Theology at Universities?

[Brownie]

V close.

ippy

Well ippy, if it isn't full or partially state funded or if you think the study of theology is pointless, that is not a reason to ban the subject from universities.

HH mentioned a good point: that students pay a fortune to study anything at university, the state only play a part.

It doesn't bother me what people study, nothing is wasted.  If someone does Honours in Theology/Religious Studies, they will have to study other things because the main subject cannot be taken out of context at that level.  History, sociology, languages, literature, philosophy, psychology, archeology, anthropology, in no particular order, are all involved.

 

[john]

Shaker's post 127

Brilliant......

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Brownie,

Well ippy, if it isn't full or partially state funded or if you think the study of theology is pointless, that is not a reason to ban the subject from universities.

HH mentioned a good point: that students pay a fortune to study anything at university, the state only play a part.

It doesn't bother me what people study, nothing is wasted.  If someone does Honours in Theology/Religious Studies, they will have to study other things because the main subject cannot be taken out of context at that level.  History, sociology, languages, literature, philosophy, psychology, archeology, anthropology, in no particular order, are all involved.

I agree with the sentiment, but there’s a contextual issue here too. For Divinity (rather than Theology) at least as I understand it people teach as true claims they cannot know to be true. Even if the students pay every penny of the cost of the course, is that wasted time and money? And even if it is, does that matter – does no-one lose but the students, or does society as a whole suffer from the annual influx of graduates who think that epistemically faith should be privileged over just guessing about stuff?

And even if society does suffer from that, is the gain of protecting free speech greater than the cost of some people treating nonsense as facts, and for all I know because of their beliefs eventually finding their way into the legislature that effects all of us?

I don’t know the answers to these questions by the way, but they might be worth asking.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

the predictive argument function on your device is malfunctioning. I'm not the one on this thread arguing that things should be true to be of significant interest. And since my position on this is essentially the same as your's, the argument wouldn't apply.

I said it tongue in cheek Nearly, not as as a pre-emptive strike against your next reply. 

[Walter]

Shaker's post 127

Brilliant......

it  sure is , and in addition, an attempt to derail this thread through semantics and  deliberate misunderstanding is bewildering .

[SusanDoris]

Except you gave been agreeing with ippy that it shouldn't be a university subject. That's surely taking an opinion on how it should be studied?

Oh dear, do you mean that all the way through this thread I am supposed to remember every word of Ippy's OP in order not to diverge even slightly from its every word?!! I do not think it should not be a university subject, especially since my opinion alters things not a jot, but have, I think,  consistently referred to the fact that every single part of theology is based on human ideas and not at all on any God/god/s on which all theology must have derived.
As for how it should  be studied, I think it would be much better as part of philosophy where a god of any sort is not assumed.

By the way, may I ask, entirely non-critically, whether your h key is a problem? Every time Synthetic Dave reads the word 'gave' in your posts, I do know of course whether it should have been 'have', but just thought I'd mention it.

And you keep on harking back to a soecifuc** dictionary definition, rather than looking at how it's studied so you are both prescribing the way you think it is actually taught because of the definition, and saying it cannot actually be taught the way it is because of that definition.

But this is a discussion, an exchange of views and opinions, and at the end of each topic, we can all go and have a nice cup of tea and look forward to the next topic. I love being here as in everyday life these discussions do not take place, but the world chugs along with all its ups and downs without taking any notice of us here!!  I have no hesitation in saying that of course I might well make errors by the dozen.

Indeed the whole use if a specific definition is very similar to those who say 'It's just a theory' as regards evolution ignoring the specific meaning in science.

 Which is not affected by understanding what and how people believe. You actually seem to want to ignore some of the facts that we would generally accept, e.g. that theism is an important aspect of billions of peoples' lives and is therefore is significant in understanding the world.

I would have thought it goes without saying that theism is an important part of the lives of billions, but it still lacks a single fact about any God/god/s. You are reading far too much into what I say. I am not trying to change the world, much as I'd like to change a few things here and there!

