Monday, October 1, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

Letters: Theology has no place in a university

by Richard Dawkins

Reposted from:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article3015309.ece

Sir: Professor Richard Bowen thinks I should engage with serious academic theologians rather than the fundamentalist "McDonald's" version of Christianity. He and the Rev Richard Hall (Letters, 19 September) agree with Peter Stanford ("Doubts about Dawkins", 14 September) that I should read theology. Fortunately it looks as though I shall have every opportunity to do so. Oxford University has just officially noticed that its leading theological halls are not fit to admit school-leavers, so these institutions will presumably be touting for mature students.

According to a report in The Times (19 September), Wycliffe Hall and other theological establishments "could risk losing their Oxford University licences altogether". This follows a review that concludes that what is on offer at Wycliffe Hall "does not resemble an Oxford experience in its essentials" and is not "a suitable educational environment for the full intellectual development of young undergraduates". The Rev Mr Hall encourages me to engage with theology academics whose "intelligence is at least equal to Dawkins' own". Indeed I should enjoy engaging with my neighbour, the Principal of Wycliffe Hall, who said in The Independent (25 May), "We are committed to bringing the gospel message of Jesus Christ to those who don't know. In this land, that's 95 per cent of the people: 95 per cent of people facing hell unless the message of the gospel is brought to them." Presumably he is one of the intelligent theologians with whom I should engage.

We who doubt that "theology" is a subject at all, or who compare it with the study of leprechauns, are eagerly hoping to be proved wrong. Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university. But as for theology itself, defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God", a positive case now needs to be made that it has any real content at all, and that it has any place in today's universities.

Richard Dawkins
Oxford

----

Sir: It is not often that a professor admits to poor scholarship, but that is what Richard Dawkins has done (letter, 17 September). Had I received an essay from a first-year undergraduate in which he admitted not having studied the position of his opponent, I would have insisted on it being rewritten. What is even more remarkable is that Dawkins seems unaware that the positivist account of science, which forms the main plank of his argument, is thoroughly discredited.

To argue for the position he advocates requires a working knowledge of the philosophy of science and religion, epistemology and metaphysics. While scientists of a previous generation, such as Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn, have shown the application required to master these fields prior to publishing their philosophical work, Dawkins has so far shown himself unable or unwilling to do so.

The Revd Dr David Heywood
Lecturer in Pastoral Theology, Ripon College, Cuddesdon Oxfordshire

Posted: Monday, October 1, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 567 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #74912 by MattInOz on October 1, 2007 at 5:28 am

Richard,

How do you not tire of the repetition? I wish you all the best in the pending "engagements". You're probably just best to stick to coffee and the football results.....

Other Comments by MattInOz

2. Comment #74915 by Bertybob on October 1, 2007 at 5:39 am

My employer once sent me on an "effective writing" course. The ABC was "Accuracy", "Brevity", "Clarity".

This one hits the nail on the head.

Other Comments by Bertybob

3. Comment #74916 by Theocrapcy on October 1, 2007 at 5:45 am

It can stay on the proviso the subject name is changed to my moniker.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

4. Comment #74918 by BillySands on October 1, 2007 at 5:57 am

Maybe a theologian could tell me God's favorite sexual position (presumably missionary). That knowledge would be about as useful as .... well as it gets with theology really.

Other Comments by BillySands

5. Comment #74926 by steindor on October 1, 2007 at 6:35 am

According to Hector Avalos, Professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University, theology is a dead or dying subject; a position he argues for in his latest book The End of Biblical Studies (2007). I am currently reading the book and I highly recommend it.

Other Comments by steindor

6. Comment #74928 by Vadjong on October 1, 2007 at 6:35 am

serious academic theologians : God Trekkies.

The Bible belongs on the shelf next to Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, Norse, Mayan, Astrological, Wicca, Vampiric, Tolkien, Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc. mythology.
For people who like that sort of stuff and who enjoy some cosplay to go at conventions and the like, I have no problem. I am a bit of a nerd too.

