I mean, look at it this way, Shakespeare's existance has been called into question, but that didn't keep us from studying him.
What is wrong with studying religion, even if we can't prove it?
And better yet, seperate it from the other things, so it doesn't get mixed up in everything else. I think, if we ARE going to keep theology around, most non-believers would prefer that, rather than having students in sociology or philosophy classes being taught theology as well.
Similarly, a theology department's purpose (like religion itself) is not to mindlessly impress doctrine on students but to develop virtues in their character.
Are you familiar with the history of most religions?
Because nothing ever changes, and anything that was ever done continues to be done constantly?
Just like how Americans keep slaves, and we all believe that the world is flat.
Things change. There are many liberal religious traditions today that have tried to integrate themselves into the now-dominant secular humanism of the West.
Nevertheless, I think it's disingenuous to say that religion's purpose is to "develop virtue" rather than mindlessly impress doctrine. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as some eastern traditions (that I am admittingly less familiar with) started with a central cult which focused on repetitive ritual and the preservation and expansion of the group. Yes, from an individual perspective you believed in religion to be "virtuous," but this "virtue" was largely defined by adherence to the dogma of the cult.
Today, some of the most respected and "virtuous" Christians are missionaries who dedicate their lives to expanding their cult. In nearly all strains of Islam, the highest virtue is submission to Allah—in other words, submission to the dogmatic authority of the religion itself, which entails the complete rejection of all competing ideologies.
Your religion, Evander, is something of an oddity because it has become almost wholly divorced from the content of its ideology, existing for many Jews mostly as a sort of social club. (The same could be said for the most liberal strains of Christianity in America). That said, there are some Jews obsessed with preserving their cult—Hasidim who brainwash their 10 children from an early age Amish-style come to mind, as do the settlers in Israel who want to carve out a bigger chunk of their promised land.
entering with pre-concieved notions definitely ISN'T the default.
We weren't going to go there, but we're going there. Where the hell did Kansas go?
I'm just trying to turn this into a discussion about whether or not Theology has a place in Universities, rather than a thinly veiled argument about God.
If we have to go through here to get there, at least we're making progress.
It never fails to amaze me how adamantly people refuse to temporarily accept the possibility of an opposing viewpoint, yet expect those they disagree with to do so for them. If no one is ever willing to meet in the middle, just to discuss terms, then there is no chance of ever convincing the other side of ANYTHING, and it's all just academic mutual-masturbation.
Similarly, a theology department's purpose (like religion itself) is not to mindlessly impress doctrine on students but to develop virtues in their character.
Are you familiar with the history of most religions?
Because nothing ever changes, and anything that was ever done continues to be done constantly?
Just like how Americans keep slaves, and we all believe that the world is flat.
Things change. There are many liberal religious traditions today that have tried to integrate themselves into the now-dominant secular humanism of the West.
Nevertheless, I think it's disingenuous to say that religion's purpose is to "develop virtue" rather than mindlessly impress doctrine. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as some eastern traditions (that I am admittingly less familiar with) started with a central cult which focused on repetitive ritual and the preservation and expansion of the group. Yes, from an individual perspective you believed in religion to be "virtuous," but this "virtue" was largely defined by adherence to the dogma of the cult.
Today, some of the most respected and "virtuous" Christians are missionaries who dedicate their lives to expanding their cult. In nearly all strains of Islam, the highest virtue is submission to Allah—in other words, submission to the dogmatic authority of the religion itself, which entails the complete rejection of all competing ideologies.
Your religion, Evander, is something of an oddity because it has become almost wholly divorced from the content of its ideology, existing for many Jews mostly as a sort of social club. (The same could be said for the most liberal strains of Christianity in America). That said, there are some Jews obsessed with preserving their cult—Hasidim who brainwash their 10 children from an early age Amish-style come to mind, as do the settlers in Israel who want to carve out a bigger chunk of their promised land.
So, what you are saying is that your generalization does not actually apply across the board, but somehow you are still right?
The part that you are missing is that religion is not some kind of sentient entity which creates its own purposes. Those who wish to impose doctrine are using religion in such a way that they choose, just as those who choose to seek virtue through it, or to use it as a social club, or to invoke it in accusations of discrimination, or whatever else, they also are using it in the way which they choose.
