|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Theology article.|
|Theology has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
- 1 New front illustration
- 2 Proposals for redistributing material
- 3 Pages for development
- 4 Links section
- 5 Archive bot?
- 6 Theologian vs. theologist
- 7 not sure it's uniquely problematic
- 8 "Quotations" section
- 9 Cartoon/Focus
- 10 Imaginary Friend
- 11 Criticism
- 12 Relevant?
- 13 Intro
- 14 Qualifications
- 15 Quotations
- 16 Reasons for deleting recent addition
- 17 Removal of unsourced material.
- 18 Propositional theology
- 19 Adding a Criticism Section
- 20 Themes in Theology
- 21 The Bad faith article needs help from available editors
- 22 PUSSELE
- 23 First Paragraph in Criticism section doesn't read clearly
- 24 Including criticism from Dawkins
New front illustration
Is it possible to replace / remove Calvin at the top? He is *one* theologian among many. The first to popularize the term that is read by all denominations of Christianity is Augustine. Alternatively, Peter Lombard, who used the term in its modern sense. In any event, having such a narrowly-appealing and idiosyncratic portrait up top seems to discount the vast diversity in Christianity. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want to edit myself because I don't normally edit Wikipedia. But I saw that and realized how prejudicial it might seem to non-Calvinists. I also don't know (obviously) if this has been brought up before, but if so it's worth revisiting, so that Wikipedia appears inclusive. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Proposals for redistributing material
I propose: (a) To remove the 'Christianity' template (b) To move the material on divisions of theology, which is very largely exclusively Christian material, to the 'Christian theology' page (c) To move the material on the controversy surrounding the emergence of Christian theology to the 'History of theology' page This page should, presumably, be even-handedly about all the contemporary uses of the word 'theology', which is no longer confined to Christianity; it has to give the Christian history of the term, but should not then imply that 'theology' is now synonymous to 'Christian theology'.
Any objections? --mahigton 11:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Pages for development
Can more detail be added to Women as theological figures (see comments on talk page) - including an introduction.
Religion and politics also needs development - some of the areas could be moved to separate pages (of the "X and politics" format), leaving this as the hub page, and for discussions on the topic in general.
Both could be linked from this page.
I have reached the limits of my theological knowledge with both fields.
Jackiespeel 30 January 2007 (this library terminal won't let me sign in)
Given that there are pages elsewhere for Christian theology etc, and that this article is now clearly focused on (a) the history of use of the word 'theology' and (b) aspects of its contemporary usage that are relevant to more than one religious tradition, am I right in thinking that links on this page should not be to resources for Christian theology (or any other particular theology) but to
- resources directly related to the changing definition of theology in history (not simply examples of theological writing from history), and
- contemporary discussions of the nature of theology that directly address multiple religious traditions; or
- contemporary discussions of the nature of theology that, while focused on a particular religious tradition, clearly treat ideas that will have a relevance to other religious traditions; or
- contemporary discussions of the nature of theology within one religious tradition that explicitly challenge its applicability to other religious traditions; and
- nothing else.
Is that fair? --mahigton 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Done, see Archive 1. From the date stamps I see on the article it looked like 2003 through 2006. I also added several talkpage templates. Although I am not a botOptigan13 17:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Theologian vs. theologist
Both of these terms redirect here, however only theologian is mentioned in the article text. Wiktionary has different definitions for these terms, albeit not very clearly delineated (wikt:theologian wikt:theologist). Perhaps this article should contain a brief discussion and clarification of these terms with respect to one another? __meco 09:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
not sure it's uniquely problematic
The section discussing theology and the academy claims its role is "uniquely" problematic, because of how for example it tries to balance academic discourse with within-a-faith viewpoint and practical involvement. This might be problematic, granted, but it isn't uniquely so; other areas of academia, such as Marxist theory and feminist theory, share similar issues with fitting an activist, practically involved viewpoint into academia. --Delirium 10:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks the cartoon at the bottom of the page lampooning theology is completely irrelevant and inappropriate? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If someone was looking for information on the subject, how would that cartoon help anyone? It just seems ill-advised and juvenile. Emailnuevo (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)emailnuevo
- Actually, the whole section "Quotations" (that includes this image) is inappropriate in Wikipedia, since it should go to Wikiquote (per WP:NOT#DIR). I am going to add the template indicating this. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- So I guess the Pope visited America and spoke with the heads of every major Catholic university just to say "keep up the good work"? It seems as though you are blinded by your presuppositions.
