Is a Doctorate Degree in Theology really valid?
A PhD degree in any field implies an individual's exemplary understanding of the study given to a particular field of science.
With the exception of Theology. [insert sad trombone sound here]
So then, why must we make this awkward exception to a field of study which is clearly outside the realm of physical science (even to believers)?
Why don't real PhD's object to this?
Doctor of Supernatural Woo
Hey, there's a demand for this stuff. Imagine devoting your whole life to the study of made up stuff. You can be a guest on a TV program as the world's foremost authority on crazy nonsense made up by ancient stargazers with overactive imaginations. You can then explain how it all fits together, how it works, and why people need to believe it.
Doesn't PhD stand for piled higher and deeper?? Okay, doesn't it stand for Doctor of Philosophy? If so, I'd say that theology would fit in that.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 17, 2015, 11:12:47 PM
Doesn't PhD stand for piled higher and deeper?? Okay, doesn't it stand for Doctor of Philosophy? If so, I'd say that theology would fit in that.
Very loosely translated, yes.
The most troubling thing is, Philosophy and Religion should not necessarily be synonymous. Yet, somehow, these have morphed into a universal understanding that they are the same.
Im wondering at what point did this occur.
QuoteSo then, why must we make this awkward exception to a field of study which is clearly outside the realm of physical science (even to believers)?
Philosophy is also a fake PhD. then?
Philosophically speaking, Yes! :pai: :biggrin2:
http://www.ugst.edu/page.cfm?p=124
About six miles from me. Looks like a set for a "haunted ex-mental hospital" movie.
Historically, at first there was the JD ... then the MD, then the PhD ... which was exclusively for theologians. Today the PhD is separated ... theological schools give the DD (Doctor of Divinity, not Dentistry). PhD in Religion is only given in secular terms, not religious terms. But this has only been true recently, it started to separate 100 years ago. A PhD in Theology would be a subset of PhD in Religion, and would not imply any faith. The greatest scholar of Kabbalah, was an atheist. But then that misses the point. Like having a PhD in Chess, but never having played the game ;-)
My former boss has one, and another in science. WTF?
Quote from: Mermaid on June 18, 2015, 07:40:50 AM
My former boss has one, and another in science. WTF?
Actually, I get it. I could understand a person being so interested in religion and how and why it works that they would want to go all the way and learn the languages of the ancient religions so they could read the source documents. And I could see that same person having a degree in a field of science, as well. I really don't think there is a conflict. As an atheist I am very interested in the historicity of Jesus and the beginning of Christianity, as well. I am also very interested in several areas of science as well.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 17, 2015, 11:12:47 PM
Doesn't PhD stand for piled higher and deeper?? Okay, doesn't it stand for Doctor of Philosophy? If so, I'd say that theology would fit in that.
I have listened to several Philosophers over the years whose views are just as batty as religion, so they can be sisters of woo.
An atheist is nearly a complete skeptic, but sometimes lacking in humor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE
Quote from: SkyChief on June 17, 2015, 10:54:39 PM
Is a Doctorate Degree in Theology really valid?
Understanding a religion is a valid form of study. Having a PhD in theology doesn't mean believing there's a god. I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't be valid, your points aren't very clear.
It is worth noting that your job options will be limited with such a degree.
How in the world can that be sung that fast?
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 18, 2015, 09:06:54 AM
Actually, I get it. I could understand a person being so interested in religion and how and why it works that they would want to go all the way and learn the languages of the ancient religions so they could read the source documents. And I could see that same person having a degree in a field of science, as well. I really don't think there is a conflict. As an atheist I am very interested in the historicity of Jesus and the beginning of Christianity, as well. I am also very interested in several areas of science as well.
Yeah, but he's a southern Baptist, a very devout and outspoken Christian.
Quote from: aitm on June 18, 2015, 10:53:33 AM
I have listened to several Philosophers over the years whose views are just as batty as religion, so they can be sisters of woo.
Woo Hoo....................
Quote from: Mermaid on June 18, 2015, 04:51:14 PM
Yeah, but he's a southern Baptist, a very devout and outspoken Christian.