Do you condemn the entire accounting profession for the actions that lead to Enron and Wolrdcom, et al? You may; I don't know, but society at large chose instead simply to keep a closer eye on them, and to encourage them to place more emphasis on moral values which would prevent this in the future.
In that sense, wouldn't the structured and overseen teaching of theology actually be MORE beneficial?
I mean, look at it this way, Shakespeare's existance has been called into question, but that didn't keep us from studying him.
What is wrong with studying religion, even if we can't prove it?
And better yet, seperate it from the other things, so it doesn't get mixed up in everything else. I think, if we ARE going to keep theology around, most non-believers would prefer that, rather than having students in sociology or philosophy classes being taught theology as well.
Shakespear doesn't attempt to explain the machinations of the universe with god-of-the-gaps arguments. Theology does. That's the difference.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited October 2007
I think that sociology, anthropolgy, business school, poli sci et al are pretty god damn ridiculous as well. Doesn't mean I think they should be abolished.
So, what you are saying is that your generalization does not actually apply across the board, but somehow you are still right?
I'm confused, what exactly are you saying I'm not right about?
The part that you are missing is that religion is not some kind of sentient entity which creates its own purposes.
While it's not "sentient," I disagree that it doesn't create its own purposes. I think religion, like most other ideologies and organizing social structures, is an emergent system that can often be seen as directing people towards purposes not in their individual self-interest.
Those who wish to impose doctrine are using religion in such a way that they choose, just as those who choose to seek virtue through it, or to use it as a social club, or to invoke it in accusations of discrimination, or whatever else, they also are using it in the way which they choose.
No argument here. Note that I was responding to the statement that "the purpose of religion is not to mindlessly indocrinate," pointing out that it often is. I never denied there are often other purposes.
Do you condemn the entire accounting profession for the actions that lead to Enron and Wolrdcom, et al?
This is a terrible analogy.
In that sense, wouldn't the structured and overseen teaching of theology actually be MORE beneficial?
We've had structured and overseen teaching of theology ever since religions began. It hasn't really been beneficial to humanity at all.
I fail to see why it is in any government's interest to finance an institution with the purpose of strengthening and propogating a cult.
I mean, look at it this way, Shakespeare's existance has been called into question, but that didn't keep us from studying him.
What is wrong with studying religion, even if we can't prove it?
And better yet, seperate it from the other things, so it doesn't get mixed up in everything else. I think, if we ARE going to keep theology around, most non-believers would prefer that, rather than having students in sociology or philosophy classes being taught theology as well.
Shakespear doesn't attempt to explain the machinations of the universe with god-of-the-gaps arguments. Theology does. That's the difference.
How does that make any difference?
At the colegiate level, we teach students about hypotheses and speculations within the scientific community, we simply make sure that we let them know what is mere speculation, what is a substantiated "theory", and what is a cold hard fact.
In that sense, it would be perfectly fine to teach theology, as long as you clarify that it is NOT scientifically proven.
I think that sociology, anthropolgy, business school, poli sci et al are pretty god damn ridiculous as well. Doesn't mean I think they should be abolished.
Wow.
Narian on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I think that sociology, anthropolgy, business school, poli sci et al are pretty god damn ridiculous as well. Doesn't mean I think they should be abolished.
Wow.
Hell, I'm an English lit major. 99% of what I say is ridiculous.
I fail to see why it is in any government's interest to finance an institution with the purpose of strengthening and propogating a cult.
First off, I was under the impression that Oxford ( the school this was all brought up around) was a private institution. When it comes to public universities, that is a somewhat seperate matter, which involves how the taxpayers and citizens feel about it as well.
As for why a government would finance it, you could ask the same thing of a VARIETY of college courses and departments. Why should there be a seperate Women's Studies department? Why should school funding go towards the Phillipino Students Association? Why should there be a billiards class?
If your issue is REALLY with the funding only, then you are choosing an odd place to start. I should think it'd be far easier to getrid of billiards first.
I think the point is that the study of God in Theology is a study of something that can't really be studied in any real meaningful way even if God does or does not exist.
There is no empirical evidence involved so its a bunch of mental masturbation. At least philosophy departments have mental masturbation with some logic and some topics that can be experienced.
We don't have other departments based on other fictional or imaginary characters in literature. We also don't have other departments in universities that study things that can't be proven at some point or empirically tested. (I guess it is arguable that a philosophy department wouldn't pass that criteria).
