Theology at Universities?

[Nearly Sane]

What makes you think of straw men NS, the only thing is perhaps your idea of the dictionary definition of theology differs from mine, I don't feel any need to describe things within you terms nor I guess visa versa for you; you, it seems to me, love long drawn our discussions about semantics, you can have them to your hearts content, just don't involve me in any of them.

ippy

No,I'm dealing with the facts i9f how and why it is taught in UK universities. You are dealing in the semantics and false representation of them.

[SusanDoris]

. Of course it involves studying works by people who believe in god, are you honestly saying that we could study Marxism without reading those who believed in Marx and so therefore must all be Marxists if we study it.

No, I do not doubt that Marx existed and that he wrote a great deal about what he thought and knew and therefore his work can be studied. By the same token of course all the works and ideas of those who did, or did not, believe in God/god/s can be studied, but all the studies there are do not, to my knowledge, contain one FACT about God/god/s.

By the way nice user of the Negative Proof Fallacy in the first sentence.

Yeah!! But at 80 I'm unfazed by my personal use of such things!!!

[SusanDoris]

You seem to be clinging to your strawman that it is taught as factually true in theology courses that god(s) exist, why is this?

I've read Ippy's post twice and I do not see this.

[Nearly Sane]

No, I do not doubt that Marx existed and that he wrote a great deal about what he thought and knew and therefore his work can be studied. By the same token of course all the works and ideas of those who did, or did not, believe in God/god/s can be studied, but all the studies there aree do not, to my knowledge, contain one FACT about God/god/s. Yeah!! But at 80 I'm unfazed by my personal use of such things!!!

But the people who wrote and beluved the theology existed just as Marx did. Marxism may or may not contain any facts about why it us correct. It contains fact in the sane way as theology.

I don't see why age has anything to do with using logical fallacies. Does that mean that Hope will be allowed to use them in a few years and no one should point out the illiucality? Or is it just you want to have double standards for your beliefs?

[Nearly Sane]

I've read Ippy's post twice and I do not see this.

it's in his comparison to astrology directly implying that it would be taught as fact. Of course you might struggle to get that it is there as you have been arguing against the same strawman continually throughout this thread.

[SusanDoris]

But the people who wrote and beluved the theology ...

What do you mean - 'beloved the theology? I think, you know, that you are avoiding the central point that there is not one fact about the God (or god/s) which is a human idea and which started off all theology.

... existed just as Marx did.

Of course the people existed, but unless evidence is available, the God/god/s did not.

Marxism may or may not contain any facts about why it us correct. It contains fact in the sane way as theology.

Tell me one fact in theology which is not an entirely human idea. 

I don't see why age has anything to do with using logical fallacies. Does that mean that Hope will be allowed to use them in a few years and no one should point out the illiucality? Or is it just you want to have double standards for your beliefs?

I was joking! I should have put a couple of smileys!!

[Nearly Sane]

What do you mean - 'loved the theology? I think, you know, that you are avoiding the central point that there is not one fact about the God (or god/s) which is a human idea and which started off all theology.Of course the people existed, but unless evidence is available, the God/god/s did not.Tell me one fact in theology which is not an entirely human idea.  I was joking! I should have put a couple of smileys!!

it was a typo, a misspelling of believed. And no I'm not avoiding any point. I don't think the value of understanding what people think is based on the truth of what they think. I don't think Marxism is true, nor do u think any political system can be built on truth in the sense that it is true that one should be  a Marxist.

Theology as a subject is not taught in UK universities as if god(s) exist, as if there is the one fact that you are asking about. So your objection is as already covered based on a strawman.

Why would a smiley apply to your use of a logical fallacy? Does that make your argument any less based in the falfalkacy and therefore any less wrong?

[Walter]

What makes you think of straw men NS, the only thing is perhaps your idea of the dictionary definition of theology differs from mine, I don't feel any need to describe things within you terms nor I guess visa versa for you; you, it seems to me, love long drawn our discussions about semantics, you can have them to your hearts content, just don't involve me in any of them.

ippy

and that includes me too , ippy

[Nearly Sane]

and that includes me too , ippy

So you are another one content to argue against a strawman and ignore facts about what theology is at university?

[SusanDoris]

it was a typo, a misspelling of believed. And no I'm not avoiding any point. I don't think the value of understanding what people think is based on the truth of what they think.