Just don't claim that anybody else needs to be 'saved' into your fantasy or that it is anything more than a cultish or folkloristic hobby. Thank you.

Other Comments by Vadjong

7. Comment #74931 by Vadjong on October 1, 2007 at 6:41 am

Holy scriptures are Sci-Fi from the year zero, so to all Goddies out there : Get A Life ! It's just tired old mythology.

Other Comments by Vadjong

8. Comment #74932 by Acleron on October 1, 2007 at 6:42 am

In this land, that's 95 per cent of the people: 95 per cent of people facing hell unless the message of the gospel is brought to them

This is good, only 5% left.

Other Comments by Acleron

9. Comment #74938 by Cartomancer on October 1, 2007 at 7:19 am

I tried defacing the sign in front of Wycliffe Hall today by writing "now with added bible-thumping evangelical craziness" below the crest. Unfortunately it was raining and my biro didn't work...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

10. Comment #74939 by Rudi Tapper on October 1, 2007 at 7:21 am

The letter that was printed underneath, from one Reverend David Heywood, was a typical masterpiece of ecclesiastical superciliousness. He claims it is impossible for Dawkins to not believe in God without "a working knowledge of the philosophy of science and religion, epistemology and metaphysics". The implication seemed to be that, unlike Dawkins (apparently), the good Reverend does have the necessary qualifications to draw a fair conclusion on this matter.

So what, then, is Heywood's evidence for the existence of God? He doesn't say.

Other Comments by Rudi Tapper

11. Comment #74940 by Dr Benway on October 1, 2007 at 7:23 am

Oxford University has just officially noticed that its leading theological halls are not fit to admit school-leavers, so these institutions will presumably be touting for mature students.

What's a "school-leaver"? Is the implication here that the theology profs will be out hawking their wares to the undergraduates, and so will be bumping into profs from other departments, like Dawkins?

Sorry I'm so thick. Brits just have a funny way of sayin'.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

12. Comment #74941 by Cartomancer on October 1, 2007 at 7:32 am

A "school leaver" is someone who has finished secondary education. Legally you're allowed to leave school at 16 here but most people, and almost all of those who want to go on to University, stay on and do A-levels (advanced levels) until 18. The confusion probably arises because over here we don't call university "school". School for us is everything up to but not including university level, though many sixth-form colleges and FE colleges will be referred to as "college" rather than school. To us school has implications of childhood and immaturity, when you get to 18 or so it starts to rankle somewhat and you feel the need for a more grown-up term.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

13. Comment #74943 by Durandal on October 1, 2007 at 7:36 am

It's just a little too early to call for the banning of theological studies from universities. Getting the irresponsible study of Creationism or I.D. out of public schools is one thing, but trying to take on an entire legitimate academic program that has been a part of professional education for centuries is quite another.

The thing about a university, even a public one, is that the students choose their curriculum, and therefore, in an incremental way, "vote" on what programs exist at a school. Change can be made merely through economic and social means. When enough people are choosing other disciplines in place of theology, it will lose funding and atrophy on its own. This would take a very, very long time, however, an aggressive campaign to rip theology out of that world would be disasterous in my opinion.

Other Comments by Durandal

14. Comment #74944 by _J_ on October 1, 2007 at 7:38 am

Dr Benway - Following Cartomancer: so the implication is that, since the theology colleges have been deemed to be failing to provide a sufficiently stretching educational experience on a for standard-aged first-degree undergraduates, they'll have to start aiming their courses at mature students instead (though why mature students should happily accept sub-par standards I'm not wholly sure). Dawkins is joking that he, as a mature person, might therefore be desirable as a fresh-faced theology undergraduate.

Other Comments by _J_

15. Comment #74948 by Quetzalcoatl on October 1, 2007 at 7:45 am

Durandal-

I agree- why bother even trying to ban it? Theology is a dwindling subject in any case. From the sound of the article, Oxford's courses are not up to par, and I highly doubt that many other universities will have theology courses of equal or greater depth. Without fresh student blood to keep them going, they will die of their own accord. There are more important things to worry about.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

16. Comment #74949 by Acleron on October 1, 2007 at 7:50 am

Durandal Please can you elucidate the difference between teaching a completely irrational system based on a belief derived from ancient writings (creationism/ID) and a completely irrational system based on a belief derived from ancient writings (theology).

