nobody should be studying the most influential document ever produced in the history of the human race
we shouldn't study history at all!
or anthropology, sociology, &c.
because of course that is exactly what he is suggesting
"We...doubt that "theology" is a subject at all, or...compare it with the study of leprechauns"
oh hey
is theology the study of the tanakh/bible/qoran (&c.)?
I THINK IT IS
You could try actually reading what the guy is saying. He's conceptualising theology in the old-school way: as a structured attempt to understand the mind of God, with the neccessary assumption that he exists, and with the intent being to best enact his will based on the available information and avoid getting smote. Its a bit of a nasty trick, given that western theology is no longer restricted to the study of a single deity and doesn't actually have to operate on that assumption anymore, but if you pay attention to where he's coming from the sentiment at least makes abit more sense.
it would be lovely if people in this thread actually made some attempt to understand the argument before commenting
If you're suggesting the Bible is "history" as in, an accurate record of the past, then you should stop talking.
Even Biblical archaeologists don't think the vast majority of the Bible is historically accurate.
no
I am claiming that the Bible has influenced the course of human history more than any other document ever
Only if you think the only people who count are whites.
Well, Europeans have exerted a great influence on the world, so arguably the things which influenced Europeans to behave the way they have, by extension, is an influence on the whole world.
If you're suggesting the Bible is "history" as in, an accurate record of the past, then you should stop talking.
Even Biblical archaeologists don't think the vast majority of the Bible is historically accurate.
no
I am claiming that the Bible has influenced the course of human history more than any other document ever
Only if you think the only people who count are whites.
Well, Europeans have exerted a great influence on the world, so arguably the things which influenced Europeans to behave the way they have, by extension, is an influence on the whole world.
They still haven't had the influence RF and you are implying that they have. Its pure anglocentrism to make that claim, and it has little to no basis in fact.
I mean, it is not racist to say that for a long time Africa did not play as great a role in world affairs than Europeans
anyway, theology includes african tribal religions, hinduism, buddhism, etc
*facepalm*
that's because the people who decided what counted as important were europeans. could you maybe, like, study some world history before spouting off about it?
And get out of my fucking thread with that "most important document" shit. Read the fucking OP, read the argument, read the definitions of the terms which have been repeated at least once in this thread.
If you're suggesting the Bible is "history" as in, an accurate record of the past, then you should stop talking.
Even Biblical archaeologists don't think the vast majority of the Bible is historically accurate.
no
I am claiming that the Bible has influenced the course of human history more than any other document ever
Only if you think the only people who count are whites.
Well, Europeans have exerted a great influence on the world, so arguably the things which influenced Europeans to behave the way they have, by extension, is an influence on the whole world.
They still haven't had the influence RF and you are implying that they have. Its pure anglocentrism to make that claim, and it has little to no basis in fact.
I'm not even making that claim. I'm just saying there is a basis to it, and it seems silly to dismiss it out-of-hand.
I don't personally subscribe to it, or even believe that you could ever figure out which document is the most influential in human history, but on the other hand it's not utterly baseless.
So wait, is the question that universities should all be somehow "above" having religious leanings? And assuming, of course, that religion is fundamentally wrong according to the accepted worldview? I don't fully get this.
I mean, I don't see why universities should be held to such a standard. You seem to have decided that theology is BS (which may not be unjustified), however it is not the only aspect of university curriculums which are BSey or on shaky foundations, at least in my opinion.
As for the 95% going to hell quote, that seems pretty ridiculous if that's true. I need to look up Romans, but I think there is a passage which is contradictory to the notion that "all the heathens go to hell".
I'm wondering about supply and demand.
If people want to study something at a University, and the University is capable of teaching them about it, is there any reason for it not to be taught? I guess what I'm asking is whether a University has a duty to provide information it believes to be true, or simply to supply the information students demand?
There's a lot of room to dance around that question. However, assuming the University's understanding of what people want to know is the same as the students', based on wider use of that knowledge and what the students want to do with it then are other evaluations of the validity of the information necessary? Meaning for example, if people want to learn about Astrology in a University, can the University just say "ca-ching" and open a new department?