Oh--wow! I see your point. And I think for you a key is 'former boss'. That is a head scratcher.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 18, 2015, 05:09:56 PM
Oh--wow! I see your point. And I think for you a key is 'former boss'. That is a head scratcher.
It is. And not only that, he's a respected scientist in our field worldwide. I guess everyone has a certain ability to compartmentalize. His just may be very well developed. He's an interesting guy. And yeah, that's part of the reason he's my former boss, I think, in retrospect.
Quote from: SkyChief on June 17, 2015, 10:54:39 PM
Is a Doctorate Degree in Theology really valid?
A PhD degree in any field implies an individual's exemplary understanding of the study given to a particular field of science.
With the exception of Theology. [insert sad trombone sound here]
So then, why must we make this awkward exception to a field of study which is clearly outside the realm of physical science (even to believers)?
Why don't real PhD's object to this?
That's a good question, I wonder if there are any PHDs here who could help answer it?
Theology is a subject with no real content at all:
"Theology is a thing of unreason altogether, an edifice of assumptions and dreams, a superstition without a substructure."
Ambrose Bierce
"Theology is but the ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system...[It] is a science that has for its objects only things incomprehensible."
Paul Heinrich Dietrich d'Holbach,
Good sense (1772)
"Wandering in a vast forrest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: 'My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly.' This stranger is a theologian."
Dennis Diderot
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 18, 2015, 06:06:21 PM
That's a good question, I wonder if there are any PHDs here who could help answer it?
Theology is a subject with no real content at all:
"Theology is a thing of unreason altogether, an edifice of assumptions and dreams, a superstition without a substructure."
Ambrose Bierce
"Theology is but the ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system...[It] is a science that has for its objects only things incomprehensible."
Paul Heinrich Dietrich d'Holbach, Good sense (1772)
"Wandering in a vast forrest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: 'My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly.' This stranger is a theologian."
Dennis Diderot
Loved the quotes.
But I do think the only thing a PhD or Theology would denote would be mastery of the subject. Which I think of as the hierarchy and structure of religions. How they arise and why. One could be an expert in that sort of thing, I think. No matter how much we dislike theology, it has done a huge amount of damage--one needs to study the how and why of that.
And if one really wants to get such a degree, look up the Universal Life Church based in Modesto, CA. Last I looked a PhD would run you $25 or so. Yeah, it's real--my wife has a minister's licence thru them and she performed a legal marriage ceremony last weekend--she married her nephew and his bride. Fun was had by all!
A Ph.D. is not always in science. It means a particular mastery of one very focused topic, which could be in something like puppetry (yes, this degree exists).
On that boss .. compartmentalize or ambidextrous? Personally, I am omnivorous.
Theology is the application of logic to the irrational. Religious argumentation is inevitably circular. This is why in Islam they rejected theology in favor of practice. This is also partly true of Eastern Orthodox Christianity and rabbinic Judaism. The question in practice is do you limit yourself to the worldly, or do you get other-worldly (mystical)? Only in Western Christianity was the grip of Greco-Roman philosophy strong enough to recover ... mostly thanks to Jewish and Arabic translators.
Intellectuals are suspect even in secularism. Mystics and theologians are suspect for the same reason, in religion. This is why the concept of "faith" has come to dominate popular religious dialog ... anything else would be intellectual of one sort or another. Lowest common denominator. The rabbinic Jewish view is that you achieve belief thru practice, not practice thru belief. If you are an atheist, and you don't actually practice logic, maths or science ... how different are you from a religious lay person? I would say lay folks are united in their opposition to intellectualism. This is why, at one point, it was considered a sin to be able to read or write.
PS - real PhDs do object to this ... there is a current controversy about removing the remaining religious departments from secular state-related colleges, and exile them completely to seminaries. This is the end point of a long history, which started 100 years ago with the clergy and religious departments dominant in most universities. But then you might as well exile English majors. But I am not even sure of Accounting or Business departments. Dr Hawking would like to exile Philosophy departments as well. Isn't everything except String Theory just another example of Phlogiston? (that's a rhetorical question, to understand that you need some humanities).
