Emory University is a distinguished university based in Atlanta, Georgia. Among its faculty, it counts Salman Rushdie, former President Jimmy Carter and the 14th Dalai Lama. Also, like most institutions of higher learning, it has a School of Theology. However, a thought provoking article in its student newspaper questions whether theology has outlived its appropriateness as a separate school of study: http://emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=26773A school of theology has no more place in a university setting than a school of alchemy or astrology. I think what I find most disconcerting are the productive years that many brilliant people waste chasing these myths. It can be described no better than a crying shame.
16 comments:
It's also a crying shame how some brilliant minds spend their best years chasing such myths as life comimg from non-life and the pitiless, empty, meaningless nature of all things.
Truly sad. What a waste.
Tirian apparently never took a high school science class.
*giggles at the foolish comment* :)
A straw man and false dichotomy rolled into one!
I trust that everyone (both atheist, theist and all those in between) appreciates that the point of this post is simply to argue that the courses taught by Schools of Theology could be easily subsumed within the curricula of other disciplines.
I cannot agree with Tirian since I am not convinced that The Atheist Missionary is a brilliant mind. Correct, but likely not brilliant.
I would understand courses in world religions, history of religions and history, that would be great. But study theology is as serious as study the zodiac.
@ Tirian: abiogenesis and evolution are not myths. Myths are things believed, but untrue.
Abiogenesis and evolution are both true.
PStryder:
Abiogenesis has been discredited all over the map. You're joking right?
And Darwinian evolution is a "theory", which doesn't exactly have the full consensus of the scientific community.
So, it looks like they are both myths. Things you believe, but are not true.
Perhaps Vlad could enlighten me, maybe I was sick that day in high school science....now how was it that life came from non life?
Thanks.
If you don't believe in God, I wouldn't expect you to take theology too seriously. Not exactly a Newsflash now, is it?
Tirian, although I am sure that Vlad can speak on his own behalf, the Miller-Urey experiment should give you a much better idea of how "life came from non-life". Quite frankly, I find the thought of lightning striking the primordial soup to be far more plausible than the "fairy in the sky" explanation. Of course, even if the fairy did it, we are left with trying to explain how the fairy originated. If (as I assume) you do not have any problem conceiving of a God who did not have a creator, why do you reject the notion of a natural state of existence that had no creator? After all, there is no beginning or end to a circle. There is no north of the north pole. There is no up or down in space. There is no absolute time in space and, in fact, physicists far smarter than me say that time (at least as we perceive it) may not even have existed before the Big Bang. Of course, you probably reject that the Big Bang happened.
As for evolution being questioned by creationists as only a theory, I remind you that gravity is also "just a theory" and one which is just as solid as evolution.
If you conceive of God as a "fairy in the sky", then it is clear why you find lightning and primordial soup to be a more plausible explanation of the origin of life.
As for gravity being a theory, could you point me to the scientific literature that makes this assertion? Gravity is a scientific law, last I checked...
Tirian, this Wikipedia post provides as good an explanation as any about the terminology of evolution as a fact and theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
If you are suggesting that there is any serious scientific debate about the fact that we are the products of evolution, about all I can say is that you should join the flat earth society. If you are simply observing that debate continues to rage about how evolution happens, I can't disagree with that assertion. I can't help but ask whether you have read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker or The Ancestors' Tale, both of which I highly recommend.
If by evolution you mean "change over time", that is indeed a fact. If by it you mean new species evolving from old, men from apes, etc. I reject such a specious theory. I think you embrace it by faith...
Tirian, please don't be offended but I am beginning to get the sense that your attitude towards evolution is consistent with answersingenesis.org and the Discovery Insitute. If you have not checked out those sites, you should because you will find the minute fraction of the "scientific community" who will agree with you.
Humans did not evolve from apes. Apes and men both evolved from a common ancestor (a "concestor") that bore much more resemblance to an ape than it does to a human. That is a fact my friend, not a theory. It can be proven through the tracing of mitochondrial DNA. If you can read The Ancestors' Tale and not be convinced of that, nothing will convince you.
AM, if it were a *fact*, (like the second law of thermodynamics or the law of gravity are facts), the scientific community would be squaking loudly about it. I don't think the MRCA is quite the slam dunk you think it is.
While it is hard to take Richard Dawkins seriously, at your suggestion I will try to put his book on my radar...
Post a Comment