Other Comments by Acleron

17. Comment #74950 by _J_ on October 1, 2007 at 7:52 am

I have to say, university friends of mine who studied theology seemed to be worked off their feet. I remember them having to turn in three essays a week, during times when I only had to contend with one. They learned Hebrew and Ancient Greek (I think) into the bargain. EDIT - by the way, I'm pretty sure one of them was an atheist.

I can appreciate Dawkins' argument that, whilst theology can in practice be full of worthwhile academic pursuits (he lists plenty of examples) the grouping mechanism 'theology' seems vacuous. But then, I studied 'English'. I'm not sure that there's too much more value in pontificating about excellent literature than there is in doing the same for scriptures. Either way, the academic value is about those infamous 'transferable skills' - analysis, research, argumentation and bits of experience in various of the fields Dawkins mentions.

That said, if theology defines itself as Dawkins puts it - as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God" - then there's a problem. That sort of bare assertion runs directly contrary to the principles of teaching students how to gain, process, assess and generate knowledge.

And, as for saying of your theological college 'We are committed to bringing the gospel message of Jesus Christ to those who don't know' - wow! That's just falling on your sword.

Other Comments by _J_

18. Comment #74951 by Robert Maynard on October 1, 2007 at 7:52 am

_J_,

(though why mature students should happily accept sub-par standards I'm not wholly sure)

I believe that in the UK mature-age studies are thought of as more of a purely intellectual pursuit, while there is an emphasis that "school-leavers" are to be provided with energetic and inspiring curricula which will help them gain useful qualifications, particularly in order to enter the workforce.

The cruel joke is that theology might not be able provide this level of education, and may be consigned to the ranks of.. er.. chainsaw juggling and Feng Shui classes.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

19. Comment #74952 by Dr Benway on October 1, 2007 at 7:53 am

A "school leaver" is someone who has finished secondary education.

Richard Dawkins is a school leaver then. Or do you mean someone who has completed the basics but hasn't done the A levels thing.

UK universities have separate certifications for teaching those who completed A levels and those who haven't? So the theology coursework isn't fit for the latter, but is for the former?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

20. Comment #74954 by _J_ on October 1, 2007 at 7:58 am

Dr Benway

A "school leaver" is someone who has finished secondary education.

Richard Dawkins is a school leaver then. Or do you mean someone who has completed the basics but hasn't done the A levels thing.

A school leaver is someone who has just finished school (or is just about to). The term can be applied to 16 year olds (just leaving secondary school after finishing GCSEs or equivalents) or to 18 year olds (just leaving Further Education after finishing A-Levels or equivalents).

Purely to add to your confusion, you might like to note that university-level education is referred to as Higher Education, or Level 4, where Level 3 (Further Education) is A-Levels and equivalents, and Level 2 is GCSEs and equivalents. (I suspect the Levels are there to help interest young people by making it sound like a video game.)

Other Comments by _J_

21. Comment #74960 by liberalartist on October 1, 2007 at 8:11 am

I work at a Jesuit college and theology is a requirement. I am grateful that I attended public schools myself because the religion courses I took were academic in nature and I learned what religion is and I learned about world religions. I loved the courses and my professor. I couldn't tell what religion she was, which I thought made her a good teacher. It was also my first step toward realizing religion is all hogwash. Ironically its been working at a Catholic college the last few years that has firmly put me in the "A" column. Students who come here don't get anything academic when it comes to religion; only what the Catholic Church wants them to believe. There is nothing "academic" about that.

Other Comments by liberalartist

22. Comment #74961 by Durandal on October 1, 2007 at 8:11 am

Acleron wrote = "Durandal Please can you elucidate the difference between teaching a completely irrational system based on a belief derived from ancient writings (creationism/ID) and a completely irrational system based on a belief derived from ancient writings (theology)."

