Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Dismantle Theology Departments, God damn it!
Loren Michael
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
This was in The Independant:
Also, PZ Myers has this commentary:
Does that shit belong in universities?
Theology has no place in a university
Sir: Professor Richard Bowen thinks I should engage with serious academic theologians rather than the fundamentalist "McDonald's" version of Christianity. He and the Rev Richard Hall (Letters, 19 September) agree with Peter Stanford ("Doubts about Dawkins", 14 September) that I should read theology. Fortunately it looks as though I shall have every opportunity to do so. Oxford University has just officially noticed that its leading theological halls are not fit to admit school-leavers, so these institutions will presumably be touting for mature students.
According to a report in The Times (19 September), Wycliffe Hall and other theological establishments "could risk losing their Oxford University licences altogether". This follows a review that concludes that what is on offer at Wycliffe Hall "does not resemble an Oxford experience in its essentials" and is not "a suitable educational environment for the full intellectual development of young undergraduates". The Rev Mr Hall encourages me to engage with theology academics whose "intelligence is at least equal to Dawkins' own". Indeed I should enjoy engaging with my neighbour, the Principal of Wycliffe Hall, who said in The Independent (25 May), "We are committed to bringing the gospel message of Jesus Christ to those who don't know. In this land, that's 95 per cent of the people: 95 per cent of people facing hell unless the message of the gospel is brought to them." Presumably he is one of the intelligent theologians with whom I should engage.
We who doubt that "theology" is a subject at all, or who compare it with the study of leprechauns, are eagerly hoping to be proved wrong. Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university. But as for theology itself, defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God", a positive case now needs to be made that it has any real content at all, and that it has any place in today's universities.
Richard Dawkins
Oxford
Sir: It is not often that a professor admits to poor scholarship, but that is what Richard Dawkins has done (letter, 17 September). Had I received an essay from a first-year undergraduate in which he admitted not having studied the position of his opponent, I would have insisted on it being rewritten. What is even more remarkable is that Dawkins seems unaware that the positivist account of science, which forms the main plank of his argument, is thoroughly discredited.
To argue for the position he advocates requires a working knowledge of the philosophy of science and religion, epistemology and metaphysics. While scientists of a previous generation, such as Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn, have shown the application required to master these fields prior to publishing their philosophical work, Dawkins has so far shown himself unable or unwilling to do so.
The Revd Dr David Heywood
Lecturer in Pastoral Theology, Ripon College, Cuddesdon Oxfordshire
Also, PZ Myers has this commentary:
You don't see colleges retaining their astrology and alchemy departments, so I think it is quite reasonable to shuffle the superannuated fogeys off to the glue factory, and let the others find their places in disciplines with some foundation in reality, like philosophy and history.
It ought to be considered a promotion. I'd be embarrassed to have a degree in theology … and history, philosophy, literature, etc., all have considerably more respectability.
Does that shit belong in universities?
Loren Michael on
Posts
Either theology is "without" religion, in which case it is just a philosophy, history and sociology degree with a focus on religious beliefs and practices or it is "within" religion in which case the entire framework of the degree is questionable in a modern secular institution. Is that the gist of it? Because neither of those quotes really say much.
That's essentially the meaning I extracted from them. Succinctly put.
Whether or not it "should" continue to be part of the university... well, I think the university itself should be free to decide.
I think the article in the OP is another case of Richard Dawkins making himself sound stupid.
I mean, he's talking about Oxford, not an expressly non-religious public university. Why must all universities, even private schools founded by religious orders or with other strong religious ties, give up decades or centuries of academic tradition just because the department isn't that popular anymore? Edit: by that logic many "acceptable" secular academic disciplines should also be abandoned. I mean, how relevant is astronomy to a university education anymore?
As for the fundamental value of theology as academic discipline: religion is still an extremely powerful force in societies around the world, and that alone makes knowledge of religion relevant. I agree with itylus that it's up to each institution to determine how they're going to teach theology, whether as a separate department or part of a religious studies or philosophy department or whatever.
As for calling a department "redundant" because its topics are covered (in part, with a different perspective, and to a different depth) in other departments, that's a ridiculous claim. You might as well argue that Computer Engineering is redundant in any university that teaches Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and push to abolish that one too.
That's what sociology is for.
But speaking as an electrical engineer, it wouldn't be that great of an argument. And I would imagine that's why many universities have an Electronic and Computer Engineering department. However, those classes involve actual facts and applications. The point of the article was that since the subject, methods, and faculty are all lacking, the Theology department should be abolished.