Raern on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
As for the 95% going to hell quote, that seems pretty ridiculous if that's true. I need to look up Romans, but I think there is a passage which is contradictory to the notion that "all the heathens go to hell".
If this is the case, then I fail to see how it does anything except demonstrate the lack of authority that a theologian brings to the table.
You could try actually reading what the guy is saying. He's conceptualising theology in the old-school way: as a structured attempt to understand the mind of God, with the neccessary assumption that he exists, and with the intent being to best enact his will based on the available information and avoid getting smote. Its a bit of a nasty trick, given that western theology is no longer restricted to the study of a single deity and doesn't actually have to operate on that assumption anymore, but if you pay attention to where he's coming from the sentiment at least makes abit more sense.
it would be lovely if people in this thread actually made some attempt to understand the argument before commenting
No, actually reading what people are saying is pretty much beyond many in this thread.
Theology departments in many universities have slowly morphed into purely religious studies departments in modern times. But they still have many shackles to the past, usually, and there are certainly those theology departments that do operate under the assumption that the Christian God exists, and seek to study "him."
It is those departments I am railing against, and the fact that this is hard for people to grasp is not my problem.
Oh and Richy, what was that about not addressing points again?
As for the 95% going to hell quote, that seems pretty ridiculous if that's true. I need to look up Romans, but I think there is a passage which is contradictory to the notion that "all the heathens go to hell".
If this is the case, then I fail to see how it does anything except demonstrate the lack of authority that a theologian brings to the table.
Ah, I found it, but it was mostly referring to the Jewish law.
well, I would contend that they are learning. I have a great deal of faith in people's ability to absorb information and make their own decisions about it.
Do I care if other people teach things to people who want to learn said things?
Not really.
Why do all of you.
(agnostics are superior to all of you, bwhaahahahahahah)
That's fortunate, because public funding has to come from somewhere and it may as well be you. Since you don't mind and all.
I didn't realize this was a money issue. I thought it was because some people were morally opposed to people being taught traditional theology courses in college? I'd think theology departments would be one of the last things we'd attack if we were upset about where our taxes were going though.
and, isn't oxford funded by what it recieves from tuition? (at least mostly)
The usefulness of theology depends on whether or not you think it is worthwhile to study people's superstitions.
It's not exactly astrology, because astrology is simply fake, while religion is something that can't be proven either way. So it's kind of a half-waste of time.
Do I care if other people teach things to people who want to learn said things?
Not really.
Why do all of you.
(agnostics are superior to all of you, bwhaahahahahahah)
That's fortunate, because public funding has to come from somewhere and it may as well be you. Since you don't mind and all.
I didn't realize this was a money issue. I thought it was because some people were morally opposed to people being taught traditional theology courses in college? I'd think theology departments would be one of the last things we'd attack if we were upset about where our taxes were going though.
and, isn't oxford funded by what it recieves from tuition? (at least mostly)
It's not about being offended, it's about tax dollars going toward a religious cause (in some cases). Many schools I'm sure teach all religion with indifference as a social science type class, discussing the intricacies of why people believe what they do.
The one's I have a problem with are the ones that recieve public funding, and then use it as a platform to educate people on how right their chosen religion is. I'm only aware of this being done with christianity/catholicism but I'm opposed to public funding going anywhere near religion for the sake of spreading it. I don't care if it's a nickle or a euro.
The usefulness of theology depends on whether or not you think it is worthwhile to study people's superstitions.
It's not exactly astrology, because astrology is simply fake, while religion is something that can't be proven either way. So it's kind of a half-waste of time.
What's the difference between astrology and major religions, as far as the veracity of either's claims?
A lot of the argument against theology as a course of study seem to involve whether it's "useful" enough to merit the attention and money of universities. I believe that it's actually more important to humans as a community than it initially looks on paper.
In the case of Oxford, the theology department is not just involved in talking about a particular slice of Christianity (though there are certainly the Jerry Falwell Universities in the world), the "Theology department" is actually their seminary program. While the denomination of the ministerial candidate may encourage their candidates to go to particular schools, the majority of seminary programs for budding ministers include not only courses about religion, but also courses in comparative religion, business classes specific to running a church, psych classes about counseling, liberal religious thought (for the UU's of the world), and so forth. Sometimes the non-diety-oriented classes are farmed out to other departments, but seminaries like Chandler (at Emory University), the seminaries at Duke and Vanderbilt, and Meadeville-Lombard in Chicago are self contained.