At a very, very base level, there isn't much of a difference, especially the way you describe. But the study of Theology as a major for undergrads and grad students at a university is far more complex and in depth than a high school class about how the world came into existence.

There are also two very different sets of individuals and organizations to battle against when going to the table in protest depending on whether you're butting heads with a local school district or a professional academic institution.

Also, please forgive my formatting I'm brand new and just figuring out this comment system.

Other Comments by Durandal

23. Comment #74962 by _J_ on October 1, 2007 at 8:12 am

Robert Maynard

Yes, that makes sense.

The cruel joke is that theology might not be able provide this level of education, and may be consigned to the ranks of.. er.. chainsaw juggling and Feng Shui classes.

Theology seems to be little more than a kind of box in which we previously kept all of our attempts to understand the world. As soon as any particular system of pursuing knowledge becomes sufficiently well defined and independent, it jumps out of the box and carries on on its own. Theology has been left an empty box with only its four bare walls and floor left to study (and selectively borrowing the techniques it has learned from its successors for the purpose). It is left reflecting nostalgically on the significance it once held and struggling to justify and perpetuate the assumptions that it made during the centuries before there were specialised fields of study to address matters rigorously.

Other Comments by _J_

24. Comment #74965 by wednesdayguevara on October 1, 2007 at 8:20 am

Comment #74951 by Robert Maynard on October 1, 2007 at 7:52 am:

Sir, you do a great disservice to the noble profession of chainsaw juggling by lumping it in with rackets like theology and feng shui. For shame! I think you owe our many chainsaw-juggling allies a most sincere and humble apology. ;)

Other Comments by wednesdayguevara

25. Comment #74966 by Robert Maynard on October 1, 2007 at 8:21 am

[Theology] is left reflecting nostalgically on the significance it once held and struggling to justify and perpetuate the assumptions that it made during the centuries before there were specialised fields of study to address matters rigorously.

Yeah - like Feng Shui. :P

Sir, you do a great disservice to the noble profession of chainsaw juggling by lumping it in with rackets like theology and feng shui. For shame! I think you owe our many chainsaw-juggling allies a most sincere and humble apology. ;)

I'm just sayin'.. a lot less students make it to graduation.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

26. Comment #74970 by bamboospitfire on October 1, 2007 at 8:46 am

Theology is in trouble as long as it remains the study of the nature of God without also asking whether that is a valid question in the first place. I think the definition is crucial. If theology is always what RD defines it as in his letter, it has no place outside church libraries. If it is the study of various topics in a religious context, then it is as valid as the next subject. However, we can give names to those topics, and RD has done so. In the circumstances, I would argue for nailing down theology as the study of the nature of God so that it can rightly be thrown out of universities and replaced with objective courses in religious history, art, sociology and the like which do not require any baseless assumptions to be made about anything.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

27. Comment #74971 by Goatsbane J on October 1, 2007 at 8:49 am

Yeah, you're right. Like feng shui.

It's just that there's an added poignancy, because (as I understand it) theology is the box of nonsense that all our present-day academia initially came out of. A bit like Stephen Weinberg (was it him?) said about missing religion when it's, like a mad old aunt who's finally kicked the bucket. It's not just that 'she was beautiful when she was younger' - it's that her comments in her youth were the starting points for all the things we went on to achieve, either by giving us the ideas or by presenting us with daft ones that we productively disagreed with. So it's kind of sad to see see theology as being empty and raving and left behind.

Kind of.

Other Comments by Goatsbane J

28. Comment #74972 by Bonzai on October 1, 2007 at 8:50 am

I think Business schools don't belong to universities either. Business is definitely not an intellectual discipline, at least theology may have some relationship with genuine intellectual subjects like history, ancient literature, ancient language and philosophy, however tangential.

