From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 17:14:37 BST
Hi David,
> DMB says:
> The conversation between you two about the meaning of the word "theology"
> was very helpful. I agree with Sam's meaning, "what the religious
community
> says about itself". As I understand it, theology is the study of the whole
> system of doctrines and beliefs that define a particular religion. Its
> sectarian by definition. That's exactly why I think it is NOT
intellectual.
> I don't expect every area of intellectual inquiry to strictly adhere to
the
> scientific method, but any discipline that begins with the conclusions
> violates the most basic of intellectual values.
Whereas I would say that there is no intellectual process that doesn't build
in assumptions for its further work.
'But I did not get my picture of the world by satisfying myself of its
correctness; nor do I have it because I am satisfied of its correctness. No:
it is the inherited background against which I distinguish between true and
false.'
Wittgenstein
> DMB says:
> The quote from the SOVD paper has me thinking that Pirsig means "theology"
> as Rick has it, as a form of philosophy of religion. Some support from
Lila
> would be very helpful and even more convincing, but I doubt we'd find it.
In
> any case, we both agree that there are genuine intellectual approaches to
> religion and such, its just that I wouldn't call that theology. Maybe it
> really is just a matter of semantics, but I'd really like to hear you make
a
> case, my theology graduate friend. Does a theology student learn HOW to
> think about god, or does a theology student learn WHAT to think about god?
A theology student, in my experience, is taught various ways HOW to think
about God. In the Anglican church in particular, there's lots of room for
disagreement.
> That's a little too simple and too harsh, but you understand the question,
> no? Does a theology student learn about god, or how to be a priest?
My academic training in theology was (and is) separate from my ordination
training to be a priest. They are distinctly different disciplines. The
former is open to anyone - atheist, Buddhist, even some Christians ;-) but
priestly training is "sectarian" in the sense you use it.
> Obviously, the later requires the former, but I'm asking about the
emphasis.
> One can become a priest only by way of a theology degree, no?
Many priests in the Church of England do not gain theology degrees -
although they all have to have some academic training, it depends on their
capabilities. In that regard the Anglican church is very different to eg
Roman Catholic training (7 years of academic study) or German Lutherans
(even more years of academic study).
> A theology
> degree is hardly ever used for anything except to become a priest, no? See
> what I'm getting at?
Theology graduates, in fact, go into all sorts of different careers. When I
graduated I had absolutely no desire to be a priest - I would say I was only
'borderline' Christian, although I did believe in God. That's why I went to
work for the government.
Are you going to answer the question which (Steve?) asked the other day,
about how much theology you've actually studied? I'd recommend Tillich
first - I think you might like him.
Sam
"When we speak of God we do not know what we are talking about. We are
simply using language from the familiar context in which we understand it
and using it to point, beyond what we understand, into the mystery that
surrounds and sustains the world we do partially understand" (Herbert
McCabe)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 21:11:14 BST