Theology at Universities?

[Nearly Sane]

Since religious beliefs result from a belief in a God/god/s, then theology has a vacuum at its core.
Definition of theology:

And? Politics is studied in the examination of what people believe and so is theology. Both cover elements of human behaviour. Trying to airbrush religion from human behaviour is odd. Why is it that studying this aspect of human behaviour causes you issues?

[SusanDoris]

And? Politics is studied in the examination of what people believe and so is theology. Both cover elements of human behaviour. Trying to airbrush religion from human behaviour is odd. Why is it that studying this aspect of human behaviour causes you issues?

I'm off to the gym now - I'll reply later!

[Gordon]

Theology in Universities goes back a long way in history, especially the role of religion when many of the established Universities were founded. A couple of quotes from Wiki (below) suggests that the study of theology isn't necessarily a form of proselytising, and in any event I can't see how human culture, history, politics or philosophy can be studied without some awareness of the nature of religious belief.

In some contexts, scholars pursue theology as an academic discipline without formal affiliation to any particular church (though members of staff may well have affiliations to churches), and without focussing on ministerial training. This applies, for instance, to many university departments in the United Kingdom, including the Faculties of Divinity at the University of Cambridge and University of Oxford, the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Exeter, and the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Leeds.

In some contemporary contexts, a distinction is made between theology, which is seen as involving some level of commitment to the claims of the religious tradition being studied, and religious studies, which by contrast is normally seen as requiring that the question of the truth or falsehood of the religious traditions studied be kept outside its field. Religious studies involves the study of historical or contemporary practices or of those traditions' ideas using intellectual tools and frameworks that are not themselves specifically tied to any religious tradition and that are normally understood to be neutral or secular.[62] In contexts where 'religious studies' in this sense is the focus, the primary forms of study are likely to include:

Anthropology of religion
Comparative religion
History of religions
Philosophy of religion
Psychology of religion
Sociology of religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology

[Nearly Sane]

But Ippy's a fucking heathen, that's why. I expected better of you.

Out of interest is a fucking heathen more heathen-y, than just your everyday heathen? If so, in what way?

[Harrowby Hall]

At an early point in the film The Paper Chase Professor Kingsfield tells his students in his Contract Law class at (a close copy of) Harvard Law School that they teach themselves the law, but he teaches them to think.

And this is an important element of higher education. A university should not be concerned with training but with education. What a university should be doing is developing high level skills - the ability to evaluate, to analyse, to synthesise, to inform and convince, and to apply. These are all skills that are vital for effective performance at tactical and strategic organisational levels and can be important in operations. Anyone entering a university should be aware that the acquisition of these skills is the real purpose of tertiary level education and that the subject area is the context within which they are developed.

There is no reason why any subject area may not be an appropriate forum for higher-level skill development - even Theology (or media Studies, for that matter). To the best of my understanding, Theology is not taught as a belief-enhancing subject but as an aspect of human behaviour and culture which is worthy of involved study and investigation and which does not require the holding of any beliefs. A Theology department could be staffed entirely by atheists and still be effective. The important considerations are the depth and complexity of the subjects being studied and the fact that they are amenable to investigation, analysis and argument.

The majority of graduates do not find employment related to the subject areas they studied, and most of those do, eventually rise above the operational levels of their organisations to become administrators away from the detail of their academic subjects.

Providing the high-level cognitive skills have been acquired, a Theology graduate should be as capable as an English, or History, or Mathematics, or Biology or Geography ... or even Media Studies ... graduate of being an effective manager.

One of the problems of the massive expansion in university places that took place a couple of decades ago is that all university entrants are not necessarily well-fitted to higher education. That was a shallow political move to reduce levels of structural unemployment.  A further problem with higher education has been the introduction of fees - this has resulted in students perceiving themselves as consumers of a product (teaching) rather than as participants in the process of learning.

[Walter]

And? Politics is studied in the examination of what people believe and so is theology. Both cover elements of human behaviour. Trying to airbrush religion from human behaviour is odd. Why is it that studying this aspect of human behaviour causes you issues?

I think what she means is its not a serious subject for a university, a church maybe, in your own time and financial support

[Nearly Sane]

Lovely post, HH but to me even removing the issues of the expansion and fees, both of which I see as separate arguments, it seems somewhat rose tinted in its portrayal of what was university life. As someone who sat in a Contracts class, it concentrated on the ability to recall and regurgitate more than thinking. Some courses at the universities I have attended were good but many were run by people whose teaching or educating skills were no more developed than a carrot.

