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?

[Furrowed Brow]

Theology already starts with the presumption there is a God

And the problem with this is what?

It's a Premsumption?

[Cephus]

Theology already starts with the presumption there is a God

And the problem with this is what?

That's like saying that UFOlogists assuming the existence of little green men makes them logical and rational. You cannot assume anything. Anything must be demonstrated. God cannot be demonstrated, hence God is not rational.

That should be painfully obvious.

[LightGrenade04]

Theology already starts with the presumption there is a God

And the problem with this is what?

It's a Premsumption?

Again, for the purpose of studying theology - which is, if you read carefully, kind of the theme of this thread - what is the problem?

[LightGrenade04]

Theology already starts with the presumption there is a God

And the problem with this is what?

That's like saying that UFOlogists assuming the existence of little green men makes them logical and rational. You cannot assume anything. Anything must be demonstrated. God cannot be demonstrated, hence God is not rational.

Would you point out to me where I said that when the question of God's existence is raised, it's ok to simply assume His existence? All I implied was that for the purpose of studying and doing theology in an intellectually rigorous manner, there's no problem in assuming God exists, in fact it's kinda necessary.

That should be painfully obvious.

Obviously, when in the midst of a philosophical debate and one party raises the question of God's existence, of course the party in favor of theism will not simply presume that God exists but will demonstrate why it would be perfectly rational to suppose God exists. But that's not the purpose of this thread is it? No, it's whether or not theology as such can be intellectually rigorous enough so as to merit its inclusion in academia.

That should be painfully obvious to those who have the sense to understand what's even being discussed rather than directly launching into a critique of "the other side". Come on dude, you're the "rational secularist", you're better than that.

[Furrowed Brow]

[
I think there is a difference between philosophy and theology. Philosophy does not beg the question. You can have religious philosophers but philosophy of religion is empty of commitment. Theology already starts with the presumption there is a God; or if there are Theology courses out there that do not presume so, then I'd say they are really offering philosophy of religion and should be renamed.

I am not too sure that philosopher does NOT beg the question. It all depends on the particular philosophy. Ideally it doesn't.. but since when have the mental endeavors of man been ideal?

I guess you are always going to get some particular philosophical point of view that begs the question. Platonic realms for example. However, as a discipline philosophy is supposed to argue for/question its premises. In fact you can rest assured - if a point of view begs the question there will be a queue of philosophers lining up to point that out. Nothing is ever really taken for granted (not for too long at least). The socratic method is to admit you do not know and start asking questions.

If we take this forum as an example. If there were no atheists or agnostics here. If it was purely a theists debating room, there would be some clever people here, some well worked out arguments etc; but it would not add up to very much because no one would seriously be doubting their precepts. It would either turn into a self help group, or it would be divided by theological schisms - schisms that will be completely pointless if there is no God.

Science literally has a reality check. Philosophy is influenced by and influences science, but is itself not open to the same kinds of reality checks as science. Though philosophy does rigourously follows through questioning anything and everything. It is a self checker in that respect. Theology falls short on both counts. Not to say the work that is done under the heading Theology is not rigorous as far as it goes. But its the part of the debate that it does not touch, that leaves Theology a pale cousin to philosophy.

[McCulloch]

Theology falls short [...]. Not to say the work that is done under the heading Theology is not rigorous as far as it goes. But its the part of the debate that it does not touch, that leaves Theology a pale cousin to philosophy.

Theology is to philosophy as astrology is to astronomy and phrenology is to psychology.

[Cephus]

Would you point out to me where I said that when the question of God's existence is raised, it's ok to simply assume His existence? All I implied was that for the purpose of studying and doing theology in an intellectually rigorous manner, there's no problem in assuming God exists, in fact it's kinda necessary.

But in assuming the existence of God, you've already thrown away the intellectually rigorous manner which you insist theology follow. You're assuming the validity of theology without demonstrating the validity of theology. It's like studying Aesop by assuming there really is a fox trying to get the grapes.

[LightGrenade04]

Would you point out to me where I said that when the question of God's existence is raised, it's ok to simply assume His existence? All I implied was that for the purpose of studying and doing theology in an intellectually rigorous manner, there's no problem in assuming God exists, in fact it's kinda necessary.

But in assuming the existence of God, you've already thrown away the intellectually rigorous manner which you insist theology follow. You're assuming the validity of theology without demonstrating the validity of theology. It's like studying Aesop by assuming there really is a fox trying to get the grapes.

Ok, let me try to make it simpler for you, if that's possible.

1.) In constructing their systematic theology, theologians sometimes will take the time to present and defend their formulations of arguments for God's existence so as to demonstrate theism's rationality. At which time you - the critic - would interact with their argument(s) rather than simply assuming that there is no reason to think theism to be a rational system.

2.) If not, and you insist that theism can't be believable because no one has presented you with a defense of it, then think of it as hypothetical reasoning. Think of the theologian's work as stating: If God exists, and God is the God of the Christian tradition (or Jewish, Islamic, etc.), then this is how reality is...

Is that really so hard to grasp? If there were a thread titled: "Why does God allow suffering?" and some theist answered with a theodicy, do you really think a valid response to the theist would be to say he is wrong - no matter how intellectually sophisticated his theory is - because he's assuming God exists? No, it wouldn't and that is analogous to what you're doing here.

[Cephus]

If there were a thread titled: "Why does God allow suffering?" and some theist answered with a theodicy, do you really think a valid response to the theist would be to say he is wrong - no matter how intellectually sophisticated his theory is - because he's assuming God exists? No, it wouldn't and that is analogous to what you're doing here.

The problem is, religion is inherently irrational. Nothing can be done to make it rational because the basic question and claim of religion, at least most modern religions, is purposely put beyond the realm of rational examination and verification. It's like the Flat Earth Society. They absolutely believe that the earth is flat and nothing will ever convince them otherwise. You can take them on a plane trip around the world and they will claim you just went around the circumference. They claim all the photos from space are hoaxes. There simply is no evidence whatsoever that will convince them that they are wrong. They have purposely put verification of their claims beyond the realm of science. The same is true of God. You cannot prove the existence of God, you have to simply accept it a priori and demand that it must be true, otherwise religion is a completely empty proposition.

[LightGrenade04]

The problem is, religion is inherently irrational.

Oh, well, I'm convinced.

Nothing can be done to make it rational because the basic question and claim of religion, at least most modern religions, is purposely put beyond the realm of rational examination and verification.

Logical Positivism's absurdly restrictive and self-defeating nature means it's a poor epistemology.

It's like the Flat Earth Society. They absolutely believe that the earth is flat and nothing will ever convince them otherwise. You can take them on a plane trip around the world and they will claim you just went around the circumference. They claim all the photos from space are hoaxes. There simply is no evidence whatsoever that will convince them that they are wrong. They have purposely put verification of their claims beyond the realm of science.

And these people are, of course, representative of all religious people. Because there are no religious people who aren't hostile to science. Anywhere. At any time.

The same is true of God. You cannot prove the existence of God, you have to simply accept it a priori and demand that it must be true, otherwise religion is a completely empty proposition.

Of course you can't prove God's existence to the level that modern secularists demand; just like you can't prove plenty of things that we find perfectly reasonable to believe in. Theism may not be able to be proven, but it can be shown to be rational and the fact that it can't be empirically verified in no way detracts from it or anything else that isn't open to empirical verification/falsification but is entirely rational to believe. This is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making though.