When I was writing Faith Versus Fact, I sometimes visited professors in our Divinity School, located right across the Quad. I discovered that the faculty was divided neatly into two parts. There were the Biblical scholars, who addressed themselves wholly to figuring out how the Bible was made, the chronology of its writing, comparisons of different religions, and so on. Their questions were basically historical and sociological, and I found that, as far as I could tell, most of this group were atheists.
Then there were the real theologians: the believers who engaged in prizing truth out of the Bible, and taking for granted that yes, there was a god and somehow the Bible had something to tell us about him. These I had little use for. Indeed, if you look up “theology” in the Oxford English Dictionary, you find this as the relevant definition. It describes the second class of academics who inhabit the Div School—the ones who accept that there is a god:
After writing my book, and having to plow through volume after volume of theology, including theological luminaries like Langdon Gilkey, Martin Marty, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, John Polkinghorne, Edward Feser, C. S. Lewis (cough) and Karen Armstrong, I finished my two years’ of reading realizing that I had learned nothing about the “nature and attributes of God and His relations with man and the universe.” That, of course, is because there is no evidence for god, and the Bible, insofar as it treats of things divine, is fictional. Yes, there is anthropology in the Bible, as Richard Dawkins notes below, but it tells us absolutely nothing about god, his plan, or how he works. If you don’t believe me, consult the theologians of other faiths: Hindus, Muslims, and yes, Scientologists. They find a whole different set of “truths”! There is no empirical truth that adds to what humanists have found (as Dawkins notes below “moral truths” are not empirical truths), but only assertions that can’t be tested. (Well, a few facts are correct, but many, like the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt and the census that drove the Jesus Family to Bethlehem, are flatly wrong.)
The discipline of theology as described by the OED is a scam, and I’m amazed that people get paid to do it. The atheist Thomas Jefferson (perhaps he was a deist) realized this, and, when he founded the University of Virginia, prohibited any religious instruction. But pressure grew over the centuries, and I see that U. VA. now has a Department of Religious Studies, founded in 1967. So much the worse for them.
In the end, the only value I see in theology comprises the anthropological, sociological, and psychological aspects: what can we discern about what people thought and how they behaved in the past, and how the book was cobbled together. I see no value in its exegesis of God’s ways and thoughts.
And so I agree with what Richard says in the video below. Here he discusses the “value” of theology, but the only value he sees is as “form of anthropology. . . the only form of theology that is a subject is historical scholarship, literary scholarship. . . that kind of thing.” (“Clip taken from the Cosmic Skeptic Podcast #10.”)
I just wrote a piece for another venue that partly involves theology (stay tuned), and once again I was struck by the intellectual vacuity and weaselly nature of traditional theologians. And so I ask readers a question:
What is the value of theology? Has its endless delving into the nature of God and his ways yielded anything of value?
And I still don’t think that divinity schools are of any value, even though we have one at Chicago. After all, concerning their concentration on Christianity and Judaism, they are entire schools devoted to a single work of fiction. Granted, it’s an influential work of fiction, and deserves extra attention for that, but trying to pry truth out if it. . . well, it’s wasted effort and money.
I asked this question five years ago, noting that Dan Barker defined theology as “a subject without an object.”
Given that Theology studies a single text (or at best a limited number of texts, if you count the testaments or the books of the Bible separately), and that there is never any new evidence added to the subject, I would agree that Theology is not a true field of study. Schools of Divinity should not exist at Universities. The study of religion, as Jerry, suggests, should live in various departments like History, Sociology, and Anthropology.
I might add Psychiatry. What is it about the human mind that causes it to be so easily susceptible to a Jesus, an Allah, a Hitler or a Trump.
This is such an obvious distinction that it is remarkable that universities haven’t clearly separated the study of religion (history/sociology/anthropology) from theology. The latter has no place value except for training priest/pastors to run churches. And there’s precious little value in that activity, IMO.