- Besides, since when would an encyclopedia article include information based on a single anonymous individual's experience? This is why Wikipedia is nonsense. In addition, half the article's edits are by atheists or similar (for the article on THEOLOGY). No bias in Wikipedia? Please. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There needs to be a Criticism section. Whether you agree or disagree, there is an obvious controversy here, since there's a growing section of the scientific community that suggests "Theology" isn't a valid subject at all, or they at least group it together with pseudoscience. Again, I'm not voicing my opinion, I'm simply stating the facts and trying to make this Wikipedia entry reflect the whole picture. For instance, in the Parapsychology wiki page, there is a section for Criticism. I see no reason why this page should not have a similar section. I'm not familiar with wiki practices, but I'd like to hear some argument for why we should or shouldn't have a Criticism section. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, this article is missing something on Walter Benjamin's attempts at a secular theology. Whilst these are not mainstream, they are very informative on the concept in general. I think a brief description of them would fit nicely in a criticism section.
NB a criticism section should not primarily include criticisms of a particular theology or beliefs. Any such criticisms must have as their thrust the criticism of theology as a study. For example, one might say that modern theology has become overly concerned with the topic of God, rather than other theological ideas such as Redemption, and remembrance. A criticism section may help to differentiate Theology from Philosophy and religion, and it would be good to address the criticism of theology as pseudoscience, similar to the Critiques section on the Science page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Critiques —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
A critique, or criticism section similar to the Science one, as suggested, would be an invaluable addition. However, I also think the critiques should come from philosophers, philosophers of theology, or theologians (preferably credible ones) i.e. At least from sources with an established history, or knowledge in the study. For example, as assumed above; the scientific community are not theologians, nor are they philosophers of theology unless their science is theology, which would follow that they are indeed theologians. In the critique section, the distinction of science, as a body of knowledge, and science, as referring to the scientific method of investigation, should be made; a link to the Science page, where it explains this distinction in the introduction paragraph should be cited as well. 09:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk)
Find enough reliable sources, by reliable I mean not biased or shared by any narrow minded individual and you got yourself a deal. Let's remember this isn't your play ground to toy with it.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by the following existentialist assertions 'biased' and 'narrow minded' (rather childish choice of wording) -- but as long as the content conforms to Wiki policy, it's fair game. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
"Even when it is distinguished from these other disciplines, however, some hold that the very idea of an academic discipline called theology, housed in institutions like Universities, is an inherently secular, Western notion.[original research?] Noting that 'reasoned discourse about religion/God' is an idea with a very particular intellectual pedigree, with at least some roots in Graeco-Roman intellectual culture, they[who?] argue that this idea actually brings with it deep assumptions which we can now see to be related to ideas underlying 'secularism': i.e., the whole idea of reasoned discourse about God/religion suggests the possibility of a common intellectual framework or set of tools for investigating, comparing and evaluating traditions - an idea with a strong affinity for a 'secular' world view in which religions are seen as particular choices, set within an overarching religiously neutral public sphere. They argue that even those who pursue this discourse as a way of deepening their commitment to and expertise in their own tradition, perhaps even so as to become promoters and propagators of it, often do so in a way which underlines this same 'secular' atmosphere - by assuming the communicability of their religious views (as explored and explained by theological discourse) within a neutral intellectual market-place."
