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!
Posts
And you're assuming that theology is the only thing I'd get rid of as opposed to being the first on a list.
I notice you avoided quoting the reference to unicorn husbandry that put the Klingon reference in context. The point is that the "history of Klingon architecture" is something that doesn't exist outside of Star Trek fan fiction. Therefore, a course which focussed on studying it would be pointless.
Theological musings are not knowledge anymore than the script to an episode of Buffy is knowledge. By all means, study the beliefs, scriptures and practices in anthropology, psychology, history and archeology departments - just don't pretend it's a seperate discipline that deserves it's own department.
If we're working on what X% of the world's population are interested in, then Oxford would have a Faculty of Naked Ladies.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Well, quite frankly, then I'm glad you're not in a position to make such decisions. I think it's extremely dangerous for people who aren't professional academics and who haven't demonstrated a similar comprehensive knowledge of academia to start determining what should or shouldn't be taught at universities.
Sorry, that was an honest mistake. I should have paid closer attention to what you wrote.
And I disagree that studying the history of Klingon architecture would always and at all times be "pointless." Again, I think it's up to the professional academics teaching courses to determine what information constitutes required knowledge for their classes.
That's really obtuse. It's not just a matter of "interest," religion and theology have a profound effect on the world, and Oxford has every right to evaluate the body of knowledge encompassed in (Christian) theology and determine for themselves if they think that teaching that body of knowledge is worthwhile to their students.
By the way, I've never expressly called for theology departments to remain as separate departments in universities. I personally think that it makes the most sense to fold them into religious studies departments, but again I think it should be up to the college or university to determine where the department best fits. (There are non-academic things to consider, like faculty availability, teaching loads, money allocation, etc.)
And here's the part you really won't like: many colleges and universities around the world were founded by religious groups specifically to provide an education based upon or steeped in religion. That fact alone means that you can't just dismiss theology from every single university worldwide, because for many schools the entire point of the institution is to teach theology.
Why do you keep arguing that it's up to the schools to decide what they teach, and only qualified academics should assert their opinion on it? Is anyone really trying to say that we should forcibly make the schools change? The point of the thread was to discuss the merits of the department, and that's what we're doing. Let's get rid of all the other D&D threads since everyone's not eminently qualified to comment in them.
Have you not just invalidated any opinion you've expressed in this thread? Unless, of course, you hold a PhD in theology.
Admittedly, both of my degrees are in physics so I shouldn't have any opinion that doesn't relate to that subject matter. The creation of the universe is clearly outside of my purvue.
I used the phrase "doesn't exist outside of Star Trek fan fiction" when referring to Klingon architecture. That is not "pointless at all times" that is "pointless until actual Klingon architecture exists" - which it doesn't.
As I said before, it is not knowledge. If that body of "thought" is valid, then so is the body of "thought" relating to the interactions of Jedi and Sith.
You know I'm in England, right? That isn't a revelation to me.
I see. Our parliament was not designed for universal suffrage - should I surrender my vote? "You shouldn't change it because that's the way it was designed" is not an argument.
I agree.
As long as I can readily distinguish between someone who earned an "academic" degree* and one who hasn't, I can't complain about theology being taught at a University.
*Let's not get into a discussion on what I mean by "academic" in this context.
I point you here, to my post. It in no way rests upon the assumption of atheism.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=3112600&postcount=152
SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
An excellent point.
Speaking as someone working in the operations directorate of a space agency, pretty relevant.
*EDIT* This was originally attributed (incorrectly) to Low Key - my mistake, I deleted the wrong tags. Apologies to Low Key and to anyone else for any confusion
I'll admit that there's a possibility, because I spend a lot of time here drunk and with my head up my arse, but I'm almost definite I never said anything like that.
But even if the theology department does hold a single dogma as true, the course and the knowledge imparted therein would hinge on the presumption that the dogma is true. Theology only covers subject matter within the boundaries of that initial presumption - there's no bleed-over into hard science or other fields of knowledge. If you do not accept the central tenant then the field of knowledge ceases to have any hard relevance, and is only of tangential relevant - ie, knowing theology so you can better use its theories in philosophical debate, etc.
If you want to have a course studying Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, it is a precondition for that study that the students presume that Anna Karenina exists. Whether or not the book actually exists becomes irrelevant once you leave that classroom - one can debate the existence of Anna all one wants, but the knowledge that derives from that original presumption exists in isolation, and cannot affect other fields of knowledge that do not accept the central tenant.
Whether or not a student/lecturer chooses to believe that the the central presumption is true is up to them.
Which is a complicated way of saying: If theology doesn't actually affect anything other than theology, why do you care?
In light of this, my conclusion is that theology has every right to remain a part of university.
Given that I didn't address anyone or any particular argument in my post, I'd think you could see that I was simply giving my thoughts on the topic of discussion, rather than a counter-argument of any sort.
The topic of discussion, being, "Does this shit belong in university?"
Perhaps you should consider learning to read.
Did you read the OP? You're countering an argument that nobody has made at all. Not even Dawkins himself, to my knowledge, has made that argument. So maybe you just shouldn't have posted at all, because you're basically contributing nothing at that point.
No, I'm not countering any argument. It is possible to state one's views in a manner other than as a counter to the views of another person.
That aside, if we assume that you are correct and that my post is somehow harmful to the thread (?), explain how you are doing anything other than compounding the problem.
The point is, nobody is deriding the teaching of religion in the context of history. The entire point of this thread was to talk about the teaching of theology as a study of the metaphysical based on tenuous, spurious claims.