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I think that sociology, anthropolgy, business school, poli sci et al are pretty god damn ridiculous as well. Doesn't mean I think they should be abolished.
Wow.
Hell, I'm an English lit major. 99% of what I say is ridiculous.
We don't have other departments based on other fictional or imaginary characters in literature.
Except for, you know, Literature departments. ;-)
What I want to know, though, is how Philosophy applies logic in a manner which theology doesn't. Theology may accept a different set of natural laws than most philosophy (namely the assumption of the existance of God, and God's omnipotance) but unless I'm mistaken, theology still functions logically within the bounds of their accepted laws.
Theology may accept a different set of natural laws than most philosophy (namely the assumption of the existance of God, and God's omnipotance) but unless I'm mistaken, theology still functions logically within the bounds of their accepted laws.
Theology may accept a different set of natural laws than most philosophy (namely the assumption of the existance of God, and God's omnipotance) but unless I'm mistaken, theology still functions logically within the bounds of their accepted laws.
but there are no grounds for accepting these laws
As one learns in philosophy 101, there are no true grounds for accepting any laws ever.
We all know that's bull, of course. It's just a thing that first year students like to repeat in order to sound intellectual.
But in a literal sense, it is true.
We all accept some ammount of SOMETHING as a place to base our perceptions of the world from, and then build on those perceptions. There is no emperical reason why everyone should have to have the same base.
Even though I personally disagree with that sort of a base required for theology, I still see no inherent reason why it MUST be declared false, while other assumptive bases are allowed.
Even though I personally disagree with that sort of a base required for theology, I still see no inherent reason why it MUST be declared false, while other assumptive bases are allowed.
In a hard science we have some unknowns that we use as base assumptions but at least in those fields we have some reasonable expectation that those unknowns can be explained at some point in time. In theology there is no reasonable expectation that their axioms can be proven or tested.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Nevertheless, I think it's disingenuous to say that religion's purpose is to "develop virtue" rather than mindlessly impress doctrine. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as some eastern traditions (that I am admittingly less familiar with) started with a central cult which focused on repetitive ritual and the preservation and expansion of the group. Yes, from an individual perspective you believed in religion to be "virtuous," but this "virtue" was largely defined by adherence to the dogma of the cult.
The purpose of government is to serve the common good. Few governments have served this function, fewer still were chiefly characterized by it. That doesn't change the basic point of government, anymore than having a lot of cars that won't start changes the basic point of a car.
Even though I personally disagree with that sort of a base required for theology, I still see no inherent reason why it MUST be declared false, while other assumptive bases are allowed.
In a hard science we have some unknowns that we use as base assumptions but at least in those fields we have some reasonable expectation that those unknowns can be explained at some point in time. In theology there is no reasonable expectation that their axioms can be proven or tested.
No one is comparing theology to the "hard sciences". Why would you even bother bringing them up?
compare it to philosophy, though, or sociology, or economics, or political science.
I fail to see why it is in any government's interest to finance an institution with the purpose of strengthening and propogating a cult.
First off, I was under the impression that Oxford ( the school this was all brought up around) was a private institution. When it comes to public universities, that is a somewhat seperate matter, which involves how the taxpayers and citizens feel about it as well.
Oxford is pretty much the same as all universities in the UK, while there are tuition fees, they are heavily subsidised by the government (£3000 for UK/EU students versus £10,000 International for a BA in Theology). As for getting rid of Theology, whilst all the Theologians I knew at Oxford were Christian, as far as I'm aware they were encouraged to think critically and was not like your standard Bible College.
I fail to see why it is in any government's interest to finance an institution with the purpose of strengthening and propogating a cult.
First off, I was under the impression that Oxford ( the school this was all brought up around) was a private institution. When it comes to public universities, that is a somewhat seperate matter, which involves how the taxpayers and citizens feel about it as well.
Oxford is pretty much the same as all universities in the UK, while there are tuition fees, they are heavily subsidised by the government (£3000 for UK/EU students versus £10,000 International for a BA in Theology). As for getting rid of Theology, whilst all the Theologians I knew at Oxford were Christian, as far as I'm aware they were encouraged to think critically and was not like your standard Bible College.
Of course, it still is an arts course, so is nowhere near as worthy as a science course.
Just for the record, England still "officially" has a state sponsered religion, right? (not enforced, but still on the books.)