I’ve quoted James Lindsay here before on this:
“Religion is believing there’s a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in your yard. Theology is arguing over the brand of refrigerator.”
Nice!
Not to be that guy but – source?😁
The first bit is Sam Harris – was the second part from Lindsay’s The Strange Death of the University?
But yeah – excellent quote(s)!
Not sure if it was from “The Strange Death of the University”, but in that series Lindsay does describe the move from universities being grounded in religious theology to a new theology centered around dialectical leftism and neo-communist ideology. In this vein, the overall woke theology and sustainability (as defined by the UNESCO Sustainable Development Goals) has supplanted Christian theology as the guiding principles for university curricula.
I find scholars of “studies” programs to be as suspicious as those in conventional theological programs. As to whether a school should teach either, it comes down to market demand, of which their seems to be enough to fund such programs, and the bent of the university. They could “just say no” to anything that is an unproven, unscientific scope of study, so I wonder why more don’t.
Yes, outside of anthropological, sociological, and literary concerns theology has yielded nothing of value because any God-related assertion or claim that a theologian makes is rooted in make-believe.
I see no difference between what theologians blather on about and Star Trek fans who discuss the protocols of the United Federation of Planets.
“It’s not a real subject.”
^^^🎯
How do I know? I guess I don’t.
But no. 1
indeed, every window to human nature we can open – and then, of course, close as we see fit – is valuable. Some mysteries are perhaps meant not to be solved, but nonetheless worthy of thought.
But no. 2
Religious literature of any origin – and I do mean any – is widely available now. I read a broad selection regularly, and regularly find [A] wisdom and [B] bilge.
This is for anyone to decide on their own terms – and they could be completely wrong. An Ivory Tower is superfluous – a luxury – at this point – but this assumes nothing is competing for the same role anymore.
John Henry Newman is a theologian who wrote The Idea of a University (1907). The synopsis is that religion would bind and orient the disciplines in a University towards the good. Make of that what one will :
(Computerized version):
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/idea/
Theologians are not interested in the truth. They are lawyers who argue for one side.
Theology has zero value, or maybe even negative value.
A reader here (I won’t name names but chime in if you like Mike!) – once quipped that we are all “gender” theorists (like the gnostic Judith Butler or Queer Theory) because we all regularly try to define it.
Same might go for theology at this point.
“After all, concerning their concentration on Christianity and Judaism, they are entire schools devoted to a single work of fiction.”
A huge giveaway…no consideration of other supernatural books like the Quran or Book of Mormon. Apparently these are not good sources of data about God.
If theology was about something real, with the amount of “research” that has occurred in the last several thousand years on God, we would expect consilience on major points. Just like what physics or biology has achieved in a few hundred years.
Instead, a Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim cannot agree on fundamental assertions…such as which holy books are the correct ones, was Jesus god or just a man, what is the nature of the afterlife, etc.
And they never will, because there is no data forthcoming.
I just asked my local AI to tell a joke beginning “A Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim walk into a bar…”. It replied: The bartender looks up and says, “What is this, a joke?”
Somehow this strikes me as relevant to Theology.
The point of studying theology is not to learn about gods but about the evolutionary journey of the humans who created them. In terms of multilevel selection, what was the adaptive advantage of groups that maintained a collective supernatural fiction over those who did not? And what happens to the residual mental inheritance (the capacity for faith, the “god-shaped hole”), in a secular world: could it possibly light upon ordinary human beings and deify them? God help us.
Given that you tell us what the “point of studying theology” is, many theologians would strongly disagree with you
And we can’t answer any questions about multilevel selection. . .
One minor point on the video title…this looks like Richard is having a discussion with Alex O’Connor. Alex is a youtuber with a philosophy degree and a strong interest in religion, but he is an atheist. So perhaps he is a “theology student”…but he is certainly not religious.
I enjoy Alex’s content because he has gone very deep into religious assertions about evidence for God, given them a fair hearing, and has found them extremely wanting. He also regularly debates religious people but does it in a very respectful manner.