I like most quotes by Ambrose Bierce ... my opening paragraph mirrors it. I don't have a PhD, but then I never needed one. Does liking Ambrose Bierce and Voltaire count? There is going to be a new endowed chair at Cambridge, for a Lego Professor ... funded by the Lego company. It is for early childhood development research.
Well, specifically, it was WLC that inspired me to ponder the validity of a Doctorate in Theology. That guy sure makes some boneheaded assertions. Its one thing when someone like Ray Comfort exposes what a ducking fummy he really is, but its another thing when someone who holds a PhD (WLC) does that.
And when WLC makes patently false assertions like "an atheist must have faith to believe that the universe came from nothing" . He knows damn well this is a false statement. So, then, why would he even SAY it? Because he knows how gullible and delusional most Christians are, and he shamelessly exploits it! And he's quite proud of this moral bankruptcy. And then he has the gall to ridicule atheist for not believing in gods because atheist want to be immoral.
I would concede that in some circumstances, theology could be a legitimate field of academic study. But by the very nature of the study, any publications (books, papers, essays, etc) cannot properly be peer-reviewed or cited because how could any theologian's interpretation of scripture ever be contested? A thousand different Theology PhDs will interpret the bible a thousand different ways. And not one of them will be able to challenge the assertions by the other 999.
This makes the Philosophy Doctorate playing field a bit tilted. It seemingly devalues a PhD degree held by people that actually deserve it. There should be a global rule concerning PhDs; If ya gonna say stupid shit, ya gotta surrender your PhD. No exceptions.
Anything is possible if you believe.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 19, 2015, 01:06:33 AM
Anything is possible if you believe.
Except healing amputees.
Biology and medicine happen, because people believe in them. Though with more justification than theology, because they have harder empirical content. Did you see the report on cloning the limb of a mouse? So yes, this solution for amputees is coming, some day. Yes, "believe" has more than one nuance, and I am using a different one.
As far as PhD pollution goes ... when someone speaks outside of their domain of expertise, as an expert ... like Hawking does sometimes ... then they usually do look like idiots. As far as a theist interpreting belief in the Big Bang goes ... most people don't know what they are talking about when discussing cosmology ... including most physicists. Most people's assertions (if not beliefs) are on shaky grounds, for that very reason ... they aren't experts, or they are committing the fallacy of authority.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 19, 2015, 01:06:33 AM
Anything is possible if you believe.
I believe you are right! :)
Chicken or egg first? Some believe so that they can see, others see so that they can believe. But believing first (say that a skyscraper can be built) requires that it be feasible under current conditions. Dream ... but not too much. But if you don't dream ... then you can do nothing new.
Quote from: Baruch on June 19, 2015, 06:51:08 PM
Chicken or egg first?
Egg. Came out of something that was almost, but not quite, a chicken, and was a mutation therefrom. :)
Quote from: Baruch on June 19, 2015, 06:41:11 AM
As far as PhD pollution goes ... when someone speaks outside of their domain of expertise, as an expert ... like Hawking does sometimes ... then they usually do look like idiots.
Thank you.
This is basically the essence of what I was trying to convey. Although, i admit that Hawking has a clear distinction of not coming across as an idiot; even when discussing topics outside the realm of his expertise.
trdsf - if one sets aside the illusion of time, and of individuality ... life is a tree, and the notion of species is just an academic convention. A branch of a tree can no more exist without the rest of the tree, than we can exist without the biome we share the Earth with nor without all those prior life forms. We are connected both together as humans, by common ancestry ... but we are the long term expression of the sexy desires of lung fishes who swam in Devonian seas (think of California grunion). That for me is the magnificence of evolution ... but it is hard to set aside these common sense illusions to see things orthogonal to the usual ways.
ShyChief - I will match you and raise you a Professor Penrose ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on June 20, 2015, 07:35:52 AM
trdsf - if one sets aside the illusion of time, and of individuality ... life is a tree, and the notion of species is just an academic convention. A branch of a tree can no more exist without the rest of the tree, than we can exist without the biome we share the Earth with nor without all those prior life forms. We are connected both together as humans, by common ancestry ... but we are the long term expression of the sexy desires of lung fishes who swam in Devonian seas (think of California grunion). That for me is the magnificence of evolution ...
