NobleSavage

Is theology a legitimate academic discipline? Obviously, one will find a considerable variance in academic merit from seminary to seminary, but generally speaking what weight, if any, should given to the academic authority of a theologian's opinion.

I don't claim to be familiar with the study of theology and the various seminaries around the world; however, when one undertakes the study of theology their predetermined brand of faith largely determines the seminary they attend. How often do theological students go to a seminary, study a broad range of doctrines (including other religions), and then pick their faith? I'm guessing not often.

Isn't this the opposite of how academia should operate? Granted, secular programs have their biases and all individuals carry with them a greater or lesser amount of cultural baggage, but at least it's not ass-backwards – start with a conclusion and then look for evidence – as the study of theology seems to be.

Theologians defend yourselves.


NS

(I'm sure if this is the correct forum, but this seems to be the hangout for theologians.)

Postcard73

Hey NS- glad to see you around! I understand why you started this thread here, but I think this might be better asked in GRD.

Scott (Postcard73)
BC&H Moderator

Yahzi

As I understand it, seminary is actually the most effective method of producing atheists out of believers.

ManM

If you look at the work required by one pursing a theological degree, you should be able to see what they are qualified to talk about. Furthermore, criticizing a theological program for not teaching a broad range of doctrines is like faulting an electrical engineering program for not teaching advanced aerodynamics. Finally, the study of theology is not a hunt for evidence, but rather is a study of a particular religion. This involves history, philosophy, linguistics, culture, music, etc. It is just as credible as the study of feminism, socialism, or any other -ism. But like anything else, their degree does not automatically qualify them to be experts on everything. Still, when they are speaking about something in their domain of study, they should be given respect like any other academic expert.

BDS

Theology is one of the "humanities". Studying it is like studying any of the other humanities -- it is the study of human endeavor and achievement. Whether it is also something MORE is, of course, a matter of debate.

Should we abandon the study of fiction, too?

Personally, I find theology fascinating. The difficulty with Philosophy is that there is no accepted starting point. Christian Theology, when it accepts the primacy of the Bible, at least has a starting point, and as a result can be very logical.

Biff the unclean

Next you'll be saying that they shouldn't give degrees in astrology either

Biff the unclean

But since the Bible is a work of mythology it accepts fiction as primacy. It is not possible to be logical at all after that. :banghead:

funinspace

[QUOTE=NobleSavage]Is theology a legitimate academic discipline? Obviously, one will find a considerable variance in academic merit from seminary to seminary, but generally speaking what weight, if any, should given to the academic authority of a theologian's opinion.

I don't claim to be familiar with the study of theology and the various seminaries around the world; however, when one undertakes the study of theology their predetermined brand of faith largely determines the seminary they attend. How often do theological students go to a seminary, study a broad range of doctrines (including other religions), and then pick their faith? I'm guessing not often.

Isn't this the opposite of how academia should operate? Granted, secular programs have their biases and all individuals carry with them a greater or lesser amount of cultural baggage, but at least it's not ass-backwards – start with a conclusion and then look for evidence – as the study of theology seems to be.[QUOTE]
First I would not claim firsthand knowledge, just allot of discussions with several peoples of several sects. I would say it is not really a fair comparison, to ask one to pick a faith afterwards. Why would they have come to study in the first place? This isn't just a quest for knowledge (academia), but one would hope that they at least try to use reason. I would assume most seminary students would go to a seminary that is in line with their faith. Much like someone wanting a doctorate in economics would most likely pick a school that was generally in line with his views of economics, say for example Keynesian verses Austrian schools of thought. There are actually quite a few preachers that will change their particular sect based on further knowledge.

At least in the mainstream Protestant seminaries, there actually is much critical thought going on IRT to the textual criticism, historic context, and such. They would likely understand that it is odd the way Pontius Pilot is described in the Bible, considering that we know that Rome recalled him at least partly for his viciousness. They would tend to recognize that the gospels contain contradictions if one was trying to use them as literal history. They are recognizing that the Bible has been affected by the culture around them, whether or not they don't draw the same final conclusions.

The sects that insist on a inerrant Bible are a completely different beast. You can see it in many threads here. Reason and logic only apply when it agrees and uplifts the Bible. Science is only listened to when it supports literal thinking. The see the devil at every turn. Their comfort is the absolutes they think this gives them. And from what I have seen, their leadership demands the same kind of thinking. Their preachers don't tend to study much history from my exposure. What they learn of other faiths seams to be a short course on how other faiths are wrong, built on lies, and fail to answer Xian "truths". They are usually just as dogmatic about other xian sects being heretical as well.

DK

BDS

Actually, mythology is not fiction, as you would probably know if you had studied either theology or literature. They are two different literary genres.

Also, it is perfectly possible to be logical when starting from unproven or false premises. To insist that it is not is to misunderstand the nature of logic. Read Lewis Carrol's logic puzzles. (See this example: http://www4.gvsu.edu/prattp/m225asts.htm )
Or read Euclidean Geometry.

Logic is abstract; it need not be concerned with first principles. Instead, it is based on deriving theories from whatever principles one chooses.

Biff the unclean

If you had ever studied literature you would know that mythology is a sub-group of fiction as are folktales and fairytales

Which would imply conclusions based on facts and conclusions based on falsehoods are of equal value so long as one remained logical after their false assumption.
I've never found that life worked like that.