Even then the  hand of needing to publish haunted the idea of tenure to such an extent that the educational nous was a lucky add on.

[ippy]

You might as well get rid of the Sciences and the Humanities, ippy.  After all, they're no more relevant to real life than Theology.  In fact, you might just as well get rid of education as a whole.

You don't seem to have noticed the part of my post where I referred to the various religion based organisations, could continue with these studies because it's really now time they should be finding and funding their own places without the very convenient state funding assisting them to stand on the front foot any more.

Philosophy is a legitimate study at our universities and during  the course of teaching philosophy of course there would be a need to refer back to he old relious beliefs from time to time, but as time goes by  wethether you like it or not modern life is calling time on religious beliefs and should be throttling back on state funding/support of any relgion based studies, the gradual phasing out of theology would only be a part of the inevitable demise of mythical beliefs; characters like Zeus etc have now more or less disappeared.

Set up your own colleges of theology Hope, with your own funding, no one is going to stop you, me least of all.

ippy

[Shaker]

The difference between all those other sugjects and theology is that the latter has absolutely nothing at the core of it to study. Last year I started atopic on this on Ship of Fools and after pages and pages, not one single fact had emerged about the God that is supposedly at the heart of all the writings about it, or any other god.

I'm right with Ippy on this one.

On another forum I once asked a question which met with a similarly deafeningly silent response: is there such a thing as good and bad theology, and how do you tell the difference?

[ippy]

I thought I covered posts 27 and 29 in my posts; can't see any areas where I expressed anything  would differ with anything said in either of these posts.

ippy

[Udayana]

Why shouldn't people be able to study whatever they like as long as someone is available and wants to teach it at that level?

[Walter]

Lovely post, HH but to me even removing the issues of the expansion and fees, both of which I see as separate arguments, it seems somewhat rose tinted in its portrayal of what was university life. As someone who sat in a Contracts class, it concentrated on the ability to recall and regurgitate more than thinking. Some courses at the universities I have attended were good but many were run by people whose teaching or educating skills were no more developed than a carrot.

Even then the  hand of needing to publish haunted the idea of tenure to such an extent that the educational nous was a lucky add on.

I was just about to post but you beat me to it . Your assessment is rather more gentle than mine . 

I would add not all university degrees have equal value , a bit like a swimming certificate compared with a Olympic gold medal .

[ippy]

Sorry, ippy, can you provide any evidence that science is relevant to real life that doesn't rely on science itself?

Your normal ref to N P F, again Hope.

ippy

[Walter]

I thought I covered posts 27 and 29 in my posts; can't see any areas where I expressed anything  would differ with anything said in either of these posts.

ippy

I think you did but it would seem some people feel a tad rattled .

[Harrowby Hall]

Lovely post, HH but to me even removing the issues of the expansion and fees, both of which I see as separate arguments, it seems somewhat rose tinted in its portrayal of what was university life. As someone who sat in a Contracts class, it concentrated on the ability to recall and regurgitate more than thinking. Some courses at the universities I have attended were good but many were run by people whose teaching or educating skills were no more developed than a carrot.

Even then the  hand of needing to publish haunted the idea of tenure to such an extent that the educational nous was a lucky add on.

My views are ... err ... conditioned by the fact that I spent the best part of a quarter of a century teaching in HE. I started doing HE work (post-A level) in an FE college and, without moving, ended up in a new university. I know what I wanted my students to do and to achieve and it was also disappointing to see many who would end up with a degree which they didn't really deserve. But then, there were also the ones who were a delight to teach.

One of the most disappointing aspects of my work was the "efficiency driving" of HM government. Pushing up student numbers without any real increase in resources so that class sizes increased, reducing opportunities to get to know students as individuals.

Perhaps the strongest weapon that I had in my armoury, though, was the ability to set assignments and state assessment criteria which would reward thinking skills rather than fact regurgitation. There is no reason why Theology should not be amenable to such an approach.

[Brownie]

NS:  Theology is not taught as a belief-enhancing subject but as an aspect of human behaviour and culture which is worthy of involved study and investigation and which does not require the holding of any beliefs. A Theology department could be staffed entirely by atheists and still be effective. The important considerations are the depth and complexity of the subjects being studied and the fact that they are amenable to investigation, analysis and argument.

Valid points.

HH: ...set assignments and state assessment criteria which would reward thinking skills rather than fact regurgitation. There is no reason why Theology should not be amenable to such an approach.

That is excellent, you have the right approach (imo).