Also, the fact that Theology is considered an art, not a science, only furthers the point that holding it to the standards of a "hard science" isn't a valid argument against it.
I fail to see why it is in any government's interest to finance an institution with the purpose of strengthening and propogating a cult.
First off, I was under the impression that Oxford ( the school this was all brought up around) was a private institution. When it comes to public universities, that is a somewhat seperate matter, which involves how the taxpayers and citizens feel about it as well.
Oxford is pretty much the same as all universities in the UK, while there are tuition fees, they are heavily subsidised by the government (£3000 for UK/EU students versus £10,000 International for a BA in Theology). As for getting rid of Theology, whilst all the Theologians I knew at Oxford were Christian, as far as I'm aware they were encouraged to think critically and was not like your standard Bible College.
Of course, it still is an arts course, so is nowhere near as worthy as a science course.
Just for the record, England still "officially" has a state sponsered religion, right? (not enforced, but still on the books.)
Also, the fact that Theology is considered an art, not a science, only furthers the point that holding it to the standards of a "hard science" isn't a valid argument against it.
The Queen is the Defender of the Faith. Although there have been calls (including Prince Charles) to just make it the Defender of Faith, to reflect the various faiths in the UK. The monarch is still head of the Church of England though.
Even though I personally disagree with that sort of a base required for theology, I still see no inherent reason why it MUST be declared false, while other assumptive bases are allowed.
In a hard science we have some unknowns that we use as base assumptions but at least in those fields we have some reasonable expectation that those unknowns can be explained at some point in time. In theology there is no reasonable expectation that their axioms can be proven or tested.
No one is comparing theology to the "hard sciences". Why would you even bother bringing them up?
compare it to philosophy, though, or sociology, or economics, or political science.
I brought the hard sciences up because I was comparing the unknown base assumptions we were discussing. I am not as familiar with the topics you listed so I did not use them as an analogy / example.
Also, I'm not familiar with any concrete examples of base principles in sociology, economics or poli sci that are questionable. I think there could be some in philosophy that I could have a problem with, but as I said I am less versed with that area of study.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
It's difficult to imagine that you can't distinguish between an education in, say, music, and one in a specific theology.
No idea about music, or what relevant disanalogy you had in mind. For fine arts, English, etc. most critical theory uses dogmatic assumptions in a way that would probably be unacceptable in many theology departments. Postmodernism did not become accepted because of exciting new evidence in its favor or its ability to better explain anything whatsoever. The apparent position of many departments in the humanities is that it would be nonsense to apply such a standard to their field of endeavor. Their value lies not in their ability to impart dispassionate facts according to objective criteria but in their contributions to a student's insight, compassion, and understanding of humanity. Similarly, a theology department's purpose (like religion itself) is not to mindlessly impress doctrine on students but to develop virtues in their character.
Maybe theology departments don't do this; maybe they do exactly the opposite, or maybe all the "virtues" they promote are themselves controversial. I don't know, never having been in any classes on theology. Even if I had, I doubt any one person's experience counts for much. But I do know it is hardly alone among academic disciplines in its failure to ground its subject matter in the scientific method.
They intend to teach something that is an interpretation of the universe. It is, unfortunately for them, a completely unfounded one. This is the realm of the scientific method, and should be judged against the same standards as any discipline that deals with those things.
As to your pithy little shitface quip about the gravity bit, care to correct me, instead of being a belligerent ass? I'll admit that my last physics class was years ago, and science moves very quickly, but the last best approximation of why gravity works the way it does was Einsten's fourth-dimension space bending thing, according to those classes. That doesn't remove the fact that it's still essentially invisible to us.
It's basically like air was a few centuries ago, right? The result is essentially a god-of-the-gaps deal when it comes to religious reasoning.
Ok. All I need to do is teach you Reimann's theory of the plenum, the fundamental definition of space under classical mechanics, mathematics up to tensors, and physics through special relativity. Then we could begin talking about gravity. Then to discuss whether general relativity constitutes an explanation of gravity we could discuss both the philosophy of science and metaphysics for a while.
Or we could both agree that it was a bad idea for to try and use this as an example, and move on.
and does Oxford teach anglican theology, or some other denomination?
I'm just curious how this really stacks up to Qingu's arguments that the government should be funding anything that in any way relates to religion.
Undergrad is primarily Christian theology, with the other religions relegated to "World Religions". Take that as you will. Still there is an "Introduction to Philosophy" option.