And that is why I don't feel the need for a God or gods. That realization alone is enough to be awe inspiring for me. And throw in that were are made up physically of the same stuff that makes up the stars, simply adds to the feeling of awe at being alive and connected all that ever was or will be. Who needs a god for that??????
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 20, 2015, 10:24:28 AM
And that is why I don't feel the need for a God or gods. That realization alone is enough to be awe inspiring for me. And throw in that were are made up physically of the same stuff that makes up the stars, simply adds to the feeling of awe at being alive and connected all that ever was or will be. Who needs a god for that??????
And when you throw in the realization that we're not the
point of evolution, but merely a point along the way... wow. Deep time looking into the past is already a little dizzying, but deep time looking into the future is mindblowing.
Quote from: Baruch on June 20, 2015, 07:35:52 AM
trdsf - if one sets aside the illusion of time, and of individuality ... life is a tree, and the notion of species is just an academic convention. A branch of a tree can no more exist without the rest of the tree, than we can exist without the biome we share the Earth with nor without all those prior life forms. We are connected both together as humans, by common ancestry ... but we are the long term expression of the sexy desires of lung fishes who swam in Devonian seas (think of California grunion). That for me is the magnificence of evolution ... but it is hard to set aside these common sense illusions to see things orthogonal to the usual ways.
I don't really see time as an illusion. I don't know exactly what time is, but it's at least something that we can measure, even if we can't dice it up and put it in an electron microscope or particle accelerator to see what makes it tick (and tock).
That an egg containing a chicken came out of something that was almost but not quite a chicken says nothing about any sort of biological disconnect; if anything, it's as explicit a statement of the biological and evolutionary connection of all life as you could ask for. We're
all part of the same chain of life that started with that first thing that could be called alive 3.5 to 4 billion years ago, and even of the random chemical reactions taking place before then that were almost but not quite alive that led to that first living thing (please don't ask me to mark a line where 'alive' and 'almost but not quite alive' is :think:).
But we know there is such a thing as speciation, and evolution, so it must be the case that there was something that was almost but not quite a chicken, and from it came something that actually was a chicken, just like the first
homo sapiens came out of something very close but not quite
sapiens (probably
rhodesiensis according to current theory).
Mike CL - as educated people commonly understand nature ... it is awesome ... but also awful (full of awe ... and spoiler .. the word "awe" is a religious term, reused by secular folks). Unfortunately most of us can't be scientists ... so we have to rely on one class of authority figures vs another. For myself, I don't trust any of them, including clergy. If I can do the science myself ... then I can see something I can put my hat on. As either a secular or religious humanist ... I have to fundamentally object to reality as I see it. It is more personal if I take the POV of a religious humanist. In terms of secular humanist, reality such as hurricanes are meteorological physics ... but I object impotently either way. Reality is either a monstrous impersonal cruelty or a monstrous personal cruelty. I object to the end of the Book of Job ... and a secular humanist can't even do that.
trdsf - St Augustine was the first recorded human to worry about what time was, aside from other things. It came up as part of theology. The scholastics of the Middle Ages already had space-time diagrams before Columbus ... but we selectively forget that to promote particular narratives. It was Newton, who pulled time out of events, and made it back again in the "stream" of Heraclitus (Newton uses the exact same analogy in his Principia). His view of 3-D space as absolute was similarly philosophical, and again based on his view of G-d's omniscience (see George Berkeley for expansion).
In a practical sense, without relying on the authority of Minkowski or Einstein ... I only know the present, which is like a narrow overlap between the past and the future. But I can't directly experience the past ... my memory is faulty, and artifacts now present are subject to interpretation (see Bible). The Minkowski/Einstein idea is that the past and future have always existed ... like geography, but we humans are traveling thru it ... so what is moving, reality or you? I don't accept this. For me the future in particular is open, not pre-determined (but theologians are often happy with pre-determination too). I see the future in emotional terms ... as fear mixed with hope. The past, may have left ambiguous evidence of itself ... but that evidence is in the present, or it is not available to us. It isn't the real past, it is at best a shadow. So for me, the past is also set in emotional terms ... pride and guilt. Quantum mechanics and relativity show, that cause/effect is a primitive animal coping technique ... depending on circumstances, effects can happen before causes. If one's sense of time is based on cause/effect memories ... then one has to discard it as a gestalt ... a product of brain processing, that enhances survival. But that doesn't make it real.
