Theology at Universities?

[ippy]

all human activity in that sense is irrational.

I'll say it again, with slightly different wording, drop the theology title and replace it by putting philosophy on the front foot, because that is the direction being taken more and more away from the present front footedness of theology and then sure as night follows day religious history can't be completly seperated from philosophy, nor should it be, then when necessary religion can still be refered to where it's relevent to philosophy.

In this modern world it's about time these religious places should be relegated to the level playing field area where as it seems to me they don't want be unless they are dragged there kicking and fighting, most religious believers still think making a level playing field for all involves them being persecuted without the realisation of how many privileges they have and will be losing.

I still say Astrology is as relevent as theology is and any teaching of gods and superstitions, it's about time all of that lot was relegated.

ippy

[SusanDoris]

Please note - I modified my post while you were typing.

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?

No we should study everything we can. The students of theology are studying human words, beliefs, ideas, etc as I said before.

Whether a student us in some way wrong after a course according to you seems to be what you want stopped.

No, I do not want anything stopped In the end, the total lack of evidence for any God/god/s will be the majority view, and Theology courses willll become fewer and fewer. They will , i.e. all the words, thoughts and ideas, become a part of Philosophy. The funding for such courses is a separate question, I think.

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?

Of course not. Unsurprisingly, I think it would be a progressive move if more ended up by moving away from theism though.

Again you seem to want to ignore how theology is studied because you have decided your strawman about it trumps facts.

It is irrelevant how theology is studied.

There is a thread if anti intellectualism in your position where you think opinion is better than facts.

You can think that if you wish, but you are incorrect.

[ad_orientem]

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!

Studies concerning the nature of God are philosophical questions (theology in the academic sense is mearly a branch of philosophy) and fall under metaphysics. It does not require a belief in God.

[Nearly Sane]

I'll say it again, with slightly different wording, drop the theology title and replace it by putting philosophy on the front foot, because that is the direction being taken more and more away from the present front footedness of theology and then sure as night follows day religious history can't be completly seperated from philosophy, nor should it be, then when necessary religion can still be refered to where it's relevent to philosophy.

In this modern world it's about time these religious places should be relegated to the level playing field area where as it seems to me they don't want be unless they are dragged there kicking and fighting, most religious believers still think making a level playing field for all involves them being persecuted without the realisation of how many privileges they have and will be losing.

I still say Astrology is as relevent as theology is and any teaching of gods and superstitions, it's about time all of that lot was relegated.

ippy

Sorry I am not sure Iunderstand what you are trying to say here but it seems to be that what is currently studied under the title of 'theology' is not  general OK to he studied but ypu want it not to be called theology. Whereas the strawman 'theology' is something different?

[Nearly Sane]

Please note - I modified my post while you were typing.No we should study everything we can. The students of theology are studying human words, beliefs, ideas, etc as I said before.No, I do not want anything stopped In the end, the total lack of evidence for any God/god/s will be the majority view, and Theology courses willll become fewer and fewer. They will , i.e. all the words, thoughts and ideas, become a part of Philosophy. The funding for such courses is a separate question, I think.Of course not. Unsurprisingly, I think it would be a progressive move if more ended up by moving away from theism though.
It is irrelevant how theology is studied.You can think that if you wish, but you are incorrect.

How on earth can how theology is studied be irelevant when you are stating opinions about how it should be studied?

BTW what does 'progressive move' in terms of people moving away from theism mean, and when you have explained it could you put forward your evidence for the claim.

[ippy]

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.

You have misread my posts.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Apologies if this has been picked up already, but as I understand it Theology these days is taught at undergraduate level pretty much as RE is taught at school level - essentially "this is what various peoples believe and why". Which seems fine to me.

Divinity on the other hand is more "this stuff is true" in character. Whether universities should teach as true subjects they have no method to demonstrate to be true is another matter - on the one hand the libertarian in me says "why not?", but on the other if public funding is involved then I'd view it in the same way I think as I view the NHS funding homeopathy. 

(Cue Nearly asking "so is Eng Lit methodologically "true" either?" but ok...)

[Gordon]

In this modern world it's about time these religious places should be relegated to the level playing field area where as it seems to me they don't want be unless they are dragged there kicking and fighting, most religious believers still think making a level playing field for all involves them being persecuted without the realisation of how many privileges they have and will be losing.

Which has nothing to do with the relevance of human thought, including theology, to the development and history of the various cultural scenarios that people are/were part of. For example, it would be impossible to fully understand the events in the 17th century which lead to Charles I losing his head without taking into account the related theological issues that occurred here in Scotland.

I still say Astrology is as relevent as theology is and any teaching of gods and superstitions, it's about time all of that lot was relegated.

ippy

Which accredited UK university teaches astrology as fact these days?

[ippy]

Sorry I am not sure Iunderstand what you are trying to say here but it seems to be that what is currently studied under the title of 'theology' is not  general OK to he studied but ypu want it not to be called theology. Whereas the strawman 'theology' is something different?

You seem to have made up your mind about what you want to think I'm saying, so sorry I'm not sure I understand what it is you want me to say, most other people that post here are not quite so pedant or picky about the perfectly ordinary English I use, if everybody else was expressing the same things you are about my posts you may of had something, but there.

See if you can clarify whatever it is you're saying without Involving three or four full pages of foollscap, however I somehow get the feeling if I was to say it's a nice day to you on nice day you'd still want to argue some point or another so have your last word please.

ippy

[Brownie]

Nicholas Marks would know the answer to that, Gordon!

Cultural Astronomy and Astrology is taught at the University of Wales but that isn't teaching astrology as fact.

How about the Paranormal?  I would think that is taught as part of the study of society.

They do seem strange things to admit to studying at university level.  Quite embarrassing.