I'm "distracting the argument", eh?
Case in point. That being said, I think it would be wise to stop adding fuel to your tirade. Unless, of course, you'd like to post something relevant.
Nobody has ever argued that religion should not be taught in an historical context. How many fucking times must this be said? And why are you so insistent that I'm in the middle of a tantrum?
The problem, and this is an unusual conclusion for me to reach, is that Loren fucked up. The OP is terrible. It takes a quote of Dawkins talking about Theology departments in the UK: government-funded institutions that are actually quite similar to one another. Their purpose, by and large, is the production of Anglican ministers. Then it throws this quote of Dawkins' into a board primarily composed of Americans without any context or reference. In the US, there is an absurd degree of variance in Theology departments, to the point that I would be willing to bet that there exist Universities whose Theology departments rely less heavily on dogma than Religious Studies departments in others.
The important question, the relevant question.... the ONLY DAMNED QUESTION WORTH ASKING, is whether publicly-funded Unis should be allowed to have Theology departments whose studies are useful primarily for the preservation and dissemination of a single dogma, and only incidentally for the probative social/psychological/anthropological value of those studies. A comparative religion course should treat all religions equally in regards to the potential truth-value of their claims, and the study should be of the historical, ethical, and social consequences of those claims rather than a study of their accuracy. In an Oxford theology department comparative religion course (the claim is being made, I haven't been to Oxford so maybe this is simply not true) the study is of how other religions relate to Christianity, and in what context their claims can be reconciled with Christian claims.
A second question that is much less interesting but I guess still valid is whether private universities ought to have the same thing. I would argue no, down with theology up with religious studies etc etc but of course the change must come from within and the potential consequences of government meddling in free exercise of religion is always way way scarier than a little indoctrination and worthless degrees.
Alright, what the fuck does this even mean? I can tell you: absolutely nothing. Being shot at can greatly aid in a person's growth, but we don't do that as an academic pursuit.
So, let's appeal to numbers to back this up? Sorry, doesn't actually work that way.
I think this mischaracterization of the topic at hand is the root of your problems. The way it should be, even a philosophical approach to the metaphysical should be verboten, considering that we have no reason to think it actually exists, and is therefore little more than a waste of otherwise perfectly useful energy.
Except that, on the scale of plausibility, actual science is miles ahead of any religion in determining what the reality of our universe is.
There, you happy? You entire pointless argument this time, instead of the sole argument that was even close to being salient.
It's very simple. Whether there's anything to it or not, simply holding a belief in a divine benefactor allows a person to develop a sense of inherent belonging. Having a belief that there is some meaning to life is pretty crucial for healthy spiritual development, whether you get your meaning from religion, philosophy, or anything of your own. Religion is also a sound basis for a social network (IE, church) which obviously has its benefits unless you're in some kind of suicide cult.
Call it what you will, but public opinion usually boils down to popular support. If the subject was whether there's any objective merit to religion (Ugh) then you would definitely have a point, but it's not.
You are correct, but the point is moot. Again, cults and crazies aside, people that study religion for religion's sake really only directly affect the religious.
Don't pretend that's not subject to debate. All anyone has on the origins of universe and life is theory, and just about any widely considered scientific theory can be interpreted to support creationism.
bwuh?
Qingu's education - an excellent one, it sounds like - required the discussion of metaphysical claims. If this falls under what you think should be verboten you are out of your god damned mind. If not then I apologize.
Now if you want to argue that religious careers as a whole should be abolished, that would indeed be grounds for the abandonment of theology as a field of study.
I must have seriously mis-read something in his post at that part. Otherwise I would never have agreed.
Revision: I have to agree with nescientist on this.
And why is healthy "spiritual" development so important? I would argue that any spiritual growth is offset by moral and rational dogmatic crutches. Religion was important as a social network thousands of years ago to organize tribes into sustaining groups. These days, not so much, which is one factor why church attendance is decline.
But...that's why you started posting in this thread...
I'm not religious in the slightest, but until you can give me some way in which you can vindicate the belief that it doesn't exist, I'll continue not caring. You don't have the universe figured out. Nobody does.
@Nescientist: On the importance of church being a useful foundation for a social network, it's important to remember to think of people as people and not just units in a society. Different people respond to different things. Without church, there would be a lot of people out on their own.
It is possible to have perfect spiritual development and at the same time to be agnostic or atheistic; I agree that the sometimes arbritrary standards of morality can hamper that development. But again, a lot of people don't respond to anything else. As for why spiritual development is important... Well that's neither here nor there. It's as much a part of your health as mental and physical health, and it's generally a given that being healthy is good.
I'm not sure what you mean.
I understand that, and I think that makes the theological education process more applicable. I think there should be a "seperate but equal" approach, though I don't know how practical that would be.
The argument doesn't go "we shouldn't have theological education because theological education is a religious institution and there is no god," the argument goes "we shouldn't have theological education because theological education is a religious institution that isn't as effective as its secular counterpart"
Religious studies simply does a better job than theology. It requires critical thinking where theology requires adhesion to dogma. It favors no dogma, and it does injury to no dogma (it puts dogmas in the position to be ridiculed, sure, but properly executed the instructor should never be making value judgments).
That's up for debate (whether it forms a net positive, at least), but I don't believe that it's relevant to this discussion so I may as well concede it.
As to the people vs. units in society thing: I don't make a habit of calling people anything other than people. I don't think it's practical or even possible to consider the entire breadth of the human experience when making a prediction or judgment about behavior or morals, but uh... wait what were you getting at here?