I think anyone who's got a degree or is getting a degree would be interested in the validity of the degrees being handed out. There are certain skills a university graduate is expected to have, when they study the fields of sociology, philosophy and history. Some might argue that these skill aren't compatible with religious schooling and theology departments stand out as often the only overtly religious schools in otherwise secular institutions.
Loke: I'd say a degee in theology is no more useless than a degree in philosophy.
here is teh relevant part of his sig.
edit: He's not in any sort of theology department. It's just kinda related
<*{{{>< <*{{{>< <*{{{>< <*{{{>< <*{{{>< <*{{{><
<name>
Christian, Computer Services Coordinator
<removed contact info>
><}}}*> ><}}}*> ><}}}*> ><}}}*> ><}}}*> ><}}}*>
Because the social sciences dance a dangerous enough tango with credibility as it is? Because the sanctity (ohho) of knowledge created by universities should be exalted above religious concerns? Because the influence of churches on colleges could be considered insidious and damaging? Because it is an unnecessary anachronism that wastes money and encourages worse? Because you are a raging atheist doucebag with an axe to grind? Who knows.
I think it's more an issue of what Universities should stand for to the people who oppose theology departments.
Well I'll take it for granted that you are basing that on a pretty in depth knowledge of the theology degrees offered at various institutions and the vast number of specific philosophy degrees and the epistemologies, analytical skills, and historical information they encompass.
I'm not well enough informed to comment on that score.
As for the bit on Computer Engineering, I know it's not a great argument. That was my point. I was trying to illustrate how weak an argument "this department is redundant" is.
I mean (at least in well-respected universities), they tend to be bastions of relatively liberal, left-leaning religion, and encourage some level of individual interpretation and conclusions. As far as religious institutions go, theology departments are pretty much harmless.
Umm, no. Sociology is not a catch-all discipline for anything vaguely philosophical or humanities-based.
I totally agree, which is what bugs me so much about Dawkins in general and in this specific case. Regardless of the source of funding, or the politics or religion(s) or whatever of a university's founders, the vast majority of colleges and universities are dedicated exclusively to education and the furthering of human knowledge---including human knowledge of religion. "Raging atheist douchebags" like Dawkins are doing academia a disservice by blindly proclaiming certain subjects they just don't like to be invalid---shouldn't it be up to the academics to do that, as they've been doing for centuries?
Why don't more people understand this?
Where did I make those claims about sociology? How does sociology not cover "societies around the world", including various religions influence on them?
Because sociology doesn't cover philosophy as well as philosophy departments? Because anthropology does an even better job (or at least an equal job) covering the same religious material as sociology would? How likely do you think it is that sociology classes would adequately address in-depth the complicated philosophical workings of Christian theology, rather than just falling back on analyzing social impact?
tl;dr: sociology has a large umbrella, but it still doesn't really cover theology
It's like saying "well, you don't need biology or chemistry, since you can just describe everything that happens in those fields with physics."
Exactly. And don't get me wrong, I don't see a particularly compelling reason to keep theology as an entirely separate department, but I think that should be up to the school. There are certainly good options, though, like folding theology into philosophy or into religion/religious studies. (Just like how astronomy is usually part of the physics department.)
No need to cry just because he doesn't believe your fairy tales.
That is the main point of his letter and it is a perfetly valid one.
edit: Religion does not teach you how to think - it may tell you what to think but that's hardly a redeeming feature.
That's incorrect.
I don't believe any "fairy tales" (i.e. I'm atheist) and I think Dawkins' argument is imbecilic.
...Okay, but the "main point of his letter" doesn't support his contention that universities should stop teaching and researching theology.
There's literally millennia of writing about the "nature, attributes, and governance of God"---just because Richard Dawkins doesn't agree with millennia of theology doesn't mean it's automatically worthless information.
News flash: getting a BA in Creative Writing is getting a "degree in making stuff up." As is a BFA/MFA, a degree in history, the list goes on.
That doesn't make the study of creative writing, or studio art, or history, or anything else any more "invalid" than studying engineering or business.
Philosophy is the study of great ideas throughout history. Theology is the study of fictional beings. Theology can include simply religious history, which is a perfectly valid area of study, as it regards actual things and trends in history. However, the term "theology" usually means the main focus is the study of God and other theological musings. When used in this manner, it is arguably less useful than a degree in Philosophy.