I quite agree.

I don't think Marxism is true, nor do u think any political system can be built on truth in the sense that it is true that one should be  a Marxist.

Also agree.

Theology as a subject is not taught in UK universities as if god(s) exist, as if there is the one fact that you are asking about. So your objection is as already covered based on a strawman.

Whichever way Theology is taught, whatever the contents of the course, whoever are the students, however many texts they study, however many debates they might have on  whether this person was wiser than that, there is still no God(/god/s) seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted anywhere, at any time ... ... unless someone comes up with a fact. And if that counts as the NPF I would point out that I am not claiming that a God is impossible, but those who believe that a God(/god/s)exists  are responsible for producing a fact about he/she/it.

Why would a smiley apply to your use of a logical fallacy? Does that make your argument any less based in the falfalkacy and therefore any less wrong?

Pass.

[Nearly Sane]

I quite agree.Also agree. Whichever way Theology is taught, whatever the contents of the course, whoever are the students, however many texts they study, however many debates they might have on  whether this person was wiser than that, there is still no God(/god/s) seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted anywhere, at any time ... ... unless someone comes up with a fact. And if that counts as the NPF I would point out that I am not claiming that a God is impossible, but those who believe that a God(/god/s)exists  are responsible for producing a fact about he/she/it.
Pass.

You seem to be arguing here about whether theism is true or gas any facts that are true? Why? That's got nothing to do with theology as a subject at university, just as whether Marxism is true, or has a fact to support it doesn't affect whether it is it should be a subject at university.

[Walter]

So you are another one content to argue against a strawman and ignore facts about what theology is at university?

tell me the facts then.

[Udayana]

Doesn't matter what theology is or isn't, if students are interested in something and want to study it, what business is it of ippy, Walter or anyone else to tell them that they can't?

Universities aren't there to teach "facts" or even anything useful.  Newton spent more time studying theology and alchemy than physics or maths. Many brilliant scientists and mathematicians studied completely pointless subjects at various times.

[Nearly Sane]

tell me the facts then.

it's already been covered in the thread. Theology is not taught as if it is true. If you argue against it in that basis as ippy has been it's a strawman.

[Brownie]

In some places, theology is taught as if it is true:

https://www.wycliffehall.org.uk/

http://www.stmarys.ac.uk/undergraduate/theology-and-religious-studies/

[wigginhall]

Doesn't matter what theology is or isn't, if students are interested in something and want to study it, what business is it of ippy, Walter or anyone else to tell them that they can't?

Universities aren't there to teach "facts" or even anything useful.  Newton spent more time studying theology and alchemy than physics or maths. Many brilliant scientists and mathematicians studied completely pointless subjects at various times.

I'm with you, buddy.  I find all this talk of truth, facts, and so on, completely Gradgrindian, and bizarre, actually.   It also boils down to personal prejudice - I don't like X, therefore X should not be studied.   I live near the Royal Ballet School, and I'm not a fan of ballet, but I would find it horrific if someone said that ballet should not be subsidized.    My son did a degree in photography, completely pointless really, but it was a good training for him.

[Nearly Sane]

In some places, theology is taught as if it is true:

https://www.wycliffehall.org.uk/

http://www.stmarys.ac.uk/undergraduate/theology-and-religious-studies/

Both of which  private institutions, not public ones,though Wycliffe is associated with Oxford

[SusanDoris]

You seem to be arguing here about whether theism is true or gas any facts that are true? Why? That's got nothing to do with theology as a subject at university, just as whether Marxism is true, or has a fact to support it doesn't affect whether it is it should be a subject at university.

No, I am talking a bout Theology as a subject.  A definition of theology includes studying the 'nature of God'. If every university wants to run a course for students to take a degree in Theology or not, and whether they believe there is a theistic truth in it or not, they are of course free to do so, but since it is a subject based - unless evidence appears otherwise - that does not contain a fact about God(/god/s), then it is, as I have seen quoted quite often, a study of no  thing, I,e. a study of the millions of human words, beliefs philosophies and ideas  about God/god/s.. I do not see how that has 'nothing to do with the study of theology at university.

No doubt the understanding of our human history, the psychology of belief, etc  greatly enhances a student's wisdom, etc, and if a student's critical thinking is also much greater at the end of the course, more power to their elbows, but if the student comes away with a belief that all those millions of words and thoughts prove that there is some God/power/something at the core, than I think they will be very much mistaken.

