No edit summary |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{q|Theology, once acclaimed ‘the Queen of the Sciences,’ today hardly rises to the rank of a scullery maid; it is often held in contempt, regarded with suspicion, or just ignored.”|<ref>[http://www.jeffriddle.net/2011/01/queen-of-sciences-now-scullery-maid.html The Queen of the Sciences now a scullery maid]</ref>}} |
{{q|Theology, once acclaimed ‘the Queen of the Sciences,’ today hardly rises to the rank of a scullery maid; it is often held in contempt, regarded with suspicion, or just ignored.”|<ref>[http://www.jeffriddle.net/2011/01/queen-of-sciences-now-scullery-maid.html The Queen of the Sciences now a scullery maid]</ref>}} |
||
| − | '''Theology''' is the attempt to study [[faith]] |
+ | '''Theology''' is the attempt to study [[faith]]-based concepts in an academic way. Usually theology refers to [[Christian]] theology but the term can refer to the theology of any [[religion]]. |
==Faith and science== |
==Faith and science== |
||
| − | [[Faith]] |
+ | [[Faith]]-based theology cannot be reconciled with the [[Scientific method]]. Still, studying theology at universities is a long-standing tradition dating back to well before the scientific method was developed. Due to this tradition, taxpayers continue funding expensive theology departments and paying high salaries to the academics there. Is theology [[Relevance of theology|relevant]]? |
| − | As early as the 18th |
+ | As early as the 18th century [[Thomas Paine]] argued that theology is valueless. |
<blockquote>The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing. <ref>[http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/reason37.htm Age of Reason by Thomas Paine]</ref> </blockquote> |
<blockquote>The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing. <ref>[http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/reason37.htm Age of Reason by Thomas Paine]</ref> </blockquote> |
||
In the [[21st Century]] also many [[atheist]]s see no value in theology. [[Richard Dawkins]] has criticised theology in a similar way to Thomas Paine with more modern language. |
In the [[21st Century]] also many [[atheist]]s see no value in theology. [[Richard Dawkins]] has criticised theology in a similar way to Thomas Paine with more modern language. |
||
| − | <blockquote> When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to |
+ | <blockquote> When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to [[theologian]]s, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but [[Witchcraft|witch doctors]], no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? <ref>[http://richarddawkins.net/articles/88-the-emptiness-of-theology The Emptiness of Theology]</ref> </blockquote> |
Richard Dawkins believes further that theology is not a suitable subject for a university because it is not scientific |
Richard Dawkins believes further that theology is not a suitable subject for a university because it is not scientific |
||
<blockquote>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. <ref>[http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1698 Letters: Theology has no place in a university]</ref></blockquote> |
<blockquote>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. <ref>[http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1698 Letters: Theology has no place in a university]</ref></blockquote> |
||
| − | |||
| − | [[P Z Myers]] claims that theology involves smart, elderly white guys rationalizing what they personally want to believe. Myers can see no difference in principle between the mutually contradictory theologies of different [[denomination]]s and [[sect]]s, (he gives the examples of [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] and [[Mormon]] theology) or even murderous [[cult]]s. <ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/09/more-sophisticated-theology/ More sophisticated theology]</ref> He also believes that answers to important questions have come from outside theology. <ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/31/an-end-of-theology/ An end of theology?]</ref> |
||
Theology is [[Relevance of theology|relevant]] mainly to the extent that people take the subject seriously. |
Theology is [[Relevance of theology|relevant]] mainly to the extent that people take the subject seriously. |
||
| Line 26: | Line 24: | ||
#[[Atheist]]s like [[Richard Dawkins]] are criticised for attacking [[Christianity]] without studying sophisticated theology. |
#[[Atheist]]s like [[Richard Dawkins]] are criticised for attacking [[Christianity]] without studying sophisticated theology. |
||
#Christians feel able to attack [[atheism]] without studying the more sophisticated atheist arguments against the existence of God in detail. |
#Christians feel able to attack [[atheism]] without studying the more sophisticated atheist arguments against the existence of God in detail. |
||
| − | #Theologians believe atheists should study sophisticated theology but when ordinary followers in churches embrace ''simplistic beliefs '' the same |
+ | #Theologians believe atheists should study sophisticated theology but when ordinary followers in churches embrace ''simplistic beliefs '' the same [[theologian]]s see no reason to educate those ordinary followers in sophisticated theology. <ref>[http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheiststheism/a/CourtiersReply.htm Myth: Atheist Critiques are Simplistic, Don't Understand Sophisticated Theology]</ref> |
#Christians see no need to study in detail the theologies of [[How many gods?|every religion and sect in the world]] before deciding every type of [[religion]] except their favourite brand must be false. |
#Christians see no need to study in detail the theologies of [[How many gods?|every religion and sect in the world]] before deciding every type of [[religion]] except their favourite brand must be false. |
||
| − | [[PZ Myers]] has satirized the theologians' argument with a sequel to a classic fairy tale: [ |
+ | [[PZ Myers]] has satirized the theologians' argument with a sequel to a classic fairy tale: [[The Courtier's Reply|The Courtier's Reply]]. |
==Conclusion== |
==Conclusion== |
||
| Line 35: | Line 33: | ||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
| + | *[[Theologian]]s |
||
| − | *[[Sokaling sophisticated theologians]] |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Latest revision as of 00:22, 18 January 2018
"Theology, once acclaimed ‘the Queen of the Sciences,’ today hardly rises to the rank of a scullery maid; it is often held in contempt, regarded with suspicion, or just ignored.”"- [1]
Theology is the attempt to study faith-based concepts in an academic way. Usually theology refers to Christian theology but the term can refer to the theology of any religion.
Faith and science
Faith-based theology cannot be reconciled with the Scientific method. Still, studying theology at universities is a long-standing tradition dating back to well before the scientific method was developed. Due to this tradition, taxpayers continue funding expensive theology departments and paying high salaries to the academics there. Is theology relevant?
As early as the 18th century Thomas Paine argued that theology is valueless.
The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing. [2]
In the 21st Century also many atheists see no value in theology. Richard Dawkins has criticised theology in a similar way to Thomas Paine with more modern language.
When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? [3]
Richard Dawkins believes further that theology is not a suitable subject for a university because it is not scientific
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. [4]
Theology is relevant mainly to the extent that people take the subject seriously.
Sophisticated theology
See the main article on this topic:Sophisticated theology
Christians adopt double standards in several areas:-
- Atheists like Richard Dawkins are criticised for attacking Christianity without studying sophisticated theology.
- Christians feel able to attack atheism without studying the more sophisticated atheist arguments against the existence of God in detail.
- Theologians believe atheists should study sophisticated theology but when ordinary followers in churches embrace simplistic beliefs the same theologians see no reason to educate those ordinary followers in sophisticated theology. [5]
- Christians see no need to study in detail the theologies of every religion and sect in the world before deciding every type of religion except their favourite brand must be false.
PZ Myers has satirized the theologians' argument with a sequel to a classic fairy tale: The Courtier's Reply.
Conclusion
Trying to extract factual information from mythology or fiction is pointless.
See also
References
External links
- Sophisticated theology Funny article from Pharyngula Wiki
- Sophisticated theologians another funny article from Pharyngula Wiki
- Introduction to Theology: What is Theology? Origins, Nature, Crisis in Theology
- Myth: Atheist Critiques are Simplistic, Don't Understand Sophisticated Theology
- List of Theology Related Articles