Is a degree in theology good for much beyond teaching, personal curiosity, or ministry? Maybe not, but the same can be argued for literature or fine arts. That said, I'd rather the seated minister of my congregation have his degree in his professional field instead of something so broad as sociology, business management, psychology, or political sciences. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer the opiate of the masses to be administered by "qualified" professionals from specialized schools.
Solandra on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited October 2007
We know they are seminaries. That is not a selling point.
Theology departments in many universities have slowly morphed into purely religious studies departments in modern times. But they still have many shackles to the past, usually, and there are certainly those theology departments that do operate under the assumption that the Christian God exists, and seek to study "him."
It is those departments I am railing against, and the fact that this is hard for people to grasp is not my problem.
I think I understand this pretty well, but I see it as a non-issue because in this case I see no effective difference between theologians positing "what if God exists?" and exploring the philosophical ramifications of that statement, versus theologians declaring that God exists and then exploring the philosophical ramifications of that statement.
Yes, theologians are cutting out the crucial first step of figuring out if there even is a deity to ponder, but everyone should be aware of that going in. The mere fact that theologians aren't as rigorous in verifying initial assumptions as scientists or philosophers are isn't a good enough reason (IMHO) to completely eliminate theology from a religious studies curriculum.
Theology departments in many universities have slowly morphed into purely religious studies departments in modern times. But they still have many shackles to the past, usually, and there are certainly those theology departments that do operate under the assumption that the Christian God exists, and seek to study "him."
It is those departments I am railing against, and the fact that this is hard for people to grasp is not my problem.
I think I understand this pretty well, but I see it as a non-issue because in this case I see no effective difference between theologians positing "what if God exists?" and exploring the philosophical ramifications of that statement, versus theologians declaring that God exists and then exploring the philosophical ramifications of that statement.
Yes, theologians are cutting out the crucial first step of figuring out if there even is a deity to ponder, but everyone should be aware of that going in. The mere fact that theologians aren't as rigorous in verifying initial assumptions as scientists or philosophers are isn't a good enough reason (IMHO) to completely eliminate theology from a religious studies curriculum.
No, no, no. Declaring a very specific god exists is the issue, and they seek to answer questions in the context of Yahweh/Allah/whatever. The philosophical question "what if god exists?" is more general and deals with things like omnipotence (it doesn't work) and the ramifications for morality vs an outsider.
The mere fact that theologians aren't as rigorous in verifying initial assumptions as scientists or philosophers are isn't a good enough reason (IMHO) to completely eliminate theology from a religious studies curriculum.
It's a good reason for removing their degree status though.
I'd also get rid of any degree course with the word "studies" in the title but that's a whole different thread.
Theology departments in many universities have slowly morphed into purely religious studies departments in modern times. But they still have many shackles to the past, usually, and there are certainly those theology departments that do operate under the assumption that the Christian God exists, and seek to study "him."
It is those departments I am railing against, and the fact that this is hard for people to grasp is not my problem.
I think I understand this pretty well, but I see it as a non-issue because in this case I see no effective difference between theologians positing "what if God exists?" and exploring the philosophical ramifications of that statement, versus theologians declaring that God exists and then exploring the philosophical ramifications of that statement.
Yes, theologians are cutting out the crucial first step of figuring out if there even is a deity to ponder, but everyone should be aware of that going in. The mere fact that theologians aren't as rigorous in verifying initial assumptions as scientists or philosophers are isn't a good enough reason (IMHO) to completely eliminate theology from a religious studies curriculum.
No, no, no. Declaring a very specific god exists is the issue, and they seek to answer questions in the context of Yahweh/Allah/whatever. The philosophical question "what if god exists?" is more general and deals with things like omnipotence (it doesn't work) and the ramifications for morality vs an outsider.
Okay. Amend my statement to be "...theologians positing 'What if the Christian God exists?'" and "...versus theologians declaring that the Christian God exists'."
