Most people William Lane Craig debates (at least the ones who know about the theology side anyway) are quick to note that he undermines serious issues within theology by trumpeting over-simplistic apologia.
The thing I regularly hear from him is that the absence of the body in the tomb is proof of Jesus' existence. He says that the absence of the body can be traced to tradition within 15 years (or was it 5, I forget) years of Jesus' death.
Now the problem with him trumpeting this with sceptical figures is, of course, that we don't know when Jesus died. We don't even know that there was a real person who would have died. Also, the normal end for a criminal was for their body to be burnt, so it's no wonder that there was no body for later generations even if there was a real man crucified (though Craig also ignores that the earliest texts i.e. Paul's letters do not even mention an empty tomb). A theologian debating with Craig is an awkward position because while they can see that certain things are generally taken for granted in the field, Craig acts as if they are strong historical facts rather than, as is more likely the case, about as accurate as anyone could hope to be with the level of evidence available.
I gave you a list of theologians I like elsewhere. Another one I feel I must mention is E.P. Saunders. Now he has a book that I decided to read called "The Historical Jesus" and I was a bit worried that I'd hate it. What was remarkable was that, after the initial introduction, he seems to drastically lower the bar for Jesus to be claimed "historical". The introduction includes 5 points which he claims are solid, yet he seems to have proven them to be pretty unstable within a few chapters all by himself (i.e. he's honest about the difficulties he faces). He happily notes that many events in the Bible are added because they are prophecies so people figured Jesus must have completed them. He happily notes that the mention of the Quirinius census is BS. He notes that within the four gospels there are more than 12 disciples mentioned and there's no easy way to deal with that. He notes that exaggerating the numbers of people at events was common (and heck, it often happens today) so Jesus probably didn't have anything like the number of supporters that are claimed during his lifetime (since if he did we'd expect more evidence of his historical presence). In fact he notes that it's rather suspicious that nearly all the stories seem to be taking place in small rural areas. If we had stories about Jesus doing deeds in Jerusalem the audience would expect to have heard rather more about them, so the stories had to be set in small rural areas which no one would know about. There's problems with locations given sometimes too, since the demons and pigs story requires the pigs to run an extremely long distance before they'd have reached the Sea of Galilee they are claimed to have drowned in. (In the end he decides that the sacking of the Temple is such a public event that it makes it very likely that Jesus is historical. However, he doesn't seem to match this with Pilate personally letting political prisoners free after a vote from the people, which is an event that quite clearly did not happen.)
You might be say that this is all stuff you knew, but the point is that theologians are normally a great deal more honest about the issues than Craig is prepared to be. Craig was taught in a specifically fundamentalist Christian setting and uses specifically fundamentalist methodology. The field for which he has actual qualifications is on the philosophy side which might go some way to explain why his discussions on Biblical criticism (which he enters into often) are so over-simplified. If you want a discussion on Jesus' historicity you need someone capable in textual criticism and history (preferably highly capable in both) and as good as Craig might be at philosophy, it doesn't compensate for that. What Craig IS good at, of course, is oration. He is very good at swinging an audience, particularly one that already sides with his preferred conclusion.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the existence of gods or anything else that's normally in the air when atheists are accused of watering down the issue by taking on the "strawmen" of the field.
Well, it's not exactly "theology" to study the historical Mohammad and the politics of early Islam as a historical and social phenomenon. Theology is rubbish, but anthropology of religion might have some substance.
Well, it's not exactly "theology" to study the historical Mohammad and the politics of early Islam as a historical and social phenomenon.
It kind of is actually.
The politics during Muhammad's time as a leader and after his death are closely tied to religious belief.
Theology is about the understanding of what God (or gods or ultimate reality/Jinas/the Buddha/etc.) are like and what is demanded of mankind. It's about the whole scheme of beliefs. Theology as an academic subject in western society developed when the vast majority of people were Christian monotheists, but I'd say that Friedrich Nietzsche is a theologian too. Even Dawkins' idea that nature is worth more than a supernatural afterlife is, essentially, a theological statement.
I'd also note that the Theology department at my university had courses in Anthropology of Religion. We've just noted how history and religious studies might be connected. Naturally theology and anthropology of religion have some level of cross-over too.