BTW - species is just as invalid a concept, though a convenient one, as races of humans. Humans categorize things ... and the things ignore us and go on about their business. See the relationship between the tiger and lion as an example.
Quote from: Baruch on June 20, 2015, 11:36:55 PM
Mike CL - as educated people commonly understand nature ... it is awesome ... but also awful (full of awe ... and spoiler .. the word "awe" is a religious term, reused by secular folks). Unfortunately most of us can't be scientists ... so we have to rely on one class of authority figures vs another. For myself, I don't trust any of them, including clergy. If I can do the science myself ... then I can see something I can put my hat on. As either a secular or religious humanist ... I have to fundamentally object to reality as I see it. It is more personal if I take the POV of a religious humanist. In terms of secular humanist, reality such as hurricanes are meteorological physics ... but I object impotently either way. Reality is either a monstrous impersonal cruelty or a monstrous personal cruelty. I object to the end of the Book of Job ... and a secular humanist can't even do that.
Yes, awe is a religious term and that is how I meant it--reverence, admiration, and fear. And a healthy dose of fear. And horror. What produces those feelings is that Nature is the exact opposite of love, nurture, and all those fuzzy words and of hate--Nature is indifferent. Nature does not care if you live or die. Does not care one way or the other. When one looks closely at nature, one sees death and destruction everywhere--and birth and life everywhere. Life needs to feed--on other life and on non-life. Life does not care, as long as it can live. There really are not rules--life just does what it needs to to live--or it doesn't. Nature does not care. I look upon nature and see cruelty. But that is because I do care; but nature does not care that I care. That is all on me. I love big cats, especially the snow leopard. But when I see a snow leopard killing a sheep, I realize how cruel it is--but it has no choice. Either it kills as it needs to or it dies. That, too is cruel for the snow leopard as well as the sheep, depending upon how one views that act. Nothing is easy or black and white. And so, looking at the universe I realize I am part of this--physically part of it--the very stuff that makes the universe makes me. So, I am connected to all that is and was. And will be. How is that not awesome? I get a feeling of a type of reverence--but that feeling is all one me, for nature does not give a shit. And yes, fear comes when one looks very deeply into the system. So--awe is what I feel.
And the deeper I look into Nature, the more I regard it as proof that there cannot be a God. Gods are all about love, hate, and all the emotions in between--Nature is about indifference. And a God cannot be indifferent.
Being a freethinking theist ... I don't depersonalize nature ... if anything I believe in Mother Nature ... and she is a bitch. My relationship with deity isn't worship ;-) The Jewish version of G-d is quite indifferent and nearly Olympian in faults. The idea of deity in perfection ... is about the stupidest idea I could imagine Plato coming up with ;-) Plato was more influenced by Pythagoras than by Socrates. Aristotle tried to depersonalize Plato's theology, with the "unmoved mover". That always makes me think of a U-Haul company, where it helps everyone else move, but never has to move itself.
This is where I also split with Nature as a source of ethics. By nature I should prey on other human beings, in a Darwinian contest. But since I don't do that, am I un-natural? ;-) But if you are more into Classical paganism ... deity is a smaller thing, and humans are capable of being demigods. In fact I would affirm that we are ... and that all beings (but not all things) are. A being is qualitatively different than a thing.
Quote from: Baruch on June 20, 2015, 11:36:55 PM
trdsf - St Augustine was the first recorded human to worry about what time was, aside from other things. It came up as part of theology. The scholastics of the Middle Ages already had space-time diagrams before Columbus ... but we selectively forget that to promote particular narratives. It was Newton, who pulled time out of events, and made it back again in the "stream" of Heraclitus (Newton uses the exact same analogy in his Principia). His view of 3-D space as absolute was similarly philosophical, and again based on his view of G-d's omniscience (see George Berkeley for expansion).