(That's what I meant, but I should have been more specific.)
The mere fact that theologians aren't as rigorous in verifying initial assumptions as scientists or philosophers are isn't a good enough reason (IMHO) to completely eliminate theology from a religious studies curriculum.
It's a good reason for removing their degree status though.
I'd also get rid of any degree course with the word "studies" in the title but that's a whole different thread.
Why on both?
Specifically: why is theology not degree-worthy but animal husbandry and studio art are?
More specifically: here are some of Oxford's other degree-granting undergraduate courses. What's less degree-worthy about theology than these are?
- Fine Art
- Classics
- Classics and Modern Languages
- English Language and Literature
- English and Modern Languages
- European and Middle Eastern Languages
- Modern Languages
- Music
- History of Art
- Oriental Studies
Positing "the christian god exists" isn't useful though. It's an extension of the Church inside an educational institution, and has exactly zero extra merit compared to any random guy on the street claiming the same thing. It runs contrary to academia because it excludes any sort of diversification and operates within a set of rather rigid boundaries - compare to say, an English degree which covers the entire scope of English literature as well as anything you can translate/speak beyond that.
Positing "the christian god exists" isn't useful though. It's an extension of the Church inside an educational institution,
...An extension of the Church inside an educational institution that was borne of the Church, in the case of Oxford (and of universities in general, although not most modern institutions).
Your point works better for completely public schools, but I don't see it being a good argument for removal of theology from private universities.
and has exactly zero extra merit compared to any random guy on the street claiming the same thing.
How do you define "merit"? Are you suggesting that everything that appears in a university's curriculum needs to be beyond a certain threshold of public awareness? Because "any random guy on the street" can demonstrate the knowledge of English Language and Literature that you'd find at Oxford. (I don't mean that it's likely, but that it's possible.)
Or is it just because Christian theology's basic principle (Christian God exists) aren't philosophically rigorous enough?
It runs contrary to academia because it excludes any sort of diversification and operates within a set of rather rigid boundaries - compare to say, an English degree which covers the entire scope of English literature as well as anything you can translate/speak beyond that.
But how do you define the limits of acceptable diversification/rigid boundaries? Is Women's/Gender Studies not sufficiently broad to constitute an entire academic department? What about French as a major: sure, you get exposed to a fair amount of French literature, but it's still pretty limiting in that all you learn about are French cultures and the language.
It seems like the counter-argument to your point is simply to establish courses in theologies other than Christianity.
The usefulness of theology depends on whether or not you think it is worthwhile to study people's superstitions.
It's not exactly astrology, because astrology is simply fake, while religion is something that can't be proven either way. So it's kind of a half-waste of time.
What's the difference between astrology and major religions, as far as the veracity of either's claims?
They are both an equal waste of time.
Except one is a massive influence on several of the most powerful societies in the world and it might be helpful to a bit of inisight into how those people think.
I honestly wouldn't mind theology being moved into a more specific branch of religious studies though.
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.
The mere fact that theologians aren't as rigorous in verifying initial assumptions as scientists or philosophers are isn't a good enough reason (IMHO) to completely eliminate theology from a religious studies curriculum.
It's a good reason for removing their degree status though.
I'd also get rid of any degree course with the word "studies" in the title but that's a whole different thread.
Why on both?
If the entire course is predicated on a idea which at no point does the department attempt to prove, then that's a damn good reason to remove their ability to hand out degrees.
Specifically: why is theology not degree-worthy but animal husbandry and studio art are?
I'm presuming an animal husbandry course would require knowledge of animal biology, nutrition, diseases etc and would include knowledge that had undergone verification by biology and veterinary medicine. Of course, if this were an animal husbandry course specifically tailored to the care of unicorns, then it would have no more validity than the theology degree.
I don't know what studio art would entail. A quick google search seems that it would involve graphic design, photography, ceramics and so on. These can all require knowledge about the chemistry and physics involved as well as the practical skills to apply that knowledge. If a major component of the course involved studying the history of Klingon architecture, then I'd roundfile it with the theology department.
- Fine Art
Depends on the course - it could encompass the history of art and the way materials and styles have changed over time and lead to/involve restoration skills.