Well, saying "there are no square-circles" is a statement about "square-circleology", but I think it's misleading to lump things together like that. Theology doesn't deserve to have legitimate social science lumped in with it to bolster its standing as an "academic discipline". The effect is people like Anos running around saying, "oh, gods are BS, huh? Then why are there srs biznis theology departments?"
Fantasy literature is all just made up therefore fantasy literature isn't a legitimate area of study?
I'm not sure you've thought this through.There already are theology departments and many of my favourite arguments against religion were originally thought up within those departments. Theology departments encorporate Biblical criticism, the movement from scholasticism to rationalism to post-modernism, anthropology of religion, various philosophical takes on religious thought such as mystical, feminist and even, yes, atheist ones. It sounds like your criticism here is against humanities in general rather than simply Theology. If not, then I'm not sure how you single out Theology departments for criticism to be honest.
Anos will run around saying rubbish regardless of whether there are theology departments or not. That's more correlation than causation, y'know?
There absolutely should be a distinction between the study of religion and the study of gods. It's the same as the difference between the study of fantasy literature and the study of the invisible pink unicorn. In the case of religion, both are conflated under the heading of "theology". I oppose the terminology, because as academic disciplines, one's based on empirical reality and the other is hogwash.
There absolutely should be a distinction between the study of religion and the study of gods.
I'm not quite sure what point you are making. If I study Islamic theology or a Christian studies Islamic theology, neither of us believe we are studying an actual existing deity. We believe we are studying the beliefs of the Islamic faith. However, for a Muslim it will be the study of an actual deity because they belong to the group that holds those beliefs.
Both the study of religion and the study of god(s) are found in theology and sometimes one student will be studying one while someone else taking the exact same course is doing the other.
I oppose the terminology, because as academic disciplines, one's based on empirical reality and the other is hogwash.
One being the study of religion and the other being the study of god. But they are BOTH theology. i.e not all of theology is hogwash by your OWN reckoning.
I reject that usage of the word "theology". I would call it "religious studies" or something. The reason being that the study of LSD and the study of Acid World itself aren't the same thing. Observing what people do and say about gods is one thing. Going so far as to say that gods are a thing that any current methodology is capable of studying with any success whatsoever is an entirely different thing. If language doesn't separate the two, then it's a failure of language.
Dude, I am not going to say this again. This is what wikipedia has to say about theology:
Theology is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of supposed religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary.
You are arbitrarily splitting the subject into two bits and insisting that one part isn't really theology. That's not a problem with the language, it's a problem with you refusing to use the same language the rest of us use.
It's still bullshit, and lends itself to misunderstandings the same way that "magic" can mean optical illusions or actual goddamned motherfucking sorcery. According to the same wikipedia article, I'm not the only one who sees it that way, either:
Theology and religious studies
In some contemporary contexts, a distinction is made between theology, which is seen as involving some level of commitment to the claims of the religious tradition being studied, and religious studies, which is not. If contrasted with theology in this way, religious studies is normally seen as requiring the bracketing of the question of the truth of the religious traditions studied, and as involving the study of the historical or contemporary practices or ideas those traditions using intellectual tools and frameworks that are not themselves specifically tied to any religious tradition, and that are normally understood to be neutral or secular.[62] In contexts where 'religious studies' in this sense is the focus, the primary forms of study are likely to include:
* Anthropology of religion, * Comparative religion, * History of religions, * Philosophy of religion, * Psychology of religion, and * Sociology of religion.
Theology and religious studies are sometimes seen as being in tension;[63] they are sometimes held to coexist without serious tension;[64] and it is sometimes denied that there is as clear a boundary between them as the brief description here suggests.[65]
I will continue to use the language that way. When I speak of "theology", I speak of the most baseless fluffy pseudodiscipline of all time, and when I speak of "religious studies", I speak of a social science. It's not unreasonable to use "theology" to mean "the study of gods". Studying the things that people have made up about hypothetical gods isn't really directly in the etymology.
The meaning of words is decided by how they are used, not by their etymology.
Looking into the etymology of words often uncovers many meanings which simply no longer apply. What is more important is not some solipsist understanding of what the words mean, but their actual function amongst real people.
Besides, if we look at my personal definition of "God", I can't think of a better description of the "study of god" than "studying the ideas that have developed about the divine".