When I began teaching (in the English Dept.) at Illinois Wesleyan University in 1970 there was an academic unit called ‘Dept. of Religion.’ This in effect meant Dept. of Protestant Christianity. All four tenured faculty were ordained Methodist preachers whose credentials were polished by PhDs from Northwestern University and its associated Garret Theological Seminary. The humanities librarian was another Methodist preacher (who also taught New Testament Greek). Finally–and of course inevitably–there was a Methodist chaplain.
Today that’s all gone. ‘Religious studies’ is the curricular norm, and it does not appeal very widely to students. The notion of going on from the BA to seminary is seldom thought of. Yet the name of the institution remains Illinois Wesleyan University, and I suspect that most students, if collared, would own up to being Christians. But they are not interested in theology per se.
This is educational progress, however ironic. I would add one more thought. In times of socio-political stress, voices often call for some sort of ‘revival of religion (i.e. Christianity of the evangelical sort).’ In the U.S. Protestantism leads the way. Perhaps that is what is going on now, though the voices are loudest not from the pulpit but from the fourth estate.
I think here of Gibbon’s arch-wisdom:
“The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful.”
Excellent story Robert. My brother once warned me (in the late 60’s) not to confuse uni departments of religion with their divinity schools. His model was that the former studied world religions with somewhat the flavor of a philosophy dept, while the divinity school was simply a vocational track cranking out preachers.
Your title reminds me of the newspaperman’s rule of thumb:
“Any headline posed as a question, the answer is always No.”
Q.E.D.
But “a subject without an object” is pretty good, too.
Theology, and religion in general, is not useful but in fact is the biggest impediment to human cognition. Once someone believes in things without evidence, they’re open to believing all kinds of things that aren’t real. And that leads to all kinds of problems. It’s a scourge on humanity.
We all believe lots of things without rational evidence, starting in childhood. IMO a mortal sin of religion is its hindrance to us putting away such childish things (pace St. Paul/Saul).
Aikin banza, Hausa phrase for worthless work. Seems appropriate.
I agree. We’re stuck with theology because religion has been such a consequential component of human history but, regarding our place in the universe: bupkas.
If I recall correctly, Jefferson (often pegged as a deist-see David Holmes: The Faiths of the Founding Fathers) was influenced greatly by the faculty, made up of five churchmen and one Scottish scientist, the physicist William Small who had recently been hired to replace a churchman who either died or just left the College when he, Jefferson, was at the College of William and Mary. One of the arguments used to get support and a royal charter for the creation of William and Mary in the last quarter of the 17th century, was that it would prepare the locals to lead the Anglican church parishes in the Virginia colony, following the model of Old World universities at that time. But by Jefferson’s time secular faculty was filling the old world unis and he came to highly respect The physicist Small when compared with the churchmen, arguing over his years in politics, even as Governor of Virginia, unsuccessfully to redirect William and Mary away from the church and hiring secular faculty. My belief is that he finally gave up on trying to reform his alma mater and found it simpler to build his own new university which is now known as the university of Virginia where he shaped everything from the characteristics of the faculty to the architecture and placement of the buildings to the taught curriculum. Whenever I got frustrated trying to bring reform to Virginia’s STEM curriculum, I would recall that even as Governor, Jefferson was blocked in bringing about education reform in the Commonwealth…it was a longstanding tradition!
Theology is a way for intellectuals to give respectability to their beliefs that the average person in the pew has no need of. They know belief on its own is sketchy so they have to justify it with elaborate theological reasoning. Theology is like the buttresses on the old cathedrals. Without it the whole edifice falls down.
As I wrote in the second edition of my book:
“Understanding the gods they invented helps us to understand
the people who invented these gods.”
Canaan and Israel in Antiquity (Second edition, page 317).
As an emeritus professor of religious studies, I can say that, throughout my career, I have been plagued by the fact that many people do not understand the difference between the study of religion and the practice of religion. But there is a difference, and the former is an essential field of research for the betterment of humankind.