- Classics
Does not begin with "Zeus exists..."
- Classics and Modern Languages
Much of our language derives from Greek and Latin so this improves our knowledge of language development and history
- English Language and Literature
Does not require existence of Old Gobbo or Nicholas Nickelby
- English and Modern Languages
Until the majority of civilisation starts to speak ancient Sumerian...
- European and Middle Eastern Languages
Until the majority of Europe and the Middle East starts to speak ancient Sumerian...
- Modern Languages
You get the idea...
- Music
Depends on course content, but we can all agree that music has a verifiable existence and a developmental history
- History of Art
This would be the study of cultural artifacts which can help us understand the development of art and the society that generated it.
- Oriental Studies
Too vague - his falls under my "studies" policy. It could be about the socio-political developmental of medieval China, it could be about where to order the best szechuan chicken. Either way, there is no dispute as to the existence of the orient.
edit: My general beef with "studies" courses is that those I've encountered seem to be a couple of modules worth of material that has to be fleshed out by letting people take all kinds of unrelated modules to get enough credits to earn a degree. I know that's not completely unusual for the US system where you choose a major, but to get a degree in physics I studied physics and some associated maths for three years. It takes the piss when you see someone walking around calling themselves a graduate who put less thought into their course than I put into ordering lunch.
That and the number of media studies and film studies students who had to have symbology and meaning within films and media explained to them by chemists and engineers. A good rule of thumb is that any course whose title cannot be fully descriptive witin 3 or 4 words without including the word "studies" should not be given degree status.
Gorak on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
Wait. Everyone realizes you don't need to believe in any religion to go to a theological school, right? Heck, even you could do it, Loren.
If the entire course is predicated on a idea which at no point does the department attempt to prove, then that's a damn good reason to remove their ability to hand out degrees.
You're assuming that universities are in the business of only studying the rational; I think programs like fine art and literature are the perfect counter-examples, as are theater and dance. There are plenty of non-rational courses of study which award degrees, why can't theology be one of them?
I don't know what studio art would entail. A quick google search seems that it would involve graphic design, photography, ceramics and so on. These can all require knowledge about the chemistry and physics involved as well as the practical skills to apply that knowledge. If a major component of the course involved studying the history of Klingon architecture, then I'd roundfile it with the theology department.
Studio art is about learning to create art. That involves some of the "practical" knowledge you mention, and there's a fair amount of reasoning that goes on as to what constitutes "good" art and how do certain things, but studio art is fundamentally an emotional, irrational course of study. If studying the history of Klingon architecture could improve studio art students' skills then it would certainly be applicable.
- Oriental Studies
Too vague - his falls under my "studies" policy. It could be about the socio-political developmental of medieval China, it could be about where to order the best szechuan chicken. Either way, there is no dispute as to the existence of the orient.
This is off-topic, but the "studies" thing is silly. Departments get referred to as "X Studies" just because they're new, or represent a new perspective or rearrangement of an older discipline.
Wait. Everyone realizes you don't need to believe in any religion to go to a theological school, right? Heck, even you could do it, Loren.
We do and we don't. I think what's bugging me most about the way this discussion is going is that just because god(s) are unprovable doesn't mean that thinking what if? thoughts about them has absolutely no value whatsoever. I mean, it essentially seems to be boiling down to people saying "I don't agree with religion because it's unprovable, so it has no place in a university." Meanwhile, universities don't exist to cater to agreed-upon notions of acceptable vs. unacceptable ideas, they exist to propagate knowledge. Like it or not, there are centuries and millennia of writings and thought about Christian, Muslim, and various other theologies, and that accumulated body of knowledge interests many people---including some people who aren't religious themselves, but are nevertheless fascinated by something that's shared by literally 99% of the world's population. Why should students be forbidden to learn about such a powerful and complex force in human affairs?
Just because Christian (or any other) theology is an imperfect philosophy doesn't mean it has no effect on the world, and that there's no value in studying it for the religion, the philosophy, or even the art of the language involved.
Let me use a variation on an analogy I used earlier.
