Gurdur

Hi Naked Ape,
I'm not Tyler Durden, and I would never dare speak for him.
But here's an answer from my own perspective on your questions.

It's not just CapnKirk, it's about 5 people or so who seem to want to turn atheism into a mirror image of some tiny fundamentalist whacko sect, and the kind of ... obtuse, deaf parroting so often used by them gets on the nerves after a while, so it's hardly surprising if the issue starts the flak heavily.

But now as to usefulness and depth of theology:
A fair while back, when I still happily laboured under the illusion most here would like to understand religion, rather than burning strawmen at the stake, I myself put in a lot of effort into looking at how religion could have evolved, from a naturalist, atheist viewpoint.
Now, for my primary research, I found I had to rely on theological sources a hell of a lot, siince they seemed to be the only ones who cared about even exploring things from this angle.
I found a great deal of very useful and in-depth information from theological sources, over the psychology, neuropsychology, history and development of religion and religions --- and as said, very mainly from theological sources.
There is in fact a great deal of very interesting psychological insight and observations to be found in theology, and to ignore all of that is to simply ignore a huge field of human knowledge, painfully gained.
That is not at all admirable.
Furthermore, going back to theology's primary self-set goals, the people in it put in a huge effort into learing classical Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and other languages such as Sanskrit, all in an effort to understand the various sacred writings of various religions. That is a huge effort, and adds a great deal to human self-understanding, let alone knowledge of history.

Now getting back to the "Know-Nothing" faction here; their prejudices are a direct reflection of prejudices that can be so often found on fundy Xian boards --- the idea that the Bible can be read as though it had originally been written in modern American English, the idea that knowledge can be spurned by simply parroting wannabe-macho slogans, the idea that there is Only One Right Way To Think, and it can be transmitted through simplistic sloganising, the idea that actual exploration of the human psyche should be abandoned in favour of prejudices, etc. etc. etc..

So for myself, you might see why I personally have a far higher regard for some professional theologians and their field of study than I do for ........ simplistic ranters.

And with that we haven't even gotten to the big issues of things like epistemology and ethics yet.

NobleSavage

Thanks Gurdur,

That was a good reply – the first one. Actually, my mind is fairly open on the subject (My father has a Ph.D in Theology…studied under F.F. Bruce), and I was hoping for a decent discussion, but the thread quickly frayed into pointless quibbling. My concern is that the more liberal and open minded school are a dying breed and quickly being replaced by fundamentalist institutions. To see the stats:
http://www.layman.org/layman/news/ne...seminaries.htm

Perhaps a better question would be: what criteria should be used to judge the merits or validity of an academic discipline.

Gurdur

No worries. I try to be honest, albeit that I'm long-winded.
You may well be right for the USA.
I am an Australian, and used to Australian states of affairs; and I now live permanently in Germany, where I am surrounded by women Protestant ministers who seem positively Deistic when not frighteningly Nietszchean/Wiccan hybrids.
Or in other words, German theology differs radically from USA theology; and so does Australian and British etc. etc. etc.
It really bears repeating: the USA state of affairs is only descriptive of the USA, and has not much to say about the general state of affairs.
No offence to you personally, but I tend to start twitching as a scientist (which is what my training is) when I hear such sentiments.
That is not your fault, and I'm not addressing your point directly, but I'm using it as a springboard to discuss farther issues.
The human race only managed to climb out of the trees because some people really liked exploring knowledge for its own sake; and one of the most important principles in so-called "basic (or foundational) scientific research" is in fact the search for knowledge purely for its own sake.
Every single scientific advance we've ever had has come from that source eventually; and when people demand that science should be "results-orientated" or "applications-based", then basically they're only demanding that science follow whatever little fashion or fad those critics have adopted as of the moment.
And that goes double for philosophy.
That is just one reason why academic freedom, both in teaching and in research, is such an important issue.

Tyler Durden

Puh-leeeze. You're begging the question by describing both as "wacky notions" which pre-empts the topic. This isn't getting your case anywhere, with weak analogies and half-assed retorts. I have far more respect for the history of theology than you do, and i'm an atheist. Well, the fact that i am studying philosophy at the graduate level allows me to take a historical overview of how intellectual thought has progressed, and unlike most of the dogmatic fundamentalists on this board, I see theology as a means to an end - the end being the philosophical pursuit of the truth. Yes, while it isn't completely congruent with the principles of positivism in science, because of how reasoning functions - backwards from the assumed principles - theology isn't so easily strawmanned into a pitiful make-believe discipline.