Also you must remember that Undergrad Degrees in the UK are much more focussed than in the US, with few options for studying outside your chosen field.
Edit: Theology is, of course, one of the oldest fields of study at Oxford too.
Even though I personally disagree with that sort of a base required for theology, I still see no inherent reason why it MUST be declared false, while other assumptive bases are allowed.
In a hard science we have some unknowns that we use as base assumptions but at least in those fields we have some reasonable expectation that those unknowns can be explained at some point in time. In theology there is no reasonable expectation that their axioms can be proven or tested.
No one is comparing theology to the "hard sciences". Why would you even bother bringing them up?
compare it to philosophy, though, or sociology, or economics, or political science.
I brought the hard sciences up because I was comparing the unknown base assumptions we were discussing. I am not as familiar with the topics you listed so I did not use them as an analogy / example.
Also, I'm not familiar with any concrete examples of base principles in sociology, economics or poli sci that are questionable. I think there could be some in philosophy that I could have a problem with, but as I said I am less versed with that area of study.
Just because you are not familiar with a concept being discussed does not mean that you can substitute it for something else that is not the same.
Sociology, on its base level, disregards the concious level of human thought, considering people's behavior as a function more of society than of themselves.
Economics, on its base level, assumes that individuals tend to behave in a manner that is in their best interest.
Political Science, on its base level, assumes that it is okay to be a horrible, horrible person.
Now, on more advanced levels each of these fields of study impliment other concepts to explain for any holes in their base logic, but so does theology.
Edit: Theology is, of course, one of the oldest fields of study at Oxford too.
Is that really relevant to its validity as an area of study that belongs in a higher education institute?
Actually, yes.
Tradition plays a large role in academia.
Are you also going to argue, just as adamantly, for getting of those silly academic robes and hats.
The robes and hats don't affect academic integrity so, no.
If you guys could tell me why you think we shouldn't have greek gods or greek mythology as an entire department, I think you might see why I don't believe that theology is a reasonable area of study for colleges.
(or if you would like something more straw man - tell me why we shouldn't study astrology in colleges)
(or for straw man++, unicorns)
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
What I want to know, though, is how Philosophy applies logic in a manner which theology doesn't. Theology may accept a different set of natural laws than most philosophy (namely the assumption of the existance of God, and God's omnipotance) but unless I'm mistaken, theology still functions logically within the bounds of their accepted laws.
Jesus is 100% god and 100% man. God is three and one.
I have nothing against the study of greek mythology, or greek gods, or even unicorns.
As long as it is taught as a seperate thing. I'm an economist, and I say that if there is enough demand for it to make it worth the cost, go for it. As long as they aren't teaching about unicorns in biology class, let them do what they like.
You say that a theology department has an affect on academic integrity. This sounds to me like saying that gay marriage has an affect on the sanctity of marriage. As long as no individual is actually forced to study theology, I do not see how the existance of it poses any threat to anything else.
Edit: Theology is, of course, one of the oldest fields of study at Oxford too.
Is that really relevant to its validity as an area of study that belongs in a higher education institute?
Actually, yes.
Tradition plays a large role in academia.
Are you also going to argue, just as adamantly, for getting of those silly academic robes and hats.
The robes and hats don't affect academic integrity so, no.
If you guys could tell me why you think we shouldn't have greek gods or greek mythology as an entire department, I think you might see why I don't believe that theology is a reasonable area of study for colleges.
(or if you would like something more straw man - tell me why we shouldn't study astrology in colleges)
(or for straw man++, unicorns)
Posts
Either we should be open about it, or we should declare a neutral, agnostic view for people to adhere to during the course of the discussion.
Unfortunately for him, it seems to me that it's more irritating than it is valid.
What is wrong with studying religion, even if we can't prove it?
And better yet, seperate it from the other things, so it doesn't get mixed up in everything else. I think, if we ARE going to keep theology around, most non-believers would prefer that, rather than having students in sociology or philosophy classes being taught theology as well.
According to the scientific method, yes.
entering with pre-concieved notions definitely ISN'T the default.
We weren't going to go there, but we're going there. Where the hell did Kansas go?