Again going back to the earlier example, which I appear not to have explained d fully,  we study Marxism the belief, despite it not being about facts, it's about opinion. Yes, we know Marx existed, but the equivalent is that we know theists exist. The belief has been subject to change, interpretation but not facts in the same way theism is. This is not because of Marxism being supernatural but because you can't get an ought from an is.

I can assure you I quite understood what you said about Marx.  Do your words here mean, then, that you think there is a fact about God/god/.s somewhere? I don't suppose so! And if you could state where you think I have suggested an 'ought' from an 'is', I'd be grateful.  As you know, I'm not knowledgeable about the subject of philosophy and its terms,  soI avoid using them.

** What is this (bolded) word?

[Nearly Sane]

Oh dear, do you mean that all the way through this thread I am supposed to remember every word of Ippy's OP in order not to diverge even slightly from its every word?!! I do not think it should not be a university subject, especially since my opinion alters things not a jot, but have, I think,  consistently referred to the fact that every single part of theology is based on human ideas and not at all on any God/god/s on which all theology must have derived.
As for how it should  be studied, I think it would be much better as part of philosophy where a god of any sort is not assumed.

By the way, may I ask, entirely non-critically, whether your h key is a problem? Every time Synthetic Dave reads the word 'gave' in your posts, I do know of course whether it should have been 'have', but just thought I'd mention it.But this is a discussion, an exchange of views and opinions, and at the end of each topic, we can all go and have a nice cup of tea and look forward to the next topic. I love being here as in everyday life these discussions do not take place, but the world chugs along with all its ups and downs without taking any notice of us here!!  I have no hesitation in saying that of course I might well make errors by the dozen.:)I would have thought it goes without saying that theism is an important part of the lives of billions, but it still lacks a single fact about any God/god/s. You are reading far too much into what I say. I am not trying to change the world, much as I'd like to change a few things here and there!I can assure you I quite understood what you said about Marx.  Do your words here mean, then, that you think there is a fact about God/god/.s somewhere? I don't suppose so! And if you could state where you think I have suggested an 'ought' from an 'is', I'd be grateful.  As you know, I'm not knowledgeable about the subject of philosophy and its terms,  soI avoid using them.

** What is this (bolded) word?

The bolded word is specific. And it"s not the keyboard at fault, it's the idiot user for the h.


I'm not expecting you to remember every thing ippy says, just the OP. If there is no issue for you in theology being studied at university in terms of it being a subject, then what is the proposal that you agree with in the OP? If theology as in the vast majority of cases is taught as if there is no facts about god(s), what is the issue that is being raised?


But leaving that aside, let's move all the way down to the Marxism bit at the end. I don't get how you think that what I should could be read as implying that there are facts about god(s) as opposed to the belief in god(s). The point of the analogy is that there aren't facts about Marxism as opposed to facts about the belief in Marxism, and yet it is suitable for study. The separation of ought from is simply covers that no matter how many facts you have (the is), then there is no way to derive an action that you should do (the ought) without having an aim which is never in itself factually based.

Given that it seems you have no objection to teaching of theology as it is generally done, and as was frequently pointed out throughout the thread, the analogy is probably moot, other than as a point of clarification about its purpose, which I hope the above addresses.

[Brownie]

Hi Brownie,

I agree with the sentiment, but there’s a contextual issue here too. For Divinity (rather than Theology) at least as I understand it people teach as true claims they cannot know to be true. Even if the students pay every penny of the cost of the course, is that wasted time and money? And even if it is, does that matter – does no-one lose but the students, or does society as a whole suffer from the annual influx of graduates who think that epistemically faith should be privileged over just guessing about stuff?

And even if society does suffer from that, is the gain of protecting free speech greater than the cost of some people treating nonsense as facts, and for all I know because of their beliefs eventually finding their way into the legislature that effects all of us?

I don’t know the answers to these questions by the way, but they might be worth asking.

