Miksi Skepsis ry ei vastusta uskonnonharjoitusta yliopistoissa?

Facebookista:

Mikko Ellilä

11.5.2017

Miksi Skepsis ry ei ole koskaan ottanut mitään kantaa sitä vastaan, että suomalaisissa yliopistoissa harjoitetaan uskontoa?

Miksi yliopistoissa, joissa pitäisi harrastaa tiedettä eli faktoja, harrastetaan jumalanpalvontamenoja eli taikauskoa?

Commentaires

Matti Vähätalo Harrastetaanko ja millä tavalla?

Mikko Ellilä Trollaatko tahallasi, vai oletko ihan oikeasti noin tietämätön? Etkö ole koskaan kuullut, että suomalaisissa yliopistoissa on teologisia "tiedekuntia"? Etkö ole myöskään koskaan kuullut, että suomalaisissa yliopistoissa on jumalanpalveluksia?

Jari Laittila Mikko Ellilä, juuri meinasin kysyä oliko aloituksesi trollaus vai oletko todella noin tietämätön käsitteistä. Teologia ei ole uskonnon harjoittamista, vaan uskontoja ja uskomuksia tutkiva tieteenhaara. Se on sitten jokaisen opiskelijan oma asia, mitä sitten vapaa-ajalla harjoittaa.

Matti Vähätalo Uskonnon tutkiminen on uskonnon harjoittamiselle sama kuin murhatutkimus murhaamiselle.

Mikko Ellilä "Teologia ei ole uskonnon harjoittamista, vaan uskontoja ja uskomuksia tutkiva tieteenhaara."

Et siis ollenkaan tiedä, mitä tarkoittaa sellainen käsite kuin teologia.

Jari Laittila " tieteenalana teologia ei ole uskonnon harjoittamista, vaan uskontoa, erityisesti kristinuskoa, uskomuksia ja uskonnollisuutta tutkiva oppiala." kertoo Wikipedia. Tarvitsetko vielä jonkun muun lähteen?

Jari Laittila Ja nyt on kyse yliopistossa käsiteltävästä teologiasta

Panu Luoma Niin. Eikös teologia ole jumaluusoppi?

Käsittääkseni se ei sisällä mitään palvontaa. Vain asian objektiivista tutkimista.

En tiedä, mitä pahaa siinä on.

Kimmo Aalto Teologia ainakin auttaa ymmärtämään sitä sotkua, minkä uskonnot maailmaan ovat aiheuttaneet. Tunnustuksellista uskonnonopetusta ei siellä liene.

Mikko Ellilä Miten kukaan voi olla tietämätön siitä tosiasiasta, että teologia on aivan eri asia kuin uskontotiede??

Valtteri Ahonen Suomen yliopistoissa kyseessä on nimenomaan uskontotiede. Vai todennatko toisin? Vaikka luentojen sisällöistä kuvakaappauksia tms, tämä on nyt tällainen tyhjä vaski -aloitus toistaiseksi

Jari Laittila Helsingin yliopistossa uskontotiede on oppiaineena sekä humanistissa että teologissa tiedekunnassa.

Antti Kaunisto Kertoisiko joku millä teologisen tdk:n kurssilla harjoitetaan uskontoa?

Janne Jylhä Yksi tietämätön lisää ilmoittautuu. Mitä tunnustuksellista opetusta yliopistoissa on?

Toni Ojala Teologia tieteenä selittää ilmiöitä, jotka liittyvät ihmisten uskonnolliseen ajatteluun ja toimintaan sekä maailmankatsomukseen. Teologinen tutkimus käyttää humanistisia ja yhteiskuntatieteellisiä tutkimusmenetelmiä.

Teologinen tutkimus ja koulutus tuottavat laajaa uskonnon asiantuntijuutta, jota tarvitaan erilaisissa työtehtävissä.

Mikko Ellilä Teologia ei ole tiedettä.

Mikko Ellilä Teologia on uskonnollista dogmattiikkaa.

Mikko Ellilä Uskontotiede on erikseen.

Mikko Ellilä On hyvin ikävää, että sinä et ole tuohon ikään mennessä tajunnut tätä.

Toni Ojala Oli ihan suora lainaus linkittämältäni sivulta (opinpolku.fi). Surullista että sinulla on noin kova angsti. ♥️

Toni Ojala 1.2. "Mitä teologia on?" - esimerkki teologisesta argumentaatiosta
"Teologia on uskontoja, erityisesti kristinuskoa tutkiva tiede."
-Helsingin yliopiston teologisen tiedekunnan esittely

http://www.helsinki.fi/.../syste/01_mita_teologia.shtml

Yleinen teologia : systemaattinen teologia

Sanaa 'teologia' on käytetty tämän ja edeltävien…

HELSINKI.FI

Wikipediasta:

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 by contrast is normally seen as requiring that the question of the truth or falsehood of the religious traditions studied be kept outside its field. Religious studies involves the study of historical or contemporary practices or of those traditions' ideas 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.[63] In contexts where 'religious studies' in this sense is the focus, the primary forms of study are likely to include:
Anthropology of religionComparative religionHistory of religionsPhilosophy of religionPsychology of religionSociology of religion

Sometimes, theology and religious studies are seen as being in tension,[64] and at other times, they are held to coexist without serious tension.[65] Occasionally it is denied that there is as clear a boundary between them.[66]

Criticism
See also: Criticism of religion
There is an ancient tradition of skepticism about theology, followed by a more modern rise in secularist and atheist criticism.

...

Thomas Paine the American revolutionary, wrote in his two part work The Age of Reason, "The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing."[69]
Ludwig Feuerbach, the atheist philosopher sought to dissolve theology in his work Principles of the Philosophy of the Future: "The task of the modern era was the realization and humanization of God – the transformation and dissolution of theology into anthropology."[70] This mirrored his earlier work The Essence of Christianity (pub. 1841), for which he was banned from teaching in Germany, in which he had said that theology was a "web of contradictions and delusions".[71]
A.J. Ayer the former logical-positivist, sought to show in his essay "Critique of Ethics and Theology" that all statements about the divine are nonsensical and any divine-attribute is unprovable. He wrote: "It is now generally admitted, at any rate by philosophers, that the existence of a being having the attributes which define the god of any non-animistic religion cannot be demonstratively proved... [A]ll utterances about the nature of God are nonsensical."[72]

...

Critics of theology as an academic discipline
Critics dating back to the 18th century have questioned the suitability of theology as an academic discipline and in the 21st century criticism continues.[74]

...

Robert G. Ingersoll stated that when theologians had power the majority of people lived in hovels while a privileged few had palaces and cathedrals. In Ingersoll's opinion science rather than theology improved people's lives. Ingersoll maintained further that trained theologians reason no better than a person who assumes the devil must exist because pictures resemble the devil so exactly.[77]
Mark Twain stated that several mutually incompatible religions claimed to be the true religion and that people cut the throats of others for following a different theology.[78]
Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins has criticized the validity of theology as a subject, saying: “The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that ‘theology’ is a subject at all?”[79]

Richard Dawkinsin ko. kirjoitus:

The Emptiness of Theology - Richard Dawkins A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and "theology." It remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about their origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject? Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans. It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover, in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome. What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

Yhdyn Dawkinsin kantaan ja olen siis päinvastaista mieltä kuin edellä siteeratut Facebook-kirjoittajat.