It's hard to say that Augustine's approach to time was a scientific or rationalist one, though. He may have recognized a difference between the natural and the supernatural, but in the Augustinian view, the natural was necessarily subservient to the supernatural.
I will admit up front that I haven't much use for philosophical approaches to scientific matters. I'm talking about the observable, the measurable, and the objective (or at least as close to the objective as we can get), and just about every time philosophy tries to tell science what it's supposed to be about, it's been wrong. Certainly in terms of current research, the Augustinian and even the Newtonian views of time have been at a minimum superseded.
Quote from: Baruch on June 20, 2015, 11:36:55 PM
In a practical sense, without relying on the authority of Minkowski or Einstein ... I only know the present, which is like a narrow overlap between the past and the future. But I can't directly experience the past ... my memory is faulty, and artifacts now present are subject to interpretation (see Bible). The Minkowski/Einstein idea is that the past and future have always existed ... like geography, but we humans are traveling thru it ... so what is moving, reality or you? I don't accept this. For me the future in particular is open, not pre-determined (but theologians are often happy with pre-determination too). I see the future in emotional terms ... as fear mixed with hope. The past, may have left ambiguous evidence of itself ... but that evidence is in the present, or it is not available to us. It isn't the real past, it is at best a shadow. So for me, the past is also set in emotional terms ... pride and guilt. Quantum mechanics and relativity show, that cause/effect is a primitive animal coping technique ... depending on circumstances, effects can happen before causes. If one's sense of time is based on cause/effect memories ... then one has to discard it as a gestalt ... a product of brain processing, that enhances survival. But that doesn't make it real.
That's not quite an accurate reading of what quantum mechanics means. While at the quantum level cause and effect can be reversed, at the macro level where we live, it's functionally impossible -- to get that many quantum events to line up all together to generate a reversal of time or a reversal of cause and effect at the level of a human brain, you may as well expect to hit the jackpot on every MegaMillions and Powerball drawing for an entire year. And I think the odds of hitting those 208 drawings are probably better than the odds of a cause/effect reversal on a scale as large as a human brain.
Whether or not the past has any real existence, I don't know. But any pride or guilt you might feel about it is experiential and subjective, and rather outside the question. You're asking physics to be philosophy here.
Quote from: Baruch on June 20, 2015, 11:36:55 PM
BTW - species is just as invalid a concept, though a convenient one, as races of humans. Humans categorize things ... and the things ignore us and go on about their business. See the relationship between the tiger and lion as an example.
'Species' is a perfectly valid concept. See the relationship between a tiger and a wolf.
Quote from: Baruch on June 21, 2015, 07:42:58 PM
Being a freethinking theist ... I don't depersonalize nature ... if anything I believe in Mother Nature ... and she is a bitch. My relationship with deity isn't worship ;-) The Jewish version of G-d is quite indifferent and nearly Olympian in faults. The idea of deity in perfection ... is about the stupidest idea I could imagine Plato coming up with ;-) Plato was more influenced by Pythagoras than by Socrates. Aristotle tried to depersonalize Plato's theology, with the "unmoved mover". That always makes me think of a U-Haul company, where it helps everyone else move, but never has to move itself.
This is where I also split with Nature as a source of ethics. By nature I should prey on other human beings, in a Darwinian contest. But since I don't do that, am I un-natural? ;-) But if you are more into Classical paganism ... deity is a smaller thing, and humans are capable of being demigods. In fact I would affirm that we are ... and that all beings (but not all things) are. A being is qualitatively different than a thing.
I don't depersonalize nature, but I don't give it any divine qualities, either. Since I am part of nature, it would be silly of me to denounce it. But I don't have to make it more than it is. I don't think nature and ethics equate at all. nature is totally neutral and indifferent. Ethics is a human thing. Humans have or don't have ethics; no other species I know of has ethics as we think of them. And no matter how hard I've looked--how open I've been--I don't see or feel even the slightest hint of a deity.
See my post on the necessity of supernatural in religion ... as far as "divine qualities" goes. I think it is a difference without any difference. The idealization of G-d by theologians, is what you would mean by "divine qualities" ... but since I reject theology and idealization ... I don't have your Straw Man argument. We basically agree, but we use different words for the same things.