Figures like Feuerbach and Nietzsche have noted that God often represents an idealised form of mankind. Karl Barth reacted with a "yes" to Feuerbach's assertions because he thought it had clearly shown that religion was too much about people rather than the divine, but what he failed to notice was that you cannot get away from that aspect. Religion is formed from people's ideas of the divine, end of story. Nietzsche's issue was rather that the values embodied in Christianity were self-destructive and undermined those who embraced life. Essentially Nietzsche recognised the element of "death worship" in religious beliefs. - Now you can argue that all of this is just "philosophy of religion" if you like, but it seems to me that if you want to properly apply these atheistic ideas to actual religious beliefs then, like it or not, you are studying theology.
If you're studying peoples ideas about gods, you're not studying gods unless you think the ideas are in line with god itself. Making the waters murky by conflating God the omnipotent creator with God the human exercise in projection and self-importance doesn't accomplish anything desirable. If you're studying the god-idea as a human construct, then you're studying things that people do and you're not studying Yahweh in the same sense that a biologist might study tigers.
The thing I regularly hear from him is that the absence of the body in the tomb is proof of Jesus' existence. He says that the absence of the body can be traced to tradition within 15 years (or was it 5, I forget) years of Jesus' death.
Now the problem with him trumpeting this with sceptical figures is, of course, that we don't know when Jesus died. We don't even know that there was a real person who would have died. Also, the normal end for a criminal was for their body to be burnt, so it's no wonder that there was no body for later generations even if there was a real man crucified (though Craig also ignores that the earliest texts i.e. Paul's letters do not even mention an empty tomb). A theologian debating with Craig is an awkward position because while they can see that certain things are generally taken for granted in the field, Craig acts as if they are strong historical facts rather than, as is more likely the case, about as accurate as anyone could hope to be with the level of evidence available.
I gave you a list of theologians I like elsewhere. Another one I feel I must mention is E.P. Saunders. Now he has a book that I decided to read called "The Historical Jesus" and I was a bit worried that I'd hate it. What was remarkable was that, after the initial introduction, he seems to drastically lower the bar for Jesus to be claimed "historical". The introduction includes 5 points which he claims are solid, yet he seems to have proven them to be pretty unstable within a few chapters all by himself (i.e. he's honest about the difficulties he faces). He happily notes that many events in the Bible are added because they are prophecies so people figured Jesus must have completed them. He happily notes that the mention of the Quirinius census is BS. He notes that within the four gospels there are more than 12 disciples mentioned and there's no easy way to deal with that. He notes that exaggerating the numbers of people at events was common (and heck, it often happens today) so Jesus probably didn't have anything like the number of supporters that are claimed during his lifetime (since if he did we'd expect more evidence of his historical presence). In fact he notes that it's rather suspicious that nearly all the stories seem to be taking place in small rural areas. If we had stories about Jesus doing deeds in Jerusalem the audience would expect to have heard rather more about them, so the stories had to be set in small rural areas which no one would know about. There's problems with locations given sometimes too, since the demons and pigs story requires the pigs to run an extremely long distance before they'd have reached the Sea of Galilee they are claimed to have drowned in. (In the end he decides that the sacking of the Temple is such a public event that it makes it very likely that Jesus is historical. However, he doesn't seem to match this with Pilate personally letting political prisoners free after a vote from the people, which is an event that quite clearly did not happen.)
You might be say that this is all stuff you knew, but the point is that theologians are normally a great deal more honest about the issues than Craig is prepared to be. Craig was taught in a specifically fundamentalist Christian setting and uses specifically fundamentalist methodology. The field for which he has actual qualifications is on the philosophy side which might go some way to explain why his discussions on Biblical criticism (which he enters into often) are so over-simplified. If you want a discussion on Jesus' historicity you need someone capable in textual criticism and history (preferably highly capable in both) and as good as Craig might be at philosophy, it doesn't compensate for that. What Craig IS good at, of course, is oration. He is very good at swinging an audience, particularly one that already sides with his preferred conclusion.
Reply
Reply
All I knew was we were discussing whether it was possible for theology to be "sophisticated", so that was the point I was arguing.
If you had a different context in mind, you are going to need to enlighten me a bit. Otherwise we are going to be talking cross-purposes aren't we?
Reply
Reply
It kind of is actually.