One need not "actually accept" conservative dogmas, such as the efficacy of supply-side economic theory, to pursue the fantastical "what-if" world of the benefits of supply-side economics.
The subject of "post-supply-side success" is nonsensical whether you actually believe it or not.
I have no doubts that there are non-believing theologians and theology students. In all likelihood, they've treated the subject much like religious studies. This would be akin to a chiropractor not believing the woo-woo of his subject and simply being an extremely specialized physical therapist.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Let me use a variation on an analogy I used earlier.
One need not "actually accept" conservative dogmas, such as the efficacy of supply-side economic theory, to pursue the fantastical "what-if" world of the benefits of supply-side economics.
The subject of "post-supply-side success" is nonsensical whether you actually believe it or not.
I have no doubts that there are non-believing theologians and theology students. In all likelihood, they've treated the subject much like religious studies. This would be akin to a chiropractor not believing the woo-woo of his subject and simply being an extremely specialized physical therapist.
I was using you as an example. I'm aware that you know this.
Posts
You could try actually reading what the guy is saying. He's conceptualising theology in the old-school way: as a structured attempt to understand the mind of God, with the neccessary assumption that he exists, and with the intent being to best enact his will based on the available information and avoid getting smote. Its a bit of a nasty trick, given that western theology is no longer restricted to the study of a single deity and doesn't actually have to operate on that assumption anymore, but if you pay attention to where he's coming from the sentiment at least makes abit more sense.
it would be lovely if people in this thread actually made some attempt to understand the argument before commenting
But theology doesn't look at the Bible like that.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Only if you think the only people who count are whites.
Well, Europeans have exerted a great influence on the world, so arguably the things which influenced Europeans to behave the way they have, by extension, is an influence on the whole world.
I mean, it is not racist to say that for a long time Africa did not play as great a role in world affairs than Europeans
anyway, theology includes african tribal religions, hinduism, buddhism, etc
They still haven't had the influence RF and you are implying that they have. Its pure anglocentrism to make that claim, and it has little to no basis in fact.
*facepalm*
that's because the people who decided what counted as important were europeans. could you maybe, like, study some world history before spouting off about it?
religion in general alright has had a Brobdingnagian role in human history
And get out of my fucking thread with that "most important document" shit. Read the fucking OP, read the argument, read the definitions of the terms which have been repeated at least once in this thread.
I am wrong
I'm not even making that claim. I'm just saying there is a basis to it, and it seems silly to dismiss it out-of-hand.
I don't personally subscribe to it, or even believe that you could ever figure out which document is the most influential in human history, but on the other hand it's not utterly baseless.
I mean, I don't see why universities should be held to such a standard. You seem to have decided that theology is BS (which may not be unjustified), however it is not the only aspect of university curriculums which are BSey or on shaky foundations, at least in my opinion.
As for the 95% going to hell quote, that seems pretty ridiculous if that's true. I need to look up Romans, but I think there is a passage which is contradictory to the notion that "all the heathens go to hell".
If people want to study something at a University, and the University is capable of teaching them about it, is there any reason for it not to be taught? I guess what I'm asking is whether a University has a duty to provide information it believes to be true, or simply to supply the information students demand?
There's a lot of room to dance around that question. However, assuming the University's understanding of what people want to know is the same as the students', based on wider use of that knowledge and what the students want to do with it then are other evaluations of the validity of the information necessary? Meaning for example, if people want to learn about Astrology in a University, can the University just say "ca-ching" and open a new department?
If this is the case, then I fail to see how it does anything except demonstrate the lack of authority that a theologian brings to the table.
No, actually reading what people are saying is pretty much beyond many in this thread.
Theology departments in many universities have slowly morphed into purely religious studies departments in modern times. But they still have many shackles to the past, usually, and there are certainly those theology departments that do operate under the assumption that the Christian God exists, and seek to study "him."
It is those departments I am railing against, and the fact that this is hard for people to grasp is not my problem.
Oh and Richy, what was that about not addressing points again?
Ah, I found it, but it was mostly referring to the Jewish law.
Not really.
Why do all of you.
(agnostics are superior to all of you, bwhaahahahahahah)
Because we value learning?
alternate answer: no u
That's fortunate, because public funding has to come from somewhere and it may as well be you. Since you don't mind and all.