Why do people keep saying this? When you study theology you are debating how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin. That is purely wasted energy. A "valid" department would not take as its fundamental premise something as dubious as the existence of a deity.
Again, here I am distinguishing "theology" from the more specific "religious studies." Religious studies is merely learning about the beliefs and histories of religions today and in the past. In order to be a valid approach, it must be secular in its point of view, but it is a perfectly fine area of study.
Have you read him? Or are you just going by what everybody whines about?
Oh, you're an atheist, huh?
I'm sorry, then. I must have missed the part where you defined "atheist" as "someone who says he's an atheist but actually has respect for religious arguments."
If you're an atheist, you don't believe there is a god. If you don't believe there is a god, to the extent that you would describe yourself in relation to that lack of belief, then it follows that you would consider any arguments that start from the premise you consider to be invalid, to be invalid.
Or maybe you just said "I'm an atheist!" to garner more respect for your view from those of us who actually are atheists on this forum? That's a bit disingenuous, isn't it?
However.
Religious Studies is NOT the same as Theology. Religious Studies views religion objectively (as much as possible), much as Philosophy views Kant or Plato, apart from any value- or truth-judgment. Theology does no such thing. When you study Theology, you come in with the assumption that your religion (in America, Christianity) is true. Much of Theology deals with filling in contradictions and reconciling your religion—assumed to be God's truth—with reality and morality.
I see Theology as something akin to how Star Wars dorks spend hours upon hours of their time debating on George Lucas' intent and the timelines of the Star Wars universe and how best to resolve the apparent contradictions in the movies. This can no doubt be a challenging and interesting discipline for Star Wars afficianados but it has jack shit do with reality. The same can be said about the fictional world of Christianity, with its invisible god, legions of supernatural creatures and blatantly mythological creation story and histories. This isn't to say that this stuff isn't incredibly interesting—but it needs to be studied in a broader historical or a philosophical context, just as Star Wars needs to be studied in the broader context of cinema or pulp fiction.
I agree with the OP's citation. Having a Theology degree program is absurd for any institution hoping to prepare its undergraduates with a well-rounded and applicable education.
Stop shoving this lack of faith down our throats, will you?
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613
Is it any more "wasted energy" than reading literature for an English degree? Or memorizing slides for an Art History degree?
I don't think that the litmus test for "acceptable" academic inquiry should be real-world applications; plenty of secular things (like some sciences) go out the window when we start making those kinds of value judgments.
See, I don't think we should make this distinction. Theology should always be part of religious studies, at least for students taking religious studies courses. Otherwise, how well can you truly understand the religion you're studying? This doesn't mean one needs to believe the theology, but I don't see how you can study the religion of Christianity without dealing with Christian theology.
...Except I don't confuse the study of theology--a philosophy with which I disagree--with belief in that theology.
Are you implying that the only avenues of valid academic inquiry are those which can be objectively proven? Because then there's no point in archeologists and historians looking at myths to glean insights.
Actually, I said that to cut off the apparent atheist vs. non-atheist dichotomy that seemed to be coming out of the woodwork. I don't consider it disingenuous to point out that some people can find value in learning about a system of beliefs even if they don't personally believe the same things.
A THOUSAND TIMES YES
Breaking update: people don't actually believe the stories they make up in Creative Writing are true. Creative writing and art are explicitly about creating something beautiful or entertaining that others appreciate. Theology's goal is to try and understand something imaginary.
And how in the world do you think studying history is making stuff up?
Do we have any more entrants in the poorly thought out analogies category?
If this was in response to me, it's a complete misunderstanding (or willful ignorance) of what I was saying.
Please read the undergraduate prospectus and the list of classes ordered by topics for the Theology faculty at Oxford. You will find that classes focus on biblical languages, text analysis, history, art, philosophy and morality, and all the topics you would expect in a serious, objective theology course, or what you would refer to as "religious studies". I cannot see anywhere the "angels dancing on pin heads" debate class you bitch on and on about. I can only conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Theology is no more or less valid that philosophy or history. It is simply philosophy and history specialized to focus on a specific religion. Religion is an important part of most people's lives today and throughout history. And just because we have a small minority of people like Dawkins who go into an uncontrollable insane rage at the mere mention of God doesn't mean we suddenly have to discard the academic study of such an important force in human history and society.