We will have to disagree about nature ... we are omnivorous predators ... in nature, there is nothing neutral about the proscription that I should kill and eat other animals, including other human beings. Other than humans might taste bad of course ;-) For me, indifference is the opposite of morality ... and so when I say that G-d is amoral, I am not being neutral at all.
trdsf ... good that you are a hard empiricist. On the other things, we will have to disagree, but then they are more philosophical.
Highest honour you can get at Oxbridge (or used to be able to get) was a Dr of Divinity. The colleges were initially theological however have obviously changed as year have gone by.
Whilst I view a holy book based Theology doctorate with contempt owing to the fact that I believe the cornerstone basis of the subject to be make believe, theology has impacts beyond the understanding of the given holy text. There are entire movements that have built up around theology (liberation theology for example), and whilst again I view the basis of the belief to be nonsensical, the real world impacts of those theologies are worth studying and understanding. These would also fit, in certain ways, within a theology doctorate.
Great post. Liberation theology has a theistic source, but the impact was enough to cause the US to go out and murder people, including nuns ;-( That is the danger with free range ideas ... gotta make videots out of people, so we know what they are thinking ... "New/Improved Tide ... gotta buy some". If people only think they ideas we put in their heads ... then all's good, right?
But I disagree a little ... there is theoretical theology, and practical theology. Definitely theoretical theology should be put in the same department as fantasy literature. Practical theology is politics for theists ... needs to be in the political science department ... where it can be carefully guided by the Elite.
Quote from: Baruch on June 22, 2015, 06:06:03 AM
Great post. Liberation theology has a theistic source, but the impact was enough to cause the US to go out and murder people, including nuns ;-( That is the danger with free range ideas ... gotta make videots out of people, so we know what they are thinking ... "New/Improved Tide ... gotta buy some". If people only think they ideas we put in their heads ... then all's good, right?
But I disagree a little ... there is theoretical theology, and practical theology. Definitely theoretical theology should be put in the same department as fantasy literature. Practical theology is politics for theists ... needs to be in the political science department ... where it can be carefully guided by the Elite.
I cannot disagree with you. When I was doing my PhD much of it was within a theology department as I looked at Sikh NGOs and their use of government/EU funds in local regeneration projects in my city. Learning about their theology was important, and their works would have made little sense without the theological context behind it.
Thank you for the elucidation on practical/theoretical theology. I'd never constructed that image in my mind before but it makes much more sense to call the divide as you describe and work at it from there.
Quote from: Baruch on June 21, 2015, 11:11:59 PM
We will have to disagree about nature ... we are omnivorous predators ... in nature, there is nothing neutral about the proscription that I should kill and eat other animals, including other human beings. Other than humans might taste bad of course ;-) For me, indifference is the opposite of morality ... and so when I say that G-d is amoral, I am not being neutral at all.
I did not mean to imply that I was neutral about nature. But I don't think nature cares one way or the other if our species lives or dies. And it does not care how we gather our energy to live. I am not fond of the idea that I must kill to live. But that is simply the way it is and I can accept that or not. So, I chose to accept it. Does not mean I have to kill in cruel ways, just that I must kill. For me indifference is the opposite of love and hate, which are passions or emotions; indifference is the lack of emotion or passion. Maybe indifference is the opposite of morality, I had not thought of that. Morality is different for each of us; and it can change from hour to hour. So, maybe a moral thought has to have emotion attached to it, and if so, then indifference would be the opposite of that.
Mike CL ... I usually challenge any claims to natural law ... with the law of the jungle. But I am not surprised that you are more civilized than that. But there are plenty of people who imitate nature to their discredit.
Fidel_Castronaut ... a more extended analogy. Analogy is useful in showing where the boundaries of current thinking are, so we can color outside those boundaries, should we choose to do so. For example .. Kabbalah. There is Contemplative Kabbalah, Speculative Kabbalah and Practical Kabbalah. Contemplative Kabbalah is something to get you into the right frame of mind for the other two. That is not something we identified earlier. Speculative Kabbalah can be mere fantasy, or it can be a system of contemplation. In so far as it is fantasy ... it would correspond to theoretical theology.
