Theology

[McCulloch]

Should theology be a recognized field of study in universities and other publicly recognized and accredited educational institutes?

the-ol-o-gy [thee-ol-uh-jee]
noun, plural -gies.

1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.

theology. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. (accessed: January 16, 2007).

Publicly recognized and accredited educational institutes grant baccalaureate (Bachelor of Theology; B.Th.; Th.B.), master's degrees (Master of Theology; Th.M.) and doctor's degrees (Doctor of Theology; Th.D.) in the field of Theology. Why? There is nothing in theology that can be objectively studied and tested like the sciences. There are degrees in fields other than science; literature, history, the arts. Is theology like them? Why are there not degree programs in astrology, alchemy and numerology?

[LightGrenade04]

[He] Understands the basic theology.

No, he doesn't.

He also understands that, at it's very core, the basic theology is an attempt to sell a bunch of irrational snake oil, wrapped in emotional platitudes and empty promises. It's an attempt by religious shysters to sell a load of horsedroppings to people with emotional needs by making promises that satisfy their fears, but have no substance beyond it.

Thanks Freud, I'll log that away for future reference.

That's religion in a nutshell. It's what you buy into.

No, it isn't. I'm sorry that's the kind of uninformed ludicrousness you buy into though.

[Cephus]

No, it isn't. I'm sorry that's the kind of uninformed ludicrousness you buy into though.

I'm sure Tom Cruise looks at Scientology and thinks it's completely rational. The rest of us, however, know better.

[Greatest I Am]

All institutes of learning should and do prostitute themselves to any topic that proves profitable.
If I ran or owned a university and I saw that for whatever reason students wanted a course on clipping toe nails and the numbers warranted a class or program in this study, you can be sure that a new program would be built.
Schools are there to supply product. They will supply whatever product pays.
As they should.
As long as there is profit for both the school and the student then there will be master and bachelors of whatever topic you can name including toe nail clipping as long as they can get mileage from that study.

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

All institutes of learning should and do prostitute themselves to any topic that proves profitable.
If I ran or owned a university and I saw that for whatever reason students wanted a course on clipping toe nails and the numbers warranted a class or program in this study, you can be sure that a new program would be built.
Schools are there to supply product. They will supply whatever product pays.
As they should.
As long as there is profit for both the school and the student then there will be master and bachelors of whatever topic you can name including toe nail clipping as long as they can get mileage from that study.

One of the products of a university is the value of its degrees. This value is partly determined by the perceived academic integrity of the institute. If it is seen as teaching superstitious nonsense, then its reputation will suffer.

[Cathar1950]

But, Pink Unicorns exist!!

But only invisible ones!

What if I can see them?

I think I know Mack's question is about the legitimacy of the study.
I tend to think it fits in with literature, history, the arts.
The subject can be studied from an almost infinite number of perspectives. The history, sociology and psychology of theology are just a number of areas. There is also the study of texts. A school is going to only be as good as its reputation and honesty.
On one hand it seems to assume a God but I can see it being studied with out the belief in God. I am reminded of a book I just read awhile back about a guy that was teaching in Germany. He was appointed theologian by the state and decided that the theology of his church was wrong given the evidence. The church tried to get him fired but he ended up with his own department. Many religious believers do not like their scholars believing different then they do yet much research has done by the religiously motivated. They were some of the first that saw thru the doctrines.
I have a friend of mine at Vanderbilt working on a PhD in constructive theology.
I dont know, how should we compare his education to say some one at Pat Robertsons University?
I like Hartshornes Natural theology. But he might not sit to well with some, as he seems to have a more Ebonite view of Christianity.
But even if you get past the does god exist idea you have to then work on which or what god or gods. Then what tradition is the "right one" to be studied? I imagine the better Universities good much deeper into the history and the works of subject. Study should be different then indoctrination.

[4gold]

Publicly recognized and accredited educational institutes grant baccalaureate (Bachelor of Theology; B.Th.; Th.B.), master's degrees (Master of Theology; Th.M.) and doctor's degrees (Doctor of Theology; Th.D.) in the field of Theology. Why? There is nothing in theology that can be objectively studied and tested like the sciences. There are degrees in fields other than science; literature, history, the arts. Is theology like them? Why are there not degree programs in astrology, alchemy and numerology?

I would even go a step further than this and suggest that Theology should be taught at the high school level, so long as it is an elective and it is taught from a neutral perspective. The benefits it would offer to students is critical thought that overlaps several subjects of study: science, literature, history, arts, and philosophy.

Allow the students to present their perspectives and debate the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. Tell the students what great thinkers and artists have said about the pros and cons of each argument.

The class would be graded not upon the student's conclusion, but upon the rationale for the conclusion.

[McCulloch]

I would even go a step further than this and suggest that Theology should be taught at the high school level, so long as it is an elective and it is taught from a neutral perspective. The benefits it would offer to students is critical thought that overlaps several subjects of study: science, literature, history, arts, and philosophy.

Allow the students to present their perspectives and debate the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. Tell the students what great thinkers and artists have said about the pros and cons of each argument.

The class would be graded not upon the student's conclusion, but upon the rationale for the conclusion.

Great idea. We would be rid of almost all religion in one generation.

[Cathar1950]

I would even go a step further than this and suggest that Theology should be taught at the high school level, so long as it is an elective and it is taught from a neutral perspective. The benefits it would offer to students is critical thought that overlaps several subjects of study: science, literature, history, arts, and philosophy.

Allow the students to present their perspectives and debate the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. Tell the students what great thinkers and artists have said about the pros and cons of each argument.

The class would be graded not upon the student's conclusion, but upon the rationale for the conclusion.

Great idea. We would be rid of almost all religion in one generation.

There is nothing like reason.
Ii don't think Christians in this country really want religion taught in our schools. They want their religion taught. You would think they would be happy with Sunday school and church. They want prayer in schools? How about we all pray to Allah?
Maybe Zeus or Caligula would stop terrorist if we prayed to them.

[4gold]

Great idea. We would be rid of almost all religion in one generation.

I know you were likely saying this tongue-in-cheek, but even after 4 years of debatingchristianity.com and thousands of years of the same debate playing out over and over again, we still maintain a majority theistic society. I highly doubt we'd wipe out religion within a generation.

More likely, we'd produce a generation of critical thinkers who question the rationale behind their beliefs. And how can that be a bad thing?

[Cephus]

I know you were likely saying this tongue-in-cheek, but even after 4 years of debatingchristianity.com and thousands of years of the same debate playing out over and over again, we still maintain a majority theistic society. I highly doubt we'd wipe out religion within a generation.

More likely, we'd produce a generation of critical thinkers who question the rationale behind their beliefs. And how can that be a bad thing?

That's because people don't believe in religion rationally, it's a fear response to the unknown. People don't want to face the fact that they're alone in the universe, that no one is watching over them and that when they die, they cease to exist. Man has invented gods to make himself feel better about his most basic fears, simply acknowledging that these gods are really irrational and ridiculous won't change most people's minds because self-deception is a lot more comforting than facing reality.