However Ippy feels the same way about theology.

[ippy]

Which has nothing to do with the relevance of human thought, including theology, to the development and history of the various cultural scenarios that people are/were part of. For example, it would be impossible to fully understand the events in the 17th century which lead to Charles I losing his head without taking into account the related theological issues that occurred here in Scotland.

Which accredited UK university teaches astrology as fact these days?

I have addressed the first part of your post in previous postings of mine, as for your question at the end of this post of yours, well, where did that come from, I know I mentioned astrology and theology and in the context I used when writing about those two, doesn't really relate to your question.

ippy

[Hope]

Well at least science is going somewhere, better to finance science, than the kind of subject that amounts to little more than the exploits of your friendly local  Ju Ju man.

ippy

ippy, I'm not aware of any university that runs courses that deal with anything remotely related to 'the exploits of your local friendly Ju Ju man'.  On second thoughts, there are some: the courses study superhero comics.  Not media studies, but related I believe.

[Hope]

Your normal ref to N P F, again Hope.

ippy

Just asking you for evidence to support your position as stated in so many posts on this board. 

[Hope]

I assume we are supposed to be living in an enlightened world and as such why is there still a subject like theology being put forward by universities, where and if any relevent aspect of theology is needed it can and should be brought up within the overall subject of philosophy.

I wouldn't expect to see state funding of the study of astrology in our universities, nor divinity or theology for an exactly similar reason.

ippy

What makes you think that 'enlightenment' doesn't include matters spiritual and therefore theological.   I notice that you have still failed to provide any evidence in support of your particular stance.

[SusanDoris]

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.

Yes, but no-one thinks they are supernatural spirits or beings, no-one thinks they should be worshipped, or thinks they have texts going back more than two thousand years. The authors who created those characters are known to be human beings whose work merits study and admiration. 

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.

Yes, but all those merits have human sources,and do not need 100% faith alone in order to believe that their source is other than human.
I've read that through several times - I'm not quite sure that it says what I intend!

[Hope]

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

the term 'Theology' covers all aspects of belief, Walter.  It is certainly not confined to a single religious philosophy and I known of at least one theology department that deals as much with the philosophy behind atheism as it does that behind Hinduism, Jainism, Islam or Christianity.  Not sure that restricting the study of such a massive subject to a religious building is necessarily appropriate.

[Hope]

Yes, but no-one thinks they are supernatural spirits or beings, no-one thinks they should be worshipped, or thinks they have texts going back more than two thousand years.

Science has texts going back more than two thousand years, Susan.  Does that mean it shouldn't be studied, especially when there are those who claim that they base their lives on its precepts.

[SusanDoris]

Studies concerning the nature of God are philosophical questions (theology in the academic sense is mearly a branch of philosophy) and fall under metaphysics. It does not require a belief in God.

I have not at any time said that it does.

[wigginhall]

I suppose ippy and others are arguing that theology equals belief in God.   I don't think that has been true for a long time, has it?  I did some week-end courses in theology a long time ago, and it was not about that at all.   

Ah well, straw men grow and grow, if you water them with your prejudices.

[Walter]

the term 'Theology' covers all aspects of belief, Walter.  It is certainly not confined to a single religious philosophy and I known of at least one theology department that deals as much with the philosophy behind atheism as it does that behind Hinduism, Jainism, Islam or Christianity.  Not sure that restricting the study of such a massive subject to a religious building is necessarily appropriate.

I do .

[ad_orientem]

I have not at any time said that it does.

So what's your problem?

[SusanDoris]

How on earth can how theology is studied be irelevant when you are stating opinions about how it should be studied?

In which post did I state how it 'should be' studied?
Edited to add that when I said how it is studied is irrelevant, I mean that theology is in the end to do with God, so lack of evidence for that means that it is 100% human ideas etc etc which are being studied.In the end Theology is a house of cards! Okay, that is not well expressed, but it's the best I can do in a hurry!

BTW what does 'progressive move' in terms of people moving away from theism mean, and when you have explained it could you put forward your evidence for the claim.
For me, a progressive move away from theism would indicate a growing confidence in provable (not 100% of course) a far better understanding of reality, of the vast amount of knowledge available to us today on the facts about the sciences, and a better understanding of the total lack of facts about anything supernatural..

[Gordon]

Yes, but no-one thinks they are supernatural spirits or beings, no-one thinks they should be worshipped, or thinks they have texts going back more than two thousand years.

indeed, but there is no doubt that while fictional characters aren't real their portrayal can be a vehicle to explore aspects of humanity, thus the likes of Holden Caulfield is notable, albeit rooted in place and time. I think theology, once putting claims of the divine to one side, can have a similar role as well as being a summary of thought in the context of its place and time in history.

The authors who created those characters are known to be human beings whose work merits study and admiration.  Yes, but all those merits have human sources,and do not need 100% faith alone in order to believe that their source is other than human.

I'd say that there are aspects of theology that are just as human, including notions of the divine. Even so I still think there are valid reasons for studying theology: in terms of reviewing history, ignoring prevailing theology would lead to an incomplete understanding just as ignoring politics in relation to perspectives on Brexit would be a mistake.

You don't have to buy into what theology might claim by way of the divine to see its wider relevance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Science has texts going back more than two thousand years, Susan.  Does that mean it shouldn't be studied, especially when there are those who claim that they base their lives on its precepts.

There's a big difference though. A 2,000 year old science text would be treated now as either valid or invalid. If the latter, then it would be studied only as, "here's what people thought to be true 2,000 years ago".

Old religious texts can of course be studied too, but there's no means to validate claims of, say, resurrections of people riding winged horses.

[SusanDoris]

Gordon #122

What is your definition of Theology then? What do you think it is in Theology that makes it a separate subject from history, philosophy, etc?