Jeffrey Gibson

The question, as put, is far too vague on several points. It doesn't specify how you have (or how anyone is to) determine what an "honest theologian" is, let alone who you have in mind when you speak of them.

To get valid data, you need to name names.

The presupposition here -- at least insofar as your expectation of receiving valid data is concerned -- is that those who will respond to your question are actually directly familiar with the work of actual (i.e., published and academically reputable) theologians.

But how valid is this presupposition? That's to say, can we really assume that most here -- or at least those who respond to your question -- actually have such acquaintance.

I think you might do well to ask all those who respond what it is that informs the answers they give. Is it a vague, second hand impression? Or is it grounded in actual reading of the work of academically reputable theologians? If the latter, how deep and wide spread is this grounding -- and in which theologians in particular?

Otherwise the results of your survey will (and cannot possibly) have any real value.

Jeffrey

The Dagda

Funnily enough that's pretty much would any theologian would say. However I wasn't asking for a poll, just an opinion, if that's too much then so be it.

Toto

I see the problem here. You are asking about theologians who discuss archeology. Are you thinking of anyone in particular? A theologian discussing archeology is way outside his or her field of expertise, so I'm not sure what should be expected.

I can only give you a comparative example. The sociologist of religion Rodney Stark accused all those who came before him of an anti-religious bias, which led them to discount the rationality of following a religion. His opponents accused him of a pro-cult bias, because he accepted money from some of the subjects of his research, in particular the Scientologists and the Unification Church (and now Baylor University.)

You find biases and charges of bias in academia, based on a variety of ideologies and financial favor. But there is an ideal of unbaised research which even the ideologues try to meet.

So could you perhaps clarify the point of this and provide some examples?

lumax

To me a theologian is someone who studies all religions and goes thru an academic process at an accredited institution. These self-taught people who focus on a narrow religious/world view are, in my opinion, guilty of fostering cult belief thru no critical thinking. People like Rick Warren who only look at the big(religion) picture when it suits their needs put forth a decidedly biased position to keep the sheep in line and the cash rolling in. I think all religions have people like this in their midst but there are also those who genuinely look at the big picture and see the interweaving of all of history's religions, whether they believe them to be myth or truth.

The Dagda

No I'm talking about theologians/religious scholars/theological historians and everything else broadly, from atheist to theist.

Lugubert

I suppose I should go for "other". The subject needs a lot of definitions to address.

"Are theological scholars biased?" It's a sensitive area, so there will be lots of bias. The follow-up question is, will this bias affect work and conclusions?

Among my OT professors, two have been involved as experts on the recent Swedish ecumenical translation, "Bibel 2000". Despite sometimes intense communication in person and/or electronically, I can't even guess if and if yes to what degree they are believing Christians. My often very irreverent but hopefully well argued interpretations have generally been favourably received.

I'm an atheist, US people might even label me "strong" atheist, but I try not to step on too many toes or flaunt my views when submitting my hopefully very personal interpretations/translations.

Sweden isn't all sunshine, though. At another university and sub-department, you should be very careful if you want to criticize the subject of the professor's thesis and still get the note that you deserve.

Doug Shaver

I voted yes. I think all scholars are biased.

But it isn't a problem as long as their biases agree with my biases. When they disagree, then it's a problem.

The Dagda

Why is theology the only area of study that can get away with freely saying it is biased? I think that's a double standard? I know from speaking to a student theologists, particularly theists, that the question of bias is like asking if the Pope is Muslim. I can understand its a tricky issue, I just don't understand why integrity needs to go out of the window in any area of study. You also see people rather glibly dismissing evidence if it disagrees with their world view in atheist circles. There is bias in all fields, the problem is bias in theology is integral to the study of theology, much like string theory. So how do we know any theologian has ever been honest in his work, atheist or agnostic or theist?

EDIT: I'm pretty sure criticism of biblical criticism, comes under the remit of BC&H. Let's remember that criticism can be positive and negative.

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm ... who says "theology" does say this, let alone "gets away with freely saying it is biased", and is the only area of study which "says" and does what you claim it alone says and does?

And how does this reply answer the OP?

Jeffrey

The Dagda

I am the OP. I can say what I want. You are not a moderator, please don't tell me how to run my own thread, you have no right, if your offended or don't want to post, don't. But please don't tell people what they can or can't say, that's for the mods, and a lesser extent me. Thanks. Come again.