Often in the West, when we say something is ... we mean it in Platonic terms ... that there is a reality ... out there ... beyond any individual thinker ... that is real. And we are using a special mental organ to explore it. This is of course based on Pythagoras. Pythagoras concluded that all things are numbers ... and he has many disciples today ... but I don't agree with his particular cult (he founded his own "mystery religion" ... even though numbers are occasionally useful (they are also deleterious). On the other hand, if we are saying that a thought in our mind, is simply our thought, then it can have psychological benefit (power of positive thinking for example).
Dale Carnegie didn't claim that there were "enlightened masters" of marketing in the Himalayas that needed our attention, or that his suggestions represented some claim about reality outside of "Plato's Cave". He simply said, these are my conclusions about my own story concerning successful human relations. A much more modest and potentially non-general claim. Mr Carnegie simply reviewed these principles that had served him well in the past ... before he went into any sales/marketing situation. Speculative Kabbalah, or theoretical theology can be like that ... though usually we are playing at yeros with Plato.
Practical Kabbalah is Jewish magic, which might include "reading" palms. Magic is both the ability to change your own preparation for the better, but to even change your POV for a better POV. And magic gets even more magical, when your activity impacts how other people think and act. Of course that is what Dale Carnegie was doing, practicing sales/marketing magic on his potential customers. One can see that as flim-flam or as a service where you help a potential customer come to the correct conclusion that your product/services are needed.
One should note that ... Sigmund Freud was a modern version of a Jewish exorcist. He exorcised neuroses (not physiological mental defects) from wealthy Jewish women who could afford his services. Assuming his exorcism (now called counseling rather than psychoanalysis) was effective, I can't fault him or his clients. Most mental problems are psychosomatic anyway. Of course, so called objective medicine wants to give you a pill or cut one of your organs out ;-(
So, reading between-the-lines, you are on-board with the concept of misplaced doctrine in theology. (?)
That perhaps theology is a pseudoscience unto itself; and that (because of special-pleading principles) it does not need to withstand the rigors of conventional scientific methodology.
Please say yes.
Quote from: SkyChief on July 02, 2015, 11:33:21 PM
So, reading between-the-lines, you are on-board with the concept of misplaced doctrine in theology. (?)
That perhaps theology is a pseudoscience unto itself; and that (because of special-pleading principles) it does not need to withstand the rigors of conventional scientific methodology.
Please say yes.
I don't think all PhD's are based in science. There is a PhD in education, for example that is not based in science. It simply means one is an 'expert' in a certain field.
SkyChief ... you speakin' to me? There is context and there is provocation ... there is word salad, and there is politics dressed up in a cassock. There isn't any theology, of any flavor, that I personally approve of ... in the sense of creed, doctrine or dogma. Dogma ... sounds like something a dog spit up, no? Yes, I would agree that theology is a pseudo-science, in the ancient usage that science = knowledge ... not the modern usage. I don't think that theology is even legitimate philosophy. As a good teacher once taught me ... good theology is a circular argument. Another different teacher taught me that a circular argument was by nature, fallacious. The dictionary taught me, that all human languages are a vast web of circular arguments ... so there was no way to use human language in a consistent manner. And then my Zen sensei (if I had one) sagely nodded ... I told you ... ah so!
So I don't get your last statement ... nothing in philosophy withstands the rigors of conventional scientific methodology ... and nothing in theology withstands the rigors of conventional academic philosophy. This is the whole point of academic philosophy trying to kick the schools of theology in their midst, to the curb. Nevertheless, in my personal experience ... pre-retionalizing experience, theism makes more sense than non-theism ... but I understand why some folks come to different conclusions. I know I can't prove my point in argument, because it is pre-rational. This is why a rationalist like Descartes, has to make a clean break with religion. But for me, I don't find the world to be rational, so I make a clean break with Descartes ;-) I fart, therefore I stink!
Baruch, I think we're on the same page here.
" As a good teacher once taught me ... good theology is a circular argument."
This makes sense.
I'm just gonna let that stand on it's own merit.
Perhaps on that account, a prophet is so far seeing that he can see the back of his own head ;-)