They are worth asking, bluehillside.  They are questions that have gone around my head too - for years.

Certainly, some of the lecturers will believe what they are teaching to be true and will teach from that point of view.

I don't know for certain but I would think that people who decide to study Divinity and Theology are believers of one kind or another.  The ones I've known have been.

So - preaching to the converted.

However it is a fact that at the end of their study, many decide they don't believe after all, or are universalist in their beliefs;  indeed their years of study have brought them to different conclusions altogether than those anticipated at the start.  Perhaps they intended to go into church ministry but that is no longer an option.

Their study has given them a greater understanding of many things, including people, and they will be well educated people who go on to pursue a different career.

If study of Theology/Divinity at Uni is banned, it will go underground and change.   There is no point in making martyrs out of would-be students.   University is a time for exploration and for changing of one's mind, I'd rather that was an option.

Comparative Religion must be included in any religious course.   Christians do not stand alone in the world.

However, like yourself, I don't know all the answers.  These are just my opinions.

(We mustn't forget there are colleges such as Spurgeons and the London Bible College who prepare people for ministry but don't give an all round education like universities.  I presume they are privately funded and the students are supported by churches and parents, etc.)

[SusanDoris]

I've just had one of those page can't be displayed, just in the middle of posting and I'm not sure how the right post #155 got there

Also I was going to change 'derived' to 'have been based'.!

[ippy]

Well ippy, if it isn't full or partially state funded or if you think the study of theology is pointless, that is not a reason to ban the subject from universities.

HH mentioned a good point: that students pay a fortune to study anything at university, the state only play a part.

It doesn't bother me what people study, nothing is wasted.  If someone does Honours in Theology/Religious Studies, they will have to study other things because the main subject cannot be taken out of context at that level.  History, sociology, languages, literature, philosophy, psychology, archeology, anthropology, in no particular order, are all involved.

 

First Brownie, my P C has gone to hospital for major sergery, so I have no spell check at the moment, my spell check normaly runs at red hot, so there will be quite a few bummers without it, it never gets any better, my spelling that is.

I have read and taken in a lot from these posts, most of them very interesting and informative, of course any subject that anybody wishes to study in one of our universities, should be free to do so, my wife mentioned a course studying the "Beetles", the pop group.

On going back to the super duper A + post 127 of Shakers and reading from others how the uni system works, mosly from first hand experience.

My gripe on taking this info on board, is more to do with dropping the title of theology and bring theology under the heading of philosophy where it, theology, can be refered to when necessary, not locked away in a cupboard, metaphoricaly.

Following the secular over a serious number of years inevitably it opens the eyes to how the religious organisations spread themselves about, by not being to much in the face, little and often mentions and signs and be relentless with it, never miss and things like having a course at universities titled 'Theology', this amounts to a 'this must be very important badge', which has and will continue to, as I see it, project far more importance to the theology propaganda slot than it should be getting, so by grouping theology under philosophy would place it where it should be, no longer in the front seat and as I have said previously, it, theology, doesn't need to be ignored.

ippy

[Brownie]

I get your points, ippy.

Hope your PC recovers soon, bless it.  I've never intentionally used a spellchecker. A red line appears under some words occasionally and, unless I have made an obvious typo, am more confused than ever, so move on quickly.  I think my PC understands American spelling and I speak English.   

I've ignored the red line under "ippy" in this post  .

[wigginhall]

Incidentally, there are university courses on astrology, but of course, they are about astrology, not teaching you how to do a chart.   There is one on 'cultural astronomy', which sounds interesting, university of Wales I think. 

[SusanDoris]

My computer keeps coming up with different modes on SuperNova, so there are probably mistakes here, until I've managed to sort them out.
Okay, I think I've done that now.

The bolded word is specific. And it"s not the keyboard at fault, it's the idiot user for the h.

Thank you! Synth Dave had a problem with the pronunciation of the word!!:)

I'm not expecting you to remember every thing ippy says, just the OP.