Other Comments by Bonzai

29. Comment #74976 by a-teapot-ist on October 1, 2007 at 9:03 am

Might I suggest that the good Prof. Dawkins offer forth Terry Jones's "Lady Cottington's Pressed Fairy Book" as something he'd take just as seriously as anything the theologians in question would have to offer? Certainly more colorful than the samba on a pin they're supposedly capable of . . . though not nearly as aerobic as the mental gymnastics these "learned" men perform on a daily basis. Imaginings versus evidence, no holds barred. Logical fallacies, however . . .

Other Comments by a-teapot-ist

30. Comment #74978 by Bonzai on October 1, 2007 at 9:08 am

I know someone working on a Ph.D. in theology. Her thesis is a comparison of some aspects of Christianity and Confucianism. To do so she has to acquire a reading knowledge of Latin and ancient Chinese and study the historical and cultural context of the two systems. To me that sounds like a legitimate Ph.D.

So I am afraid I disagree with Dawkins on this one.

When he circulates a petition to get rid of Business schools I will happily sign on.

Other Comments by Bonzai

31. Comment #74980 by stevencarrwork on October 1, 2007 at 9:20 am

Anybody interested in the utter rubbish turned out in theology departments could do worse than look at this article on the conflict between religion and evolution from Harvard University

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin_mag/articles/35-23_coakley.html

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

32. Comment #74982 by Cartomancer on October 1, 2007 at 9:29 am

Bonzai - actually it seems you do agree with Dawkins on this one. Surely studies like the one you detail are precisely what the good Professor means when he talks about "excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects." Actually your friend's studies sound like they would be right at home in any faculty of history, oriental studies, anthropology or philosophy.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

33. Comment #74983 by NormanDoering on October 1, 2007 at 9:32 am

Bonzai wrote:

I know someone working on a Ph.D. in theology. Her thesis is a comparison of some aspects of Christianity and Confucianism. To do so she has to acquire a reading knowledge of Latin and ancient Chinese. To me that sounds like a legitimate Ph.D.

So I am afraid I disagree with Dawkins on this one.

Did you miss the last paragraph?

Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university. But as for theology itself, defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God", a positive case now needs to be made that it has any real content at all, and that it has any place in today's universities.

It sounds like your Ph.D. friend is really working on language, ancient literature, psychology and "conceptual archaeology." Studying people's different ideas about God is not a study of God, but of the human mind dancing with ideas and beliefs.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

34. Comment #74984 by Janus on October 1, 2007 at 9:37 am

I know someone working on a Ph.D. in theology. Her thesis is a comparison of some aspects of Christianity and Confucianism. To do so she has to acquire a reading knowledge of Latin and ancient Chinese and study the historical and cultural context of the two systems. To me that sounds like a legitimate Ph.D.

So I am afraid I disagree with Dawkins on this one.

Why would you say something so stupid?

Even IF Richard hadn't made it PERFECTLY CLEAR what he means by "theology" in various articles and in TGD, even IF he hadn't written a whole paragraph in the very article you're replying to specifying what IS theology and what IS NOT, isn't it crashingly OBVIOUS that he is talking about "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God"?

Other Comments by Janus

35. Comment #74985 by BaronOchs on October 1, 2007 at 9:40 am

You can take university courses in "religious studies" that offer a critical look at religious texts and ideas, and the history of religion. Which is different from theology courses that simply present a particular religious framework as being true.

I think it is the latter that is problematic. Clergy training colleges that take in students to fit them out to propagate the teachings of a particular church are hardly models of objective study. Isn't their inclusion in universities only in virtue of historical accident?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

36. Comment #74989 by Bonzai on October 1, 2007 at 9:46 am

Even IF Richard hadn't made it PERFECTLY CLEAR what he means by "theology" in various articles and in TGD, even IF he hadn't written a whole paragraph in the very article you're replying to specifying what IS theology and what IS NOT, isn't it crashingly OBVIOUS that he is talking about "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God"?

Well all I know is that my acquaintance is getting her degree in theology and her supervisor is a professor in theology. I understand Richard defines what he thinks theology is , but it doesn't seem like a good description of what actually happens in theology departments, at least it is not in all universities. In other words that sounds like a strawman that he made up.

His last paragraph is like making a disclaimer and then continue to beat on his favourite strawman nontheless, that sounds kind of silly.