I didn't realize this was a money issue. I thought it was because some people were morally opposed to people being taught traditional theology courses in college? I'd think theology departments would be one of the last things we'd attack if we were upset about where our taxes were going though.
and, isn't oxford funded by what it recieves from tuition? (at least mostly)
It's not exactly astrology, because astrology is simply fake, while religion is something that can't be proven either way. So it's kind of a half-waste of time.
It's not about being offended, it's about tax dollars going toward a religious cause (in some cases). Many schools I'm sure teach all religion with indifference as a social science type class, discussing the intricacies of why people believe what they do.
The one's I have a problem with are the ones that recieve public funding, and then use it as a platform to educate people on how right their chosen religion is. I'm only aware of this being done with christianity/catholicism but I'm opposed to public funding going anywhere near religion for the sake of spreading it. I don't care if it's a nickle or a euro.
What's the difference between astrology and major religions, as far as the veracity of either's claims?
They are both an equal waste of time.
In the case of Oxford, the theology department is not just involved in talking about a particular slice of Christianity (though there are certainly the Jerry Falwell Universities in the world), the "Theology department" is actually their seminary program. While the denomination of the ministerial candidate may encourage their candidates to go to particular schools, the majority of seminary programs for budding ministers include not only courses about religion, but also courses in comparative religion, business classes specific to running a church, psych classes about counseling, liberal religious thought (for the UU's of the world), and so forth. Sometimes the non-diety-oriented classes are farmed out to other departments, but seminaries like Chandler (at Emory University), the seminaries at Duke and Vanderbilt, and Meadeville-Lombard in Chicago are self contained.
Is a degree in theology good for much beyond teaching, personal curiosity, or ministry? Maybe not, but the same can be argued for literature or fine arts. That said, I'd rather the seated minister of my congregation have his degree in his professional field instead of something so broad as sociology, business management, psychology, or political sciences. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer the opiate of the masses to be administered by "qualified" professionals from specialized schools.
I think I understand this pretty well, but I see it as a non-issue because in this case I see no effective difference between theologians positing "what if God exists?" and exploring the philosophical ramifications of that statement, versus theologians declaring that God exists and then exploring the philosophical ramifications of that statement.
Yes, theologians are cutting out the crucial first step of figuring out if there even is a deity to ponder, but everyone should be aware of that going in. The mere fact that theologians aren't as rigorous in verifying initial assumptions as scientists or philosophers are isn't a good enough reason (IMHO) to completely eliminate theology from a religious studies curriculum.
It's a good reason for removing their degree status though.
I'd also get rid of any degree course with the word "studies" in the title but that's a whole different thread.
Okay. Amend my statement to be "...theologians positing 'What if the Christian God exists?'" and "...versus theologians declaring that the Christian God exists'."
(That's what I meant, but I should have been more specific.)
Why on both?
Specifically: why is theology not degree-worthy but animal husbandry and studio art are?
More specifically: here are some of Oxford's other degree-granting undergraduate courses. What's less degree-worthy about theology than these are?
- Classics
- Classics and Modern Languages
- English Language and Literature
- English and Modern Languages
- European and Middle Eastern Languages
- Modern Languages
- Music
- History of Art
- Oriental Studies
...An extension of the Church inside an educational institution that was borne of the Church, in the case of Oxford (and of universities in general, although not most modern institutions).
Your point works better for completely public schools, but I don't see it being a good argument for removal of theology from private universities.
How do you define "merit"? Are you suggesting that everything that appears in a university's curriculum needs to be beyond a certain threshold of public awareness? Because "any random guy on the street" can demonstrate the knowledge of English Language and Literature that you'd find at Oxford. (I don't mean that it's likely, but that it's possible.)
Or is it just because Christian theology's basic principle (Christian God exists) aren't philosophically rigorous enough?
But how do you define the limits of acceptable diversification/rigid boundaries? Is Women's/Gender Studies not sufficiently broad to constitute an entire academic department? What about French as a major: sure, you get exposed to a fair amount of French literature, but it's still pretty limiting in that all you learn about are French cultures and the language.