Yes the OP was the only part I was referring to, but at 158 words, I didn’t learn it off by heart!!

If there is no issue for you in theology being studied at university in terms of it being a subject, then what is the proposal that you agree with in the OP?

I agreed with the general idea of the OP; that theolology is,  in the end, based on false assumptions, so could well be considered as equivalent to astrology etc. Just because billions of people find theism to be an important part of their lives does not make its base idea tru and the sooner more peopleacknowledge this, the better, in my opinion, things will be.   It is, as I said, a house of cards and the emperor’s new clothes story fits well too.

If theology as in the vast majority of cases is taught as if there is no facts about god(s), what is the issue that is being raised?

Is that statement true? I suppose then that those who write the courses are perpetuating the falsehood involved especially since they cannot provide one fact about God(/god/s). Does no-one question the fact that courses are being studied based on zero facts? Sounds like a totally daft idea to me!

But leaving that aside, let's move all the way down to the Marxism bit at the end. I don't get how you think that what I should could be read as implying that there are facts about god(s) as opposed to the belief in god(s). The point of the analogy is that there aren't facts about Marxism as opposed to facts about the belief in Marxism,…

But there is a worldof difference between Marxism and theology. The former concerns the beliefs and philosophy of a well-known human being and the latter concerns Theology and theism and  the beliefs and philosophies of the humans who believed there was a god to theologise about.

…and yet it is suitable for study.

Yes, all philosophies and ideas are suitable for study, but if those who study or teach Theology without a clear understanding that all the texts and ideas etc have no God at the base of it all are, surely, failing in their - moral? - duty.

The separation of ought from is simply covers that no matter how many facts you have (the is), then there is no way to derive an action that you should do (the ought) without having an aim which is never in itself factually based.

I don’t think I did that – I certainly did not intend it if I did and stand corrected.
As a matter of interest, the Chairman of our Local Humanist Group studied to be a priest but his years at University studying Theology made him an atheist (as Floo’s husband became too).

Given that it seems you have no objection to teaching of theology…

If anyone will make me a placard I will join a protest march in order to make a small dent in the dominance of religious beliefs in the world.



[Walter]

SusanDoris

you have my support.
 when you've finished with it please send it back, thanks 

[SusanDoris]

Incidentally, there are university courses on astrology, but of course, they are about astrology, not teaching you how to do a chart.   There is one on 'cultural astronomy', which sounds interesting, university of Wales I think.

Do you know if any such courses claim that astrology has any actual influence on anyone's genetic make-up?!

[Brownie]

Wiggi, that's right, Cultural Astronomy and Astrology.  I must admit when I saw the Astrology bit, I was surprised but I suppose it is a study of people and how astrology figured in their lives, etc.  Yet it is an odd subject to have prominence.

Each to their own I suppose.

[SusanDoris]

Wiggi, that's right, Cultural Astronomy and Astrology.  I must admit when I saw the Astrology bit, I was surprised but I suppose it is a study of people and how astrology figured in their lives, etc.  Yet it is an odd subject to have prominence.

Each to their own I suppose.

In BBC Radio 4's 'Beyond Belief' on MOnday the subject was numerology(*roll eyes* emoticon should be here!) there was a woman giving a 'reading' to Ernie Rae about his character from numerology. talk about crackpot ideas on a major programme ... and it was not dismissed out of hand either ... except, fortunately, by Marcus du Sotoy. 

[wigginhall]

Do you know if any such courses claim that astrology has any actual influence on anyone's genetic make-up?!

I don't know, but I doubt it.  It sounds like a course on methods of using the sky as a kind of code.   Here is the blurb, 'a unique course which deals with the ways in which human beings attribute meaning to the planets, stars and sky, and construct cosmologies which provide the basis for culture and society'. 

http://www.uwtsd.ac.uk/ma-cultural-astronomy-astrology/

[Brownie]

Where is Nicholas Marks?  Though I doubt he would know much about it, he'd probably have a lot to say.