Like I said, why aren't you people so worked up about Business? It definitely has no place in university no matter how you square it. It should be a college diploma.

Other Comments by Bonzai

37. Comment #74993 by robert s on October 1, 2007 at 9:58 am

Perhaps, as you think Dawkins' idea of what theology is is wrong, you could tell us what it really is? Does your friend's Ph.D include any real theology in addition to the studies you mentioned?

Or does the anthropology of religion really need its own department?

Other Comments by robert s

38. Comment #74996 by Janus on October 1, 2007 at 10:06 am

Well all I know is that my acquaintance is getting her degree in theology and her supervisor is a professor in theology. I understand Richard defines what he thinks theology is , but it doesn't seem like a good description of what actually happens in theology departments, at least it is not in all universities. In other words that sounds like a strawman that he made up.

So if I wanted to get rid of, say, _physics_ in universities, would I automatically be saying that I also want to get rid of mathematics, because mathematics are taught and used so much in physics departments?

To quote the article a few virtual feet above this comment: "Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university."

Other Comments by Janus

39. Comment #74997 by Janus on October 1, 2007 at 10:10 am

The�ol�o�gy
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.
2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.
[Origin: 1325�75; ME theologie < OF < LL theologia < Gk theolog�a. See theo-, -logy]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theology

Other Comments by Janus

40. Comment #74998 by Machinus on October 1, 2007 at 10:10 am

It's not going to go away until a majority believes it's bullshit. But to get the majority to think that, one must use the same means the church does to deceive people in the first place.

Aldous Huxley once wrote about an experiment on Cyprus...

Other Comments by Machinus

41. Comment #75000 by Bonzai on October 1, 2007 at 10:16 am

Janus wrote:

To quote the article a few virtual feet above this comment: "Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university."

Yeah, as I said that last paragraph is like making a disclaimer and then continually happily to beat on the strawman he erected.

As far as I know in public universities in Canada there is no requirement for you to be a Christian or even a believer of any religion to get a degree in theology, it is a pretty big tent. Studying theology is not the same as entering the Priesthood, that kind of school is called a Seminary(and other names for Protestants) It seems Richard is getting a bit mixed up in terminology.

I suppose this is the same in all respectable institutions around the world,-that would rule out things like Jerry Falwell's U, for example.

Other Comments by Bonzai

42. Comment #75001 by Estragon on October 1, 2007 at 10:18 am

40. Comment #74998 by Machinus on October 1, 2007 at 10:10 am
It's not going to go away until a majority believes it's bullshit.

didn't they wonder why it's under BS in the Harvard library system?

Other Comments by Estragon

43. Comment #75004 by The Smart Patrol on October 1, 2007 at 10:26 am

Comment #74950 by _J_ on October 1, 2007 at 7:52 am

"I can appreciate Dawkins' argument that, whilst theology can in practice be full of worthwhile academic pursuits (he lists plenty of examples) the grouping mechanism 'theology' seems vacuous. But then, I studied 'English'. I'm not sure that there's too much more value in pontificating about excellent literature than there is in doing the same for scriptures."

The difference, of course, between banging on about literature and scripture, is that it is commonly assumed that literature is fiction, whereas those who study scripture are more often than not under the head-scratching impression that it is true. English is a subject in which literature is dissected with a view to understanding the human psyche, whereas Theology is as nonsensical as undertaking a course regarding the study of fairies. English is a proper subject, Theology is not. If Theology can be said to be a proper academic discipline, then there is no reason why a course concerning the study of leprechauns should not be springing up sometime soon.

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

44. Comment #75005 by Janus on October 1, 2007 at 10:31 am

Yeah, as I said that last paragraph is like making a disclaimer and then continually happily to beat on the strawman he erected.

It's not a strawman, it's the dictionary definition, and it's the meaning that most people think of when the word "theology" is pronounced. When critics like Orr are telling Richard that he should read up on theology, they don't mean that he should get a better idea of what your average believer believes, nor do they mean he should know more about the psychology or anthropology or history of religion. They mean he should know more about the latest and most sophisticated "theories" of theologians about what God is like.