Nevertheless, I think it's disingenuous to say that religion's purpose is to "develop virtue" rather than mindlessly impress doctrine. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as some eastern traditions (that I am admittingly less familiar with) started with a central cult which focused on repetitive ritual and the preservation and expansion of the group. Yes, from an individual perspective you believed in religion to be "virtuous," but this "virtue" was largely defined by adherence to the dogma of the cult.
Today, some of the most respected and "virtuous" Christians are missionaries who dedicate their lives to expanding their cult. In nearly all strains of Islam, the highest virtue is submission to Allah—in other words, submission to the dogmatic authority of the religion itself, which entails the complete rejection of all competing ideologies.
Your religion, Evander, is something of an oddity because it has become almost wholly divorced from the content of its ideology, existing for many Jews mostly as a sort of social club. (The same could be said for the most liberal strains of Christianity in America). That said, there are some Jews obsessed with preserving their cult—Hasidim who brainwash their 10 children from an early age Amish-style come to mind, as do the settlers in Israel who want to carve out a bigger chunk of their promised land.
I'm just trying to turn this into a discussion about whether or not Theology has a place in Universities, rather than a thinly veiled argument about God.
If we have to go through here to get there, at least we're making progress.
It never fails to amaze me how adamantly people refuse to temporarily accept the possibility of an opposing viewpoint, yet expect those they disagree with to do so for them. If no one is ever willing to meet in the middle, just to discuss terms, then there is no chance of ever convincing the other side of ANYTHING, and it's all just academic mutual-masturbation.
So, what you are saying is that your generalization does not actually apply across the board, but somehow you are still right?
The part that you are missing is that religion is not some kind of sentient entity which creates its own purposes. Those who wish to impose doctrine are using religion in such a way that they choose, just as those who choose to seek virtue through it, or to use it as a social club, or to invoke it in accusations of discrimination, or whatever else, they also are using it in the way which they choose.
Do you condemn the entire accounting profession for the actions that lead to Enron and Wolrdcom, et al? You may; I don't know, but society at large chose instead simply to keep a closer eye on them, and to encourage them to place more emphasis on moral values which would prevent this in the future.
In that sense, wouldn't the structured and overseen teaching of theology actually be MORE beneficial?
Shakespear doesn't attempt to explain the machinations of the universe with god-of-the-gaps arguments. Theology does. That's the difference.
While it's not "sentient," I disagree that it doesn't create its own purposes. I think religion, like most other ideologies and organizing social structures, is an emergent system that can often be seen as directing people towards purposes not in their individual self-interest.
No argument here. Note that I was responding to the statement that "the purpose of religion is not to mindlessly indocrinate," pointing out that it often is. I never denied there are often other purposes.
This is a terrible analogy.
We've had structured and overseen teaching of theology ever since religions began. It hasn't really been beneficial to humanity at all.
I fail to see why it is in any government's interest to finance an institution with the purpose of strengthening and propogating a cult.
How does that make any difference?
At the colegiate level, we teach students about hypotheses and speculations within the scientific community, we simply make sure that we let them know what is mere speculation, what is a substantiated "theory", and what is a cold hard fact.
In that sense, it would be perfectly fine to teach theology, as long as you clarify that it is NOT scientifically proven.
Wow.
Hell, I'm an English lit major. 99% of what I say is ridiculous.
First off, I was under the impression that Oxford ( the school this was all brought up around) was a private institution. When it comes to public universities, that is a somewhat seperate matter, which involves how the taxpayers and citizens feel about it as well.
As for why a government would finance it, you could ask the same thing of a VARIETY of college courses and departments. Why should there be a seperate Women's Studies department? Why should school funding go towards the Phillipino Students Association? Why should there be a billiards class?
If your issue is REALLY with the funding only, then you are choosing an odd place to start. I should think it'd be far easier to getrid of billiards first.
There is no empirical evidence involved so its a bunch of mental masturbation. At least philosophy departments have mental masturbation with some logic and some topics that can be experienced.
We don't have other departments based on other fictional or imaginary characters in literature. We also don't have other departments in universities that study things that can't be proven at some point or empirically tested. (I guess it is arguable that a philosophy department wouldn't pass that criteria).
Gotcha. ;-)
Except for, you know, Literature departments. ;-)
What I want to know, though, is how Philosophy applies logic in a manner which theology doesn't. Theology may accept a different set of natural laws than most philosophy (namely the assumption of the existance of God, and God's omnipotance) but unless I'm mistaken, theology still functions logically within the bounds of their accepted laws.
but there are no grounds for accepting these laws
As one learns in philosophy 101, there are no true grounds for accepting any laws ever.