[wigginhall]

A course on electro-Judaic-Christian prognostication. 

[ippy]

Do you know if any such courses claim that astrology has any actual influence on anyone's genetic make-up?!

Wouldn't it depend on their star sign?

ippy

[wigginhall]

Interesting point, that if you study Jungian psychology in Zurich, part of the course will cover astrology.  But this is a private course, although it trains you as an analyst.   

[ippy]

😆

I get your points, ippy.

Hope your PC recovers soon, bless it.  I've never intentionally used a spellchecker. A red line appears under some words occasionally and, unless I have made an obvious typo, am more confused than ever, so move on quickly.  I think my PC understands American spelling and I speak English.   

I've ignored the red line under "ippy" in this post  .

Funny thing about spelling you'd think practice would in some way improve the bad spelling, not in my case.

All to often I can't get close enough for the spell checker to pick up the word I'm trying to use; still my vocab's not that bad so I can use another route that I can get near enough for the checker.

It's an abosute pain, bad spelling, when you're trying to make a serious point, there again I suppose you can't have every thing, when I think of some of the ugly people you see walking around.

Yes I have to keep taking ugly pills and keep having to up the dose.😆

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Brownie,

They are worth asking, bluehillside.  They are questions that have gone around my head too - for years.

Certainly, some of the lecturers will believe what they are teaching to be true and will teach from that point of view.

I don't know for certain but I would think that people who decide to study Divinity and Theology are believers of one kind or another.  The ones I've known have been.

So - preaching to the converted.

I’m not sure at all that Theology and Divinity should be treated the same way here. As I understand it, academic theology is about religious beliefs rather than proselytising for them: a mix of history, anthropology, cultural studies etc. Divinity on the other hand teaches the content of religious beliefs as true, which is a fundamentally different approach.

For Theology, it seems to me that it’s quite possible to study it without believing to be true a word of the claims the religious make; for Divinity though, I’m not sure that that’s possible. 

However it is a fact that at the end of their study, many decide they don't believe after all, or are universalist in their beliefs;  indeed their years of study have brought them to different conclusions altogether than those anticipated at the start.  Perhaps they intended to go into church ministry but that is no longer an option.

Their study has given them a greater understanding of many things, including people, and they will be well educated people who go on to pursue a different career.

Again, I don’t have figures to hand but broadly I’d have thought that those who study Divinity are less likely to emerge as atheists than those who study Theology merely as an interesting academic field. 

If study of Theology/Divinity at Uni is banned, it will go underground and change.   There is no point in making martyrs out of would-be students.   University is a time for exploration and for changing of one's mind, I'd rather that was an option.

Comparative Religion must be included in any religious course.   Christians do not stand alone in the world.

However, like yourself, I don't know all the answers.  These are just my opinions.

Yes, but how would you change your mind on a Divinity course and still complete it? Wouldn’t that be like studying medicine but thinking part way through that it was all nonsense and that homeopathy was the real way to cure illnesses?

[ippy]

Hi Brownie,

I’m not sure at all that Theology and Divinity should be treated the same way here. As I understand it, academic theology is about religious beliefs rather than proselytising for them: a mix of history, anthropology, cultural studies etc. Divinity on the other hand teaches the content of religious beliefs as true, which is a fundamentally different approach.

For Theology, it seems to me that it’s quite possible to study it without believing to be true a word of the claims the religious make; for Divinity though, I’m not sure that that’s possible. 

Again, I don’t have figures to hand but broadly I’d have thought that those who study Divinity are less likely to emerge as atheists than those who study Theology merely as an interesting academic field. 

Yes, but how would you change your mind on a Divinity course and still complete it? Wouldn’t that be like studying medicine but thinking part way through that it was all nonsense and that homeopathy was the real way to cure illnesses?

Wouldn't it be about the right place for divinity/theology positioned as a footnote to philosophy?

ippy