Thx JAC. Sarah Haider has an interesting take on a potential value of religion that she terms “the ceiling and floor” model. You may have seen it. I think it has some merit. It was prompted by her considerations of the woke insanity (dare I say “mind virus”) that has overtaken the “organised atheist community” with which she (and many us) used to identify. She notes that religious folks seem to have an immunity to the virus and wonders why. Here’s a link.
https://newsletter.sarahhaider.com/p/response-to-critics-richard-dawkins?hide_intro_popup=true
Thanks for posting this link. It was an interesting read, but she seems to be saying that one irrational belief system (religion) serves as protection against another even more irrational belief system (gender ideology). I see the data but am skeptical of her interpretation of it.
I am of the mind that group identity is the issue. It’s a gateway drug to dogma. Her first leaving of religion and now of activist atheism reveals the defense against dogma. Avoid group identity. I resist even joining customer loyalty programs.
But… but… the bargains….
Has theology yielded anything of value?
I suggest that Natural Theology had its uses as a prime motivator for learning about the works of nature, since doing so was thought to provide clues into the workings and mind of the deity. Centuries ago, one could get funding this way in order to discover principles of anatomy, geology, and astronomy by couching it all in terms of gods’ plan. Some of those findings hold up today.
I suppose one could argue that without theology the study of religion as a sociological or psychological phenomenon would not be possible. Whatever is the social or psychological utility of theology must arise from the fact that there are true believers.
Not sure if that’s a benefit, though…
Not directly relevant — but I received a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in English and creative writing without ever once having to open a Bible in class, which I think is scandalous: It is a key literary work for understanding western culture. Now I use Bible passages and stories in my creative writing classes while fully acknowledging that my lodestar is not the Bible but Darwin . . .
I found Moby Dick too difficult, and quit it, largely because it’s full of references, especially from the Bible, that I just don’t know.
Great point.
As an engineering student in the late 70s/ early 80s, I didn’t have to take English but instead 2 “humanities” classes titled Great Books I & II. We read the Bible as part of the first course, along with the Greek and Romans, and up to Chaucer. GBII went on from there into Shakespeare through mid 20th century writers.
The prof made it a point to show how later works referenced the earlier works, and to this day I really appreciate it. It was a bit of a rushed curriculum, and since then I’ve revisited most of the works we read and discovered much greater depth as I’ve combined those references with life experience.
Yes, I agree and have said so. Its value in understanding Western culture is essential, and everybody should have read it (I did, though I didn’t find it the literary masterpiece it was touted, even in the King James version). Still, the stories and references are essential if you are to understand a lot of our culture.
But that doesn’t mean that the Bible is true!
That’s absolutely correct.
There are a lot of life lessons in Greek mythology, Shakespeare, and for that matter, even some comic books.
My father was a professor of anthropology. He had a colleague who taught a course “Comparative Religion” from an anthropological perspective. He had a funny story about a student paper. This was about 1974. The assignment for the students was to write a paper comparing and contrasting one of the traditional monotheisms (i.e Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) with something eastern such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. A student decided to compare and contrast Christianity and Hinduism. The paper began as follows:
Unlike the religions of the West, Eastern religions are based on a profound mystical perception of and belief in the intrinsic unity and harmony of the universe. The West never had this concept before the Grateful Dead.
LOL
Apropos Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia: my alma mater University College London also had, and still has, no theology department. This was deliberate. When UCL was founded in 1826, the only other universities in England were Oxford and Cambridge, and to enter either, you had to be a member of the Church of England. UCL admitted students of all faiths and none, earning it the nickname “the Godless Institution of Gower Street”.
King’s College London was set up a few years later so that devout Anglicans could study in London. Naturally, it had a theology department.
I was brought up catholic. Spent many wasted hours attending catechism classes. Mass in the earlier times was conducted in Latin. It was boring and uninspiring. I gave up on religion in my teens. Theology offers us no truths. It is woo – we cannot falsify the claims of god’s existence. As Richard Dawkins says, I prefer science.
“Quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur”
Sacerdos, rabbi, et imam ambulant in taberna…
😀
Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away, I was a divinity school student in an MDiv program. One day, with the highest compliments, a professor told me I ought to pursue a doctorate in Theology. Now, imagine their face when I said, “That is a preposterous idea. Theology is a dead field. Literally dead. If I’m going to be a researcher, it has to be in a field more alive than one where the most exciting recent development was the Protestant Reformation.”
Cue stunned silence.
Not long after that, I declined ordination, realizing I couldn’t even fake it enough to be emotional support for people. A decade later, I found my way to a doctoral program. And by then, wokeness had swallowed academia whole. Turns out, I was less propagandized by Lutherans debating predestination than by intersectionalists wielding pronouns like a medieval indulgence—pay fealty, or be cast into the outer darkness.
In the end, I’m grateful for my training in divinity and theology. They even tossed me a Master’s in Theology as a token prize when I ditched them for genetics. But the real gift? An anthropological deep-dive into the nature of belief itself. It trained me to spot dogma at twenty paces, whether it’s delivered in a pulpit or by a blue-haired activist with tenure.
You weren’t with the Jesuits, by any chance were you, Roz?
(I wasn’t, but I studied under some philosophers who were.)
Feel free to ignore this question if TMI.
“I couldn’t even fake it enough to be emotional support for people.”
It’s why I became an engineer!
You must know the joke which I tell with great affection for the engineer:
An engineer playing golf with three friends was being delayed and frustrated by a very slow and erratic foursome up ahead. A passing course marshal explained they were all four firefighters blinded in a bad fire that destroyed the clubhouse during a wedding reception, saving many lives. In gratitude the club lets them play for free anytime they like.
The other three make richly empathetic heartfelt responses stereotypical of their professions (doctor, lawyer, rabbi). The engineer asks, “Why can’t they just play at night?”
LOL! 🙂
(And to your question, Leslie, about Jesuits—no, didn’t cross paths with them much. Worse: I fell in with the Trappists. I did a retreat at the Abbey of Gethsemani, where Thomas Merton spent his years. Picture this: a 22-year-old voluntarily living in what looked like a German Hogwarts, singing Mozart’s Requiem for kicks, then heading to a silent monastery in Kentucky for fun. That was me—until the existential despair set in. Surely, there had to be a million more intellectually satisfying things to do with my life. The theologians weren’t wrong that a doctorate was an itch I had to scratch. But nobody, least of all me, could’ve guessed it would be in genetics, and really, as Darryl keyed into, a lot of engineering, if coding all day counts as that.
Then again, genetics and theology share a certain preoccupation with origins. Both ask: What shaped us? What forces determine who we are? The difference is, one is grounded in data and the other in myths, memes, and cultural histories. Despite what the startlingly insipid OED entry claims, theology isn’t a science any more than astrology is astronomy. It’s just that theology had a better PR team in the Middle Ages.
Whereas my sister can turn to astrology or God to make sense of her mood, science offers no such easy balm. Sure, we’ve got wonder, curiosity, and awe down as cognitive emotions. But no one, and I mean no one, is giving themselves a pep talk by saying, “Time to go sort out my Bayesian priors.” And if they are, they should keep that to themselves.
Astrology and theology are still kicking around because science is a method, not a warm, reassuring whisper from the cosmos. It doesn’t give you meaning neatly packaged in constellations or commandments. It just hands you a pile of data and says, “Good luck, buddy.” And that, for most people, is deeply unsatisfying.)
Poetic!
My little joke is a small inadequate favour which you returned most meaningfully. Thanks!
+1
I’m repeating that one!
When you tell it, be sure to correct the dangling modifier that males it sound as if the fire, not the firefighters, saved many lives. Totally missed that. 🤦♂️
This is certainly is of some value. Although how many were so-trained, I’m not sure.