Be proud of your enemy - for his success too, shall be yours."

If i'm going to attack theology i will make the strongest representation possible first, before starting the party.

Hah! Depends on the amount of fallacious reasoning of the rhetorician.

The earlier comparison to phlogiston was a weak analogy, and this attempt to claim that I said a diploma was proof that the discipline had elements of truth is full of stalk containing threshed grain.

I didn't hold it in high esteem when i joined the board a few years ago, after i had a healthy dosage of Sartre and Nietzsche. Atheism is it, so i thought. After debating with christians of different stripes on these boards for a long time, including posting on Metacrock's board for a while as the evil atheist, the more i studied for my major, an appreciation grew for the theologians - even though they weren't my cup of tea. I already found the arguments against religious belief convincing, and that formed my outlook on such issues. Yet, Kierkegaard's dark theology always held a deep and dark fascination for me, a ditty of the duplicitous siren, despite my atheistic inclinations. Then about over a year ago i met this aforementioned dude who had graduated from Fuller, and we bonded over an shared affinity on Nietzsche. (imagine that!) The more we exchanged ideas, the more we argued, the more we butted heads, the more I grew to appreciate theology, the less i saw it as a threat, but a rich source of historical knowledge of intellectual reasoning. Which is why i came storming in here, knocking over those too happy to belittle theology.

Understood, thanks for the 411.

I use a check card.
None, i'm a post-metaphysical thinker. :P
You won't know until you try. I don't think having a faith in anything is a requirement to succeed in theology. That's why i found it absurd to reduce theology to the rants of the fundamentalists we encounter all the time in the US. They're about as far away as you can get from theology!

Aye, the best way to debate a theologian is not to make Capnkirk's blunder (presume what works in engineering will work in other disciplines) but to learn of their various methods, their histories, their philosophies, and with that knowledge you can blow them out of the water without lifting a finger.

trendkill

Ah, the brilliant "making fun of usernames" tactic. Must be the Wal-Mart sense of humor in action.

I posted about a hypothetical field. Theology actually exists, and therefore, the above question is irrelevant to my narrow (and exceedingly obvious) point, which you have continued to evade, most likely in embarrassment over your failure to grasp it in the first place.

Tyler Durden

trendkill Suggestion: <edited insult>answer my other questions, (IMO entirely relevant to the thread topic) <Edited personal insults. Please see my recent post to this discussion. COAS>

Originally you proposed a hypothetical field of study that was "nonsense," and I took that to be an indirect reference to theology, since the thread topic implies theology is make-believe. Context is everything... Now, come off yourself and be honest.

Or are you content hurling a number of argumentum ad ignorantum amidst thy ignorantio elenchi?

Gurdur

Ah, "eschewal".
I and other vocab freaks give thanks.

May I suggest "nuncupatory" be used somewhere too ?

nermal

Sorry. But whenever I come across the word "ignorant" and:

Philosophy
Mathematics (I have a degree in this)
Art
History
Hygiene
Manners
Proper Diet
Politics
Geography
Women
Sex
Romance
etc.

I just assume I'm the one being discussed. It's a reflex action, caused by a conviction, no, a certainty, of my own ignorance. The more I learn, the more ignorant I feel.

Ed

abe smith

Tyler Durden... as I make my Internet connexions here at my local, I have either to go across the bldg to the Ref room, or else home (and return here tomorrow), in order to lay my hand on Aquinas and quote you the verbatim you ask for. I'll do that at my speediest.

BDS, I'm too inept to make the mechanical connexion (here) to your final remark of a couple days previous; but I THANK you for your neat wipe-out of ThAq, vis 'a vis myth & fairytales, was it? Yeah, about fantastic & laughable premises, from which neat & obedient logic continues down to its ROTFL conclusions. Darling Thomas is good clean fun and a damn competent layer-of-it-all-out; and he did do what he said his purpose was. AND/BUT his premises WERE JUNK.

christ-on-a-stick

*REMINDER*

Personal insults and commentary are not acceptable as per the forum rules. Please refrain from making personal attacks or insulting comments when posting and let's keep this discussion civil and on track.

Thank you in advance.

COAS
Moderator, GRD