As far as I know in public universities in Canada there is no requirement for you to be a Christian or even a believer of any religion to get a degree in theology. Studying theology is not the same as entering the Priesthood, that kind of school is called aSeminary(and other names for Protestants) It seems Richard are getting a bit mixed up in terminology.

No, you're the only one getting mixed up in terminology. No one has mentioned a requirement to be a Christian, or seminaries, or anything of the kind. What are you talking about?

Richard's argument is simple: Theology is the study of God. Studying God is impossible (if he even exists). Therefore theology is as much an academic subject as is the study of leprechauns.
That theology departments have also incorporated other subjects (that have their own departments) when these subjects touch religion is irrelevant, because these things aren't theology. They might be done in the part of the building where theologians do their "research", but that doesn't make them theology, for the same reason that the fact that mathematics are used a lot in the physics department doesn't mean that mathematics are a part of physics.

Other Comments by Janus

45. Comment #75006 by Bilson on October 1, 2007 at 10:33 am

I think Bonzai makes a fair point. A dictionary definition, whether that of Prof Dawkins or Janus, is of little help in showing what is actually taught/researched in theology departments.

Yes, I'm sure the many able classicists, historians, sociologists, etc would be welcomed in those respective departments. However, a good many academics (with religious beliefs and none) decide that their teaching/research works within the theology department. They are the ones to define the subject, I think.

Other Comments by Bilson

46. Comment #75007 by Janet Factor on October 1, 2007 at 10:34 am

I'd like to take a different tack here, and argue that there is something theology can tell us�but not about god. It can tell us about ourselves.

"The organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God" is really an organized body of knowledge about human preferences in fantasy objects.

Personally I think that most god figures are really idealized alpha males, and studying them could tell us a lot about our evolutionarily determined preferences in leaders. Now that is useful knowledge!

Might help us avoid another George W. Bush.

Other Comments by Janet Factor

47. Comment #75008 by epeeist on October 1, 2007 at 10:35 am

Comment #74989 by Bonzai

Like I said, why aren't you people so worked up about Business? It definitely has no place in university no matter how you square it. It should be a college diploma.

I'll go with you on this one. A degree in theology has some academic content and graduands should have some appreciation of a wide variety of topics.

I have never come across an MBA who could claim as much.

Other Comments by epeeist

48. Comment #75009 by Janus on October 1, 2007 at 10:48 am

I think Bonzai makes a fair point. A dictionary definition, whether that of Prof Dawkins or Janus, is of little help in showing what is actually taught/researched in theology departments.

But what is taught and researched in theology departments doesn't define what theology is. As I said (TWICE!), mathematics is taught and used in physics departments. Does this mean that mathematics is physics?

Yes, I'm sure the many able classicists, historians, sociologists, etc would be welcomed in those respective departments. However, a good many academics (with religious beliefs and none) decide that their teaching/research works within the theology department. They are the ones to define the subject, I think.

Oh, goody. Now that you've redefined theology to encapsulate more than a dozen fields (which already HAVE NAMES), what name are you going to give to "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God"? Are you going to make up a new word? A word with a meaning identical to what is currently meant by theology?

Other Comments by Janus

49. Comment #75010 by Dr Benway on October 1, 2007 at 10:51 am

Would I be correct in assuming that the statement "its leading theological halls are not fit to admit school-leavers" is identical in meaning to "its leading theological halls are not fit to admit students"?

I'm happy to allow theologians the right to define their own field. Apparently those at Oxford describe their raison d'etre thusly: "We are committed to bringing the gospel message of Jesus Christ to those who don't know. In this land, that's 95 per cent of the people: 95 per cent of people facing hell unless the message of the gospel is brought to them." This doesn't sound like the sort of comparative religions work Bonzai's friend is doing.

Perhaps "theology" like "fanny" means something a little different this side of the pond.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

50. Comment #75013 by hungarianelephant on October 1, 2007 at 11:05 am