Departments of Marxism-Leninism (where they existed) seem to have served the same valuable function. This is arguably why some countries east of the iron curtain are now notably resistant to the blue-haired.
“Theology is a thing of unreason altogether, an edifice of assumptions and dreams, a superstructure without a substructure.” (Ambrose Bierce)
AB is one of the kings of snark. The Devil’s Dictionary is available free online, and I highly recommend it.
It has a use when at the bottom of a dustbin… from the mental exercise you get when you turf it into the rubbish bin.
This eroding illusion of the human mind cannot be abated by further wishful thinking, it is time to grow up. Only knowledge of our natural predicament can serve us best, there is no Lone Ranger on a hi ho! Silver gonna save us.
“What is the value of theology?”
I feel the same about baseball.
Evil heretic!
At least baseball exists.
Ah, but it is bounded neither in space nor in time.
I’m guessing you’ve never watched an international cricket match. Those can run to five full days, and still end in a tie.
Theology is somewhat similar to debating the merits of the Marvel vs DC universe.
Or Star Wars versus Star Trek.
My Ph.D. was in religion and I am agnostic. My dissertation was on the neuroscience of belief systems, both religious and secular. Studying the sociological, psychological, and historical aspects of religions, along with secular belief systems, which have their own, arbitrary and subjective aspects, is fascinating and, as my experience exemplifies, one does not have to be a theist to do it.
Interestingly, the way anti-theists and theists come to their beliefs is often neurologically and cognitively similar.
Very interesting blog by David Cycleback davidcycleback.com and book named ” Brain function and religion” came to my notice due to this comment. It is very interesting subject- belief- whether scientific or non
scientific .
A moderating force for many aspiring clergy after the historical-critical approach to the Bible was pioneered in Germany. So many certainties and pious traditions done away with. Now the faith is quite vague.
Thus Traditionalist Catholics keep their seminarians away from universities.
Theology is the study of God. One studies to gain knowledge. Galileo limited knowledge to that which is available to all. The esoteric isn’t. It can’t be actual knowledge. Calling the esoteric a different epistemology fails to address the issue of availability.
The value of theology is that of a red herring. Religion is a human activity. Mention religion, however, and God springs to mind. The idea that churchgoers can do evil is ignored. The red herring protects religion from criticism.
Say “God exists” and every word after that is pure conjecture. Is God all-knowing? Not if He’s an idiot-god like Lovecraft’s Azathoth. Was it God or his brother Ebb or sister Flo who created the universe? How would anyone know the difference? Does God answer prayers and perform miracles? The Deists didn’t think so. If God is all-loving and all-powerful, why can’t He simultaneously exist for believers and non-exist for atheists as a way of showing His love? If theology even tries to answer these questions it answers them in terms of the local, esoteric religion.
I have never thought of the former group as being theologians at all. I’ve always mentally put them in the same sort of area as historians, archaeologists and anthropologists. Bart Ehrman, for example, describes himself as an historian.
Mark 10:21, Luke 12:32-33, Luke 14:33, Luke 18:23, Matthew 19:20-21, Matthew 6:24-25
Sell all you have and give to the poor..Jesus commands
John 14:15 If you love me keep my commandments.
Theology has mastered the art of ignoring the commands of Jesus.
That presume that those really were the commands of Jesus.
Well, one could posit these were words put into the mouth of Jesus, which Jesus never said. It could be true. But it is the theologians and apologists that claim the Bible is trust worthy about such commands. It would be amusing if theologians and apologists told the world that such commands were not made by Jesus, who they also claim is God, The vast swarms of Youtube apologists tell us the gospels are ever so trust worthy. The RCC in the Fourth session of The Council Of Trent tell us God himself authored the Bible. Reiterated in 1965 in Verbum Dei. A problem for them. And for Calvinists.
Jeff Vader in #9 kinda went near this point, but I’ll make it in my own words. The value of theology is that it undermines the religions in question, by revealing how many unbelievable hoops one has to jump through.