull indoctrinational premiership league of their own making.
ippy
-
BUT what are your criteria for things that 'are subject to indoctrination which resembles religion'? You seemed to suggest that the things put up didn't have 'god' in them, which is surely then mostly a tautology?
Thank you for the modification. I will respond tomorrow.
-
[NS
BUT what are your criteria for things that 'are subject to indoctrination which resembles religion'? You seemed to suggest that the things put up didn't have 'god' in them, which is surely then mostly a tautology?
Many ideas, supposedly holy books and sets of rules can be indoctrinated, but I cannot think of any idea, principle or law which is considered to be other than a wholly human one, outside of all religious ideas, even though peoplewith religious beliefs have framed them. If what I said sounds like a tautology, well, perhaps it is worth saying twice!!
-
One person's take on why you should study theology
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/study-theology-even-if-you-dont-believe-in-god/280999/