The value of a theology degree

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@glipsnort

I would submit that, unless your “fitness index” can do exactly that – tell us in advance of knowing the results which of the two actors women are more likely swept away by – your “fitness calculation” adds nothing to human knowledge, and is a waste of intellectual labor.

@Eddie,

Even mechanical engineers… men and women who have devoted a lifetime to understanding Newtonian Physics … still recommend field or live lab tests to see what a Real World demonstration actually does to their predictions!

Predictions of fitness can be made … and sometimes they are incorrect … because of some new factor not appreciated as of yet.

But mathematically, fitness is easy to define:

How many offspring, in how many years, over how many generations?

Sometimes number of generations isn’t important if the populations being studied have short life cycles.

I’m sure @glipsnort could revise or improve on my roughed-in comments in this post… but I thought this would give you a chance to offer some feedback.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

Glipsnort:

I think you are here quoting from some statements I made on BioLogos, in an argument from long ago.

Without a recovery of the entire context, i.e., what previous discussion led me to make those statements, I am not sure that pursuing it here (especially now that this section has been retitled "The Value of a Theology Degree!) would be of much help.

However, if I recall the old discussion, my point was not so much that population geneticists who talk about “fitness” were wrong, but that their vocabulary was confusing to those who understood fitness in the older, concrete way that Darwin and his cronies meant it. (E.g., the bill of a stork and the bill of a woodpecker make each one more “fit” for particular activities.)

I certainly was not implying that I knew more about the mathematics of population genetics than the experts. I was complaining about their presentation of their results in a popular forum such as a blog site, where people are not trained in specialist uses of jargon and would appreciate “everyday language” in discussions. In the past, many scientists were gifted at employing everyday language – Asimov, Sagan, Jastrow – when in the company of non-scientists, in a general discussion.

If you want to start up a new topic on “How the Term Fitness is Used in Contemporary Evolutionary Thinking,” I would read your exposition, and try to learn from it.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Patrick

So are you saying that we should leave the Religion degrees for those who don’t have the ability to do Math, Science, Engineering and Technology?

Not just the religion degrees, but the degrees in English, Spanish, Philosophy, Art History, Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science, Music, etc. Many people have intellectual gifts in areas other than mathematics and science. What are you suggesting, that all universities should just close down all departments other than Math, Science, Engineering, and maybe Business? Just because you don’t like those other subjects? And what would you suggest we do with all that intellectual talent, if there are no universities to promote it? Perhaps you think that we should put all the budding Nobel and Pulitzer literary prize winners out picking up the litter on the sides of the highways for minimum wage? Is that how much respect you have for human intellect in areas outside of science and math?

In fact, the study of religion is quite useful even in a practical sense. My studies of Islam, for example, gave me more insight into modern political and social problems related to the rise of radical Islam. A government agency whose job is to deal with Near Eastern relations will need a few people who understand the religions of the Near East, and they won’t get that understanding from learning how to build bridges or how to purify some chemical to 99%.

The study of religion and philosophy would also have helped the Judge in the Dover Trial, since he clearly did not know that design arguments long predated the writing of the New Testament and hence can’t possibly be regarded as a fresh invention of American fundamentalists.

It’s also necessary to understand the religious and philosophical beliefs of the American Founders, since modern jurisprudence often makes judgments about the meaning of constitutional documents, and contextual knowledge is vital to avoid mechanical reading of the letter without understanding the spirit.

Similar arguments could of course be made for the study of English, Romance Languages, Latin, Greek, History, etc. An educated society is a better society. And education means more than knowing lots of math and science.

You’re also assuming that the only reason someone might choose the Arts subjects is that they can’t do science, but that’s not the case. I started out on a Science scholarship, and had to make a very difficult decision which of the two sides of my abilities – I was a top student in all academic subjects – I would cultivate by education. I decided to focus on the Arts, not because I couldn’t do the Sciences, but because my deepest questions were leaning that way.

Further, there are many Science/Engineering students who couldn’t do well in Arts subjects, so it would be wise not to paint Arts students as people not bright enough to do science. Rather, one should say that some people have gifts in some areas, and some in others, and that a rational society would encourage people to work in areas where they have gifts, and are more likely to be productive, than in areas where they have no gifts, and are therefore less likely to be productive.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Roy

yet failed to realise that many of the presenters at a conference he had attended were actually prominent young-earth creationists.

He did not fail to realize that “many” were YECs. He said only that he had not done a count. You claim to have done a count, yet are unwilling to stand on your research. That’s fine. Probably just as well, anyway, since some of those people don’t yet have permanent jobs and YEC affiliation would be used against them. But if you really know exactly which ones were YECs, by all means send me a private message listing them, and I’ll see how accurate your “research” is. Probably not very.

@Roy

By anyone who distinguishes the route from the destination. You’re conflating the level of knowledge attained with the means of attaining it.

No, I’m not. In principle, autodidacticism can produce good results, if practiced by someone with a self-critical and humble frame of mind. The problem is that so often it is practiced by the arrogant who can’t imagine that they would ever make a mistake in reasoning or would ever consult and accept a bad source. Also, it is often practiced by hobbyists with an axe to grind. So usually it has bad results.

I’m speaking of course of theoretical subjects rather than practical matters. In practical matters the autodidact has the possibility of verifying his conclusions by real-world consequences. For example, if he teaches himself how to fix a leaky tap, he will soon enough find out whether he has acquired real understanding, if the tap continues to leak after he has “fixed” it. And if he teaches himself how to cook, he will soon find out if he is doing something wrong by the burning smells, the bad tastes, etc. But in theoretical matters, there isn’t always an obvious test to measure how much progress one has made, and so many imagine that they have deep understanding when they are in fact confused.

The guys who are sure they have “proved” that Bacon wrote Shakespeare, and that all the “academics” who think otherwise are wrong, are very bad at interpreting the style and contents of early modern texts, but they don’t know that they are bad. They think they are brilliant. And since the only thing that could show they are wrong is a superior analysis of the texts, and since they aren’t bright enough when it comes to reading texts to know a superior analysis when they see it, their ignorance will remain invincible. They will believe to their dying day that Bacon wrote Shakespeare. A bit of university training would show them the error of their conclusions, but they are too proud to acquire that training. They don’t think they need any help, and resent the suggestion that they should seek it.

I used to argue with a guy who purported to know lots about Catholic theology and Aquinas in particular. He didn’t know the texts, couldn’t read Latin, but was sure he understood Aquinas better than I did. I suggested that he take some courses under good Thomistic scholars at a nearby university. He had no intention of doing so. He thought he was so smart that he didn’t need any university training in Scholastic theology to know all about it.

Sure, there have been great autodidacts in the world, inventors like Tom Edison and philosophers like Rousseau. But most of the people you encounter on the internet are not of the caliber of Edison or Rousseau. They are mostly hobbyists with an axe to grind. This is particularly the case when they have taught themselves theology, as is the case with certain persons here.