What is theology?

[marco]

Theology originally meant the study of God. In studying him Christian theologians examine the Bible and make what pass for rational arguments about biblical pronouncements. It is useful to study myths and legends for they often tell tales about man's psychology. But is there any point in pretending to study God when neither believer nor unbeliever has anything concrete to go on?

Why do universities still admit this subject as a serious area of study?

[bluethread]

Theology originally meant the study of God. In studying him Christian theologians examine the Bible and make what pass for rational arguments about biblical pronouncements. It is useful to study myths and legends for they often tell tales about man's psychology. But is there any point in pretending to study God when neither believer nor unbeliever has anything concrete to go on?

Why do universities still admit this subject as a serious area of study?

For the same reason that any philosophy is a serious area of study. Personally, I think that the market place should decide what universities study. I have no problem with the existence of the Edinburgh University UFO Research Society, for example. The problem I have is government funding, not just as a first amendment issue, but as a matter of principle. Government funding of education, apart from training for essential government services, i.e. military education, tends to lead to philosophical cronyism. What I find interesting is that an often touted advantage of the scientific method is open experimentation and debate, yet, when it come to formal education, it is believed that it can not survive the open market and must be protected from private educational institutions.

[marco]

Theology originally meant the study of God. In studying him Christian theologians examine the Bible and make what pass for rational arguments about biblical pronouncements. It is useful to study myths and legends for they often tell tales about man's psychology. But is there any point in pretending to study God when neither believer nor unbeliever has anything concrete to go on?

Why do universities still admit this subject as a serious area of study?

For the same reason that any philosophy is a serious area of study.

UFO research may on the face of it be looking for one thing and may discover another. Possibly theology and Ufology will merge into one as being the search for intelligence superior to our own. Philosophy doesn't assume John Joseph Brown lives invisibly, having created everything in creation. Theology seems to, ergo my question as to its placement in a university.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

I agree with Bluethread to a large extent. Academic disciplines should compete in the marketplace of ideas, but not necessarily in the financial marketplace. Financial influence is no guarantor of academic value. Since our public universities are funded by us all, there needs to be some way of deciding what is worth studying. Tho' I agree that academic cronyism has the possibility of restricting the free study of ideas, there must be some way of evaluating what areas are worth public funding.
Theology is one I think should be studied. It has a long tradition historically and is one of the areas of philosophical inquiry that has escaped the popularity of arcane symbolic, mathematical logic. A non religious person can see the value in theology. The modern philosophers such as Paul Tillich and William Placher can show both the religious and the non religious that there are 'higher' or more valued approaches to the attempt to define God than the primitive notion of God as a mere being, a super father figure based on anthropomorphism.

OTOH, the study of phrenology, astrology, alchemy, and whether the Earth is flat like a disk have been and should be discarded. When our knowledge gets to the point where certain disciplines have reached the status of impossibilities, they are no longer worthy of public study. Individuals certainly can continue and the Universities should be open to new discoveries that raise questions about what we thought we knew.

UFO's and parapsychology are rapidly approaching the status of not being worth wasting public money to study.

[Divine Insight]

Why do universities still admit this subject as a serious area of study?

They most certainly shouldn't. In fact, they should move this subject into the study of mythologies. There is no rational reason to have a separate subject called "Theology".

Also, if theists are not permitted to conclude that there obviously cannot be any actual God behind a given theology and still be considered to be "valid theologians" then the subject is clearly corrupt and highly biased.

In other words, "atheists" who are convinced that there do not exist any valid theologies should continue to be viewed as "valid theologians". But we don't see this. As soon as a person comes to the conclusion that a theology cannot possibly be true, they are instantly declared a "non-theologian" and branded as "The Enemy of Theology"

Clearly the respect of the academic study of theologies is nothing more than a religious pursuit and tactic that has simply survived over the centuries. In the early going people were naive enough to simply accept that theologies should be "respected". But in our modern times where the significance of evidence and logical consistency has been recognized to have great value, these ancient practices of supporting outrageous claims that have absolutely no evidence at all is nothing short of a disgrace to our educational institutions.

Theology should be officially moved over to "mythology" pending any actual evidence to support it.

In fact, "Freedom of Religion" should be changed to "Freedom of Thought". We should be free to think whatever we like. Why should this be restricted only to religious beliefs?

All of this religious stuff is just a hangover from the Dark Ages that failed to be recognized for what it truly is: totally un-evidenced outrageous tales.

[bluethread]

Tho' I agree that academic cronyism has the possibility of restricting the free study of ideas, there must be some way of evaluating what areas are worth public funding.

There is the rub in public funding. In a socialist society, the line between public interest and public manipulation becomes rather blurred. As I stated, I take the federalist view. If education is to be funded, it should only be funded for essential government functions, i.e., military education.

[H.sapiens]

Tho' I agree that academic cronyism has the possibility of restricting the free study of ideas, there must be some way of evaluating what areas are worth public funding.

There is the rub in public funding. In a socialist society, the line between public interest and public manipulation becomes rather blurred. As I stated, I take the federalist view. If education is to be funded, it should only be funded for essential government functions, i.e., military education.

What is more important to a society and thus an essential government function, military education or basic research? Even from just a strictly national defense perspective.

[Kenisaw]

Theology originally meant the study of God. In studying him Christian theologians examine the Bible and make what pass for rational arguments about biblical pronouncements. It is useful to study myths and legends for they often tell tales about man's psychology. But is there any point in pretending to study God when neither believer nor unbeliever has anything concrete to go on?

Why do universities still admit this subject as a serious area of study?

For the same reason that any philosophy is a serious area of study. Personally, I think that the market place should decide what universities study. I have no problem with the existence of the Edinburgh University UFO Research Society, for example. The problem I have is government funding, not just as a first amendment issue, but as a matter of principle. Government funding of education, apart from training for essential government services, i.e. military education, tends to lead to philosophical cronyism. What I find interesting is that an often touted advantage of the scientific method is open experimentation and debate, yet, when it come to formal education, it is believed that it can not survive the open market and must be protected from private educational institutions.

I actually agree with some of this. I am all for MORE information being available, not less.

The legal hang up with religious stuff is, of course, that it is religious. Separation of church and state. Schools supported via taxpayer dollars (and let's be honest, they all are when you factor in research grants) should not focus on any particular religion. At St Louis University they have a required "religions of the world" class freshman year, and that is allowed because it is about religions, not about any particular faith based belief system. I'm not including you Bluethread in this next statement, but many believers want their specific flavor of belief incorporated into things, and that isn't legally allowed, nor should it ever be.

On a side note, there are definitely all kinds of garbage degrees now. Women's Studies as a degree? What a waste of money...

[H.sapiens]

Theology originally meant the study of God. In studying him Christian theologians examine the Bible and make what pass for rational arguments about biblical pronouncements. It is useful to study myths and legends for they often tell tales about man's psychology. But is there any point in pretending to study God when neither believer nor unbeliever has anything concrete to go on?

Why do universities still admit this subject as a serious area of study?

Perhaps in the field of comparative literature.

[Kenisaw]

Tho' I agree that academic cronyism has the possibility of restricting the free study of ideas, there must be some way of evaluating what areas are worth public funding.

There is the rub in public funding. In a socialist society, the line between public interest and public manipulation becomes rather blurred. As I stated, I take the federalist view. If education is to be funded, it should only be funded for essential government functions, i.e., military education.

What is more important to a society and thus an essential government function, military education or basic research? Even from just a strictly national defense perspective.

I think you can make an argument that almost anything can be considered vital though. If it is a degree related to a field that adds to the GNP, then it has an economic value to the nation. The economy is obviously of great national interest.