The politics during Muhammad's time as a leader and after his death are closely tied to religious belief.
Theology is about the understanding of what God (or gods or ultimate reality/Jinas/the Buddha/etc.) are like and what is demanded of mankind. It's about the whole scheme of beliefs. Theology as an academic subject in western society developed when the vast majority of people were Christian monotheists, but I'd say that Friedrich Nietzsche is a theologian too. Even Dawkins' idea that nature is worth more than a supernatural afterlife is, essentially, a theological statement.
I'd also note that the Theology department at my university had courses in Anthropology of Religion. We've just noted how history and religious studies might be connected. Naturally theology and anthropology of religion have some level of cross-over too.
Reply
Reply
Fantasy literature is all just made up therefore fantasy literature isn't a legitimate area of study?
I'm not sure you've thought this through.There already are theology departments and many of my favourite arguments against religion were originally thought up within those departments. Theology departments encorporate Biblical criticism, the movement from scholasticism to rationalism to post-modernism, anthropology of religion, various philosophical takes on religious thought such as mystical, feminist and even, yes, atheist ones. It sounds like your criticism here is against humanities in general rather than simply Theology. If not, then I'm not sure how you single out Theology departments for criticism to be honest.
Anos will run around saying rubbish regardless of whether there are theology departments or not. That's more correlation than causation, y'know?
Reply
Reply
I'm not quite sure what point you are making. If I study Islamic theology or a Christian studies Islamic theology, neither of us believe we are studying an actual existing deity. We believe we are studying the beliefs of the Islamic faith. However, for a Muslim it will be the study of an actual deity because they belong to the group that holds those beliefs.
Both the study of religion and the study of god(s) are found in theology and sometimes one student will be studying one while someone else taking the exact same course is doing the other.
I oppose the terminology, because as academic disciplines, one's based on empirical reality and the other is hogwash.
One being the study of religion and the other being the study of god. But they are BOTH theology. i.e not all of theology is hogwash by your OWN reckoning.
Reply
Reply
Theology is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of supposed religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary.
You are arbitrarily splitting the subject into two bits and insisting that one part isn't really theology. That's not a problem with the language, it's a problem with you refusing to use the same language the rest of us use.
Reply
Theology and religious studies
In some contemporary contexts, a distinction is made between theology, which is seen as involving some level of commitment to the claims of the religious tradition being studied, and religious studies, which is not. If contrasted with theology in this way, religious studies is normally seen as requiring the bracketing of the question of the truth of the religious traditions studied, and as involving the study of the historical or contemporary practices or ideas those traditions using intellectual tools and frameworks that are not themselves specifically tied to any religious tradition, and that are normally understood to be neutral or secular.[62] In contexts where 'religious studies' in this sense is the focus, the primary forms of study are likely to include:
* Anthropology of religion,
* Comparative religion,
* History of religions,
* Philosophy of religion,
* Psychology of religion, and
* Sociology of religion.
Theology and religious studies are sometimes seen as being in tension;[63] they are sometimes held to coexist without serious tension;[64] and it is sometimes denied that there is as clear a boundary between them as the brief description here suggests.[65]
Reply
Reply
The meaning of words is decided by how they are used, not by their etymology.
Looking into the etymology of words often uncovers many meanings which simply no longer apply. What is more important is not some solipsist understanding of what the words mean, but their actual function amongst real people.
Besides, if we look at my personal definition of "God", I can't think of a better description of the "study of god" than "studying the ideas that have developed about the divine".
Figures like Feuerbach and Nietzsche have noted that God often represents an idealised form of mankind. Karl Barth reacted with a "yes" to Feuerbach's assertions because he thought it had clearly shown that religion was too much about people rather than the divine, but what he failed to notice was that you cannot get away from that aspect. Religion is formed from people's ideas of the divine, end of story. Nietzsche's issue was rather that the values embodied in Christianity were self-destructive and undermined those who embraced life. Essentially Nietzsche recognised the element of "death worship" in religious beliefs. - Now you can argue that all of this is just "philosophy of religion" if you like, but it seems to me that if you want to properly apply these atheistic ideas to actual religious beliefs then, like it or not, you are studying theology.
Reply
Reply
Like I said, your problem here appears to be with humanities, not with theology.
Reply
Leave a comment