P.S. In between last post and this, I've had one of those 'page can't be displayed' windows, but fortunately it didn't last long and I'd remembered to copy what I'd typed!

[Brownie]

(To NS) Ah!  I didn't know they were private.  For some reason I thought St Mary's was part of London Uni and, as you say, Wycliffe is part of the University of Oxford.

I've known people who have gone to them.

Still, private or not, they are universities. 

Then there's this:   http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/trs/index.aspx

A study of the nature of God as believed by......

[Nearly Sane]

N?No, I am talking a bout Theology as a subject.  A definition of theology includes studying the 'nature of God'. If every university wants to run a course for students to take a degree in Theology or not, and whether they believe there is a theistic truth in it or not, they are of course free to do so, but since it is a subject based - unless evidence appears otherwise - that does not contain a fact about God(/god/s), then it is, as I have seen quoted quite often, a study of nothing, I,e. a study of the millions of human words, beliefs philosophies and ideas  about God/god/s.. I do not see how that has 'nothing to do with the study of theology at university.

No doubt the understanding of our human history, the psychology of belief, etc  greatly enhances a student's wisdom, etc, and if a student's critical thinking is also much greater at the end of the course, but if the student comes away with a belief that all those millions of words and thoughts prove that there is some God/power/something at the core, than I think they will be very much mistaken.

P.S. In between last post and this, I've had one of those 'page can't be displayed' windows, but fortunately it didn't last long!

a definition of it may be that but definitions are not prescriptive. If a student cones away from studying Marxism thinking that Marxism is true, are you saying that we shouldn't study Marxism? Whether a student is in some way wrong after a course according to you seems to be what you want stopped. You post seems to imply that we shouldn't have theology as a subject because while it might help many people's wisdom,someone might end up being a theist. Are you really suggesting that the study of what people have thought and believed should be suppressed in case people become theists?

Again you seem to want to ignore how theology is studied because you have decided your strawman about it trumps facts. There is a thread of anti intellectualism in your position where you think opinion is better than facts. 

[Nearly Sane]

(To NS) Ah!  I didn't know they were private.  For some reason I thought St Mary's was part of London Uni and, as you say, Wycliffe is part of the University of Oxford.

I've known people who have gone to them.

Still, private or not, they are universities. 

Then there's this:   http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/trs/index.aspx

A study of the nature of God as believed by......

Not sure what I am supposed to be looking at on the last link, takes me through to a page with a lot of courses but I can't see the words following your link. Note St Mary's welcomed non RC and non theists so it's not clear  what the approach to the teaching is.

[Brownie]

No worries.

[Gordon]

Whichever way Theology is taught, whatever the contents of the course, whoever are the students, however many texts they study, however many debates they might have on  whether this person was wiser than that, there is still no God(/god/s) seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted anywhere, at any time ... ... unless someone comes up with a fact. And if that counts as the NPF I would point out that I am not claiming that a God is impossible, but those who believe that a God(/god/s)exists  are responsible for producing a fact about he/she/it.
Pass.

It is a fact though that neither Winston Smith nor the Ancient Mariner exist and yet their portrayal in literature: along with the likes of Holden Caulfield, Tom Joad, Ebenezeer Scrooge and a host of others - and then there is poetry - is considered meaningful by readers and worthy of serious academic study.

So, while I don't buy into the divine being in any sense 'real' I do think that theology has its cultural, literary and historical merits even if it has its limitations: in some ways just like the academic study of fictional literature. 

[Walter]

it's already been covered in the thread. Theology is not taught as if it is true. If you argue against it in that basis as ippy has been it's a strawman.

It seems to me that you have deliberately misunderstood ippy's  OP for reasons known only to you (though I have strong suspicions) in order to create a straw man  to attack him with. And as a consequence , me.
Also you are misunderstanding SusanDoris , why?

[Nearly Sane]

It seems to me that you have deliberately misunderstood ippy's  OP for reasons known only to you (though I have strong suspicions) in order to create a straw man  to attack him with. And as a consequence , me.
Also you are misunderstanding SusanDoris , why?

then you are incorrect. And I disagree that I am misunderstanding. Can I suggest that you attempt some arguments if you want to progress the discussion?