[Nearly Sane]

And I am sure you, HH,  were a great educator, but that doesn't stop many of those who are attempting to educate in HE being there because they are academically good but incompetent at best at educating. And yes that is a factor to an extent off the Govt approach as the need to generate research cash drives a lot of this but it was and has been my experience as one of those being 'educated' at different  tines for over three decades that this gas been a constant (even if the individual circs change).

Despite enjoying my time immensely when I attending university full time, my experience is that it would be better for many if it was part time and we looked at the whole concept of life long learning in a much more flexible way. Indeed, it's one of the things that pains me about current political thinking on the subject that we seem as ever to be solving the last problem but one.


As for theology, I absolutely agree it is amenable to being a  subject in being taught how to think, and as I would even suggest that there is an argument that a basic primer should be compulsory if doing philosophy or politics as the need to understand it as a motivation seems all the more pressing.

[Brownie]

Out of interest is a fucking heathen more heathen-y, than just your everyday heathen? If so, in what way?

 
A heathen is someone who does not subscribe to an established religion, having or not having sexual intercourse does not alter that one bit.

ad_o, your remark is hardly an articulate, well thought out argument.  I thought better of you!

[Nearly Sane]

I think what she means is its not a serious subject for a university, a church maybe, in your own time and financial support

Why us understanding the motivation and thinking about something that is part of the lives of billions not a serious subject?

[Nearly Sane]

I thought I covered posts 27 and 29 in my posts; can't see any areas where I expressed anything  would differ with anything said in either of these posts.

ippy

Could you point out where saying theology shouldn't be a university topic and HH's post in #29 which argues that it should be are in line? Or indeed where you are in line with Gordon's post in #27?

[Walter]

Why us understanding the motivation and thinking about something that is part of the lives of billions not a serious subject?

I didn't say it wasn't , just that it should not take up space and money in a university. Once a student learns that billions of people around the world are engaged in activities related to mythological beliefs , which in my case was in secondary education, then that's the end of it . If a person wants to further their own learning in that subject then they are free to do so ,as a kind of hobby , like a geography student might collect stamps. 

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't say it wasn't , just that it should not take up space and money in a university. Once a student learns that billions of people around the world are engaged in activities related to mythological beliefs , which in my case was in secondary education, then that's the end of it . If a person wants to further their own learning in that subject then they are free to do so ,as a kind of hobby , like a geography student might collect stamps.

Once a person learns people think  there are different ways to organise society round the world then surely that iis it for politics too?

[ippy]

Could you point out where saying theology shouldn't be a university topic and HH's post in #29 which argues that it should be are in line? Or indeed where you are in line with Gordon's post in #27?

Mayby not in the amount of lineage written but if you take a combined read of my posts on this thread I'm more or less in line with his line of thought.

Where religions have no verifiable evidence that can backup their magical, mystical and superstitious content, I find child like, I also find it easy to afford them all of the respect I feel is due to them, maybe that's where we differ N S, perhaps being polite about the religious beliefs people hold is a better way, but when I look back on my experiences with these people it looks like my approach differs from yours, I don't see religion as an overall benifit to society.

I have refered to references to religions during a course on philosophy where necessary, why not? It's a fact that religions are a part of our history.

As I keep explaining, I don't do numerous pages of foollscap where I feel commonly understood colloquial English should be enough; I don't mean any offence to you N S, but I don't see you as any kind of a dimwit, my posts arn't that obscure, if they're obscure at all.

ippy

[wigginhall]

I always wonder who should decide on university subjects.   It seems a bit weird that because some people think theology is a non-subject, therefore they should decide.   But I don't know who does decide, I guess it's partly tradition.   I would be in favour of maximum freedom to study what you want.   This reminds me of Feyerabend, who used to argue for astrology and rain-dancing.   Well, not yet.

[Gordon]

It would be useful to know the extent to which studying theology in universities currently was a precursor to a career in the ministry - from the link I posted early it seems this isn't necessarily the case here in the UK. I think the RCC consume their own smoke regarding the training of priests, and in institutions that are specifically religious it is to be expected that theology will figure, although these seem to be more an American model of higher education.

Given the role of religion throughout history and across cultures I'd have thought that theology in a non-proselytising sense was a valid area of academic study, similar to the likes of anthropology and ethnography, where there is possibly some crossover. English literature and literary criticism are well-established academic subjects and I'm struggling to understand why, for instance, 18th century poetry would be a respectable area of study but, again for instance, comparing creation myths wouldn't.