We all know that's bull, of course. It's just a thing that first year students like to repeat in order to sound intellectual.
But in a literal sense, it is true.
We all accept some ammount of SOMETHING as a place to base our perceptions of the world from, and then build on those perceptions. There is no emperical reason why everyone should have to have the same base.
Even though I personally disagree with that sort of a base required for theology, I still see no inherent reason why it MUST be declared false, while other assumptive bases are allowed.
Exactly.
In a hard science we have some unknowns that we use as base assumptions but at least in those fields we have some reasonable expectation that those unknowns can be explained at some point in time. In theology there is no reasonable expectation that their axioms can be proven or tested.
No one is comparing theology to the "hard sciences". Why would you even bother bringing them up?
compare it to philosophy, though, or sociology, or economics, or political science.
Oxford is pretty much the same as all universities in the UK, while there are tuition fees, they are heavily subsidised by the government (£3000 for UK/EU students versus £10,000 International for a BA in Theology). As for getting rid of Theology, whilst all the Theologians I knew at Oxford were Christian, as far as I'm aware they were encouraged to think critically and was not like your standard Bible College.
http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/courses/theo.shtml for an overview of Theology at Oxford (as an undergrad).
Of course, it still is an arts course, so is nowhere near as worthy as a science course.
Just for the record, England still "officially" has a state sponsered religion, right? (not enforced, but still on the books.)
Also, the fact that Theology is considered an art, not a science, only furthers the point that holding it to the standards of a "hard science" isn't a valid argument against it.
The Queen is the Defender of the Faith. Although there have been calls (including Prince Charles) to just make it the Defender of Faith, to reflect the various faiths in the UK. The monarch is still head of the Church of England though.
I brought the hard sciences up because I was comparing the unknown base assumptions we were discussing. I am not as familiar with the topics you listed so I did not use them as an analogy / example.
Also, I'm not familiar with any concrete examples of base principles in sociology, economics or poli sci that are questionable. I think there could be some in philosophy that I could have a problem with, but as I said I am less versed with that area of study.
I'm just curious how this really stacks up to Qingu's arguments thatthe government should be funding anything that in any way relates to religion.
Or we could both agree that it was a bad idea for to try and use this as an example, and move on.
Undergrad is primarily Christian theology, with the other religions relegated to "World Religions". Take that as you will. Still there is an "Introduction to Philosophy" option.
Also you must remember that Undergrad Degrees in the UK are much more focussed than in the US, with few options for studying outside your chosen field.
Edit: Theology is, of course, one of the oldest fields of study at Oxford too.
Is that really relevant to its validity as an area of study that belongs in a higher education institute?
Just because you are not familiar with a concept being discussed does not mean that you can substitute it for something else that is not the same.
Sociology, on its base level, disregards the concious level of human thought, considering people's behavior as a function more of society than of themselves.
Economics, on its base level, assumes that individuals tend to behave in a manner that is in their best interest.
Political Science, on its base level, assumes that it is okay to be a horrible, horrible person.
Now, on more advanced levels each of these fields of study impliment other concepts to explain for any holes in their base logic, but so does theology.
Actually, yes.
Tradition plays a large role in academia.
Are you also going to argue, just as adamantly, for getting of those silly academic robes and hats.
The robes and hats don't affect academic integrity so, no.
If you guys could tell me why you think we shouldn't have greek gods or greek mythology as an entire department, I think you might see why I don't believe that theology is a reasonable area of study for colleges.
(or if you would like something more straw man - tell me why we shouldn't study astrology in colleges)
(or for straw man++, unicorns)
Jesus is 100% god and 100% man. God is three and one.
As long as it is taught as a seperate thing. I'm an economist, and I say that if there is enough demand for it to make it worth the cost, go for it. As long as they aren't teaching about unicorns in biology class, let them do what they like.
You say that a theology department has an affect on academic integrity. This sounds to me like saying that gay marriage has an affect on the sanctity of marriage. As long as no individual is actually forced to study theology, I do not see how the existance of it poses any threat to anything else.
http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/courses/clas.shtml
http://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/
Heh. Okay, maybe not quite the same thing.
Religion, like it or not, is quite influential in the world still. I can't see how the study of it is suddenly not relevant.