It seems like the counter-argument to your point is simply to establish courses in theologies other than Christianity.
I honestly wouldn't mind theology being moved into a more specific branch of religious studies though.
We do, they are called Chemistry and Astromony.
If the entire course is predicated on a idea which at no point does the department attempt to prove, then that's a damn good reason to remove their ability to hand out degrees.
I'm presuming an animal husbandry course would require knowledge of animal biology, nutrition, diseases etc and would include knowledge that had undergone verification by biology and veterinary medicine. Of course, if this were an animal husbandry course specifically tailored to the care of unicorns, then it would have no more validity than the theology degree.
I don't know what studio art would entail. A quick google search seems that it would involve graphic design, photography, ceramics and so on. These can all require knowledge about the chemistry and physics involved as well as the practical skills to apply that knowledge. If a major component of the course involved studying the history of Klingon architecture, then I'd roundfile it with the theology department.
Well, just going by course title;
- Fine Art
Depends on the course - it could encompass the history of art and the way materials and styles have changed over time and lead to/involve restoration skills.
- Classics
Does not begin with "Zeus exists..."
- Classics and Modern Languages
Much of our language derives from Greek and Latin so this improves our knowledge of language development and history
- English Language and Literature
Does not require existence of Old Gobbo or Nicholas Nickelby
- English and Modern Languages
Until the majority of civilisation starts to speak ancient Sumerian...
- European and Middle Eastern Languages
Until the majority of Europe and the Middle East starts to speak ancient Sumerian...
- Modern Languages
You get the idea...
- Music
Depends on course content, but we can all agree that music has a verifiable existence and a developmental history
- History of Art
This would be the study of cultural artifacts which can help us understand the development of art and the society that generated it.
- Oriental Studies
Too vague - his falls under my "studies" policy. It could be about the socio-political developmental of medieval China, it could be about where to order the best szechuan chicken. Either way, there is no dispute as to the existence of the orient.
edit: My general beef with "studies" courses is that those I've encountered seem to be a couple of modules worth of material that has to be fleshed out by letting people take all kinds of unrelated modules to get enough credits to earn a degree. I know that's not completely unusual for the US system where you choose a major, but to get a degree in physics I studied physics and some associated maths for three years. It takes the piss when you see someone walking around calling themselves a graduate who put less thought into their course than I put into ordering lunch.
That and the number of media studies and film studies students who had to have symbology and meaning within films and media explained to them by chemists and engineers. A good rule of thumb is that any course whose title cannot be fully descriptive witin 3 or 4 words without including the word "studies" should not be given degree status.
You're assuming that universities are in the business of only studying the rational; I think programs like fine art and literature are the perfect counter-examples, as are theater and dance. There are plenty of non-rational courses of study which award degrees, why can't theology be one of them?
Studio art is about learning to create art. That involves some of the "practical" knowledge you mention, and there's a fair amount of reasoning that goes on as to what constitutes "good" art and how do certain things, but studio art is fundamentally an emotional, irrational course of study. If studying the history of Klingon architecture could improve studio art students' skills then it would certainly be applicable.
This is off-topic, but the "studies" thing is silly. Departments get referred to as "X Studies" just because they're new, or represent a new perspective or rearrangement of an older discipline.
We do and we don't. I think what's bugging me most about the way this discussion is going is that just because god(s) are unprovable doesn't mean that thinking what if? thoughts about them has absolutely no value whatsoever. I mean, it essentially seems to be boiling down to people saying "I don't agree with religion because it's unprovable, so it has no place in a university." Meanwhile, universities don't exist to cater to agreed-upon notions of acceptable vs. unacceptable ideas, they exist to propagate knowledge. Like it or not, there are centuries and millennia of writings and thought about Christian, Muslim, and various other theologies, and that accumulated body of knowledge interests many people---including some people who aren't religious themselves, but are nevertheless fascinated by something that's shared by literally 99% of the world's population. Why should students be forbidden to learn about such a powerful and complex force in human affairs?
Just because Christian (or any other) theology is an imperfect philosophy doesn't mean it has no effect on the world, and that there's no value in studying it for the religion, the philosophy, or even the art of the language involved.