Now I ask, why is there an entire paragraph based on a definition of theology held only by Wikipedia? Since when is theology known as 'reasoned discourse about religion/God'? Why include an entire paragraph which is not only complete, uncited speculation, but bases its entire argument on a random definition?184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This currently starts with a false statement: "Theology is the study of religion from a religious perspective." It merits deletion. Further statements are a little better. Theology is the study of God: Religious studies is the study of human religions. Rlsheehan (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, what would be best is a more objective definition. In my own eyes, I see theology as the study of religious thought, such as the epistemology, ethics and metaphysics of these schools. Marlith (Talk) 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, it might have been amended since Rlsheehan above but the intro still had a dubious statement - a suggested contrast qualified by "sometimes" must be too controversial to appear in the heading: "It is sometimes contrasted with religious studies: theology is understood as the study of religion from an internal perspective (e.g., a perspective of commitment to that religion), and religious studies as the study of religion from an external (e.g., a secular) perspective." The minor authority cited is inadequate to support such a very high prominence, and due to overlength I suggest this asserted contrast should simply be removed. Jezza (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)]
The intro now (April 2012) states: "Theology is the systematic and rational study of religion..." Rational? As in, according to the principles of logic and reason? Sorry, but religion and religious studies centre largely on faith. Logic and reason are, necessarily, suspended when dealing with the central tenets of religions (at least, those based on untestable, unprovable, hypothetical existence of an all-powerful and infallible supernatural beings). Remove "rational" from the sentence and it will be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Confucius, Laozi, Krishna, Siddhartha Gautama, Zoroaster, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle never had "degrees" in theology or philosophy. So don't teach their teachings if you think they're unqualified. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I have moved the quotations to a subpage here. Some could possibly be integrated into the article, but quotes should not stand alone. See Wikipedia:Quotes for advice. Verbal chat 16:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe it should also be transwikied to wikiquote - and then inter-wiki-linked from here? I don't know how to do that though. Verbal chat 16:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Reasons for deleting recent addition
User:December12AC, thank you for your recent contribution to the page. I hope you won't think my reaction too brutal, but I have deleted much of it.
You had added:
Theology is the study of religious faith, practice, and experience, especially of a god or gods and how the divine relates to the world of the physical senses. Unlike philosophy which focuses upon speculative thinking to organize values and reality, theology usually attempts to organize values and reality around a particular understanding of a transcendental truth or truths, embodied in a god or gods. In this analysis, theology may be said to be more empirical and philosophy more rational, although both disciplines involve both means of reasoning. Frequently but not always, theology posits a god as an infinite and eternal sentient being who has power, knowledge, and self-originating principles of action. This god usually is considered relevant to human existence and theology is the endeavor to know or understand him or her.
My problems with that material are as follows:
- I've added the gist of the first sentence to the lead paragraph, but not the 'world of the physical senses'. Theologies have differed greatly in whether and how they have made a distinction between the divine and the non-divine, and only in some theologies (if ever) would reference to the 'physical senses' be the most appropriate way of indicating the realm of the non-divine.
- The description of 'philosophy' offered here is, I think, considerably too narrow. Most of the philosophers I know would not accept that their work is appropriately described as 'speculative', nor as 'rational' as opposed to 'empirical' - at least, not without heavy qualification.
- Similarly, the description of theology as revolving around 'transcendental truth ... embodied in a god' is applicable, if at all, only to some theologies.
- The conclusion to the first paragraph, tht 'theology may be said to be more empirical and philosophy more rational, although both disciplines involve both means of reasoning', smacks strongly of Original Research - a no-no on Wikipedia. To avoid that impression, you would need strong, reliable Verification - i.e., some very good references - to show that this was a sufficiently widespread characterisation of the difference between philosophy and theology to warrant inclusion in the head of the article. (It's considered best practice in Wikipedia articles to avoid phrases like 'may be said...' Articles should always try to explain who says the thing in question.)
- As for the final paragraph, I'm not convinced of the wisdom of trying to expand in this article what has already very briefly been said - that theology treats god or the gods. People can go to the Deity article to find more, and we don't really need in this page to get into the deeply controversial water surrounding definitions of God. Given that the definition you offer would not be accepted in several of the contexts discussed later on in the article, I think it's best to delete this.
Removal of unsourced material.
I have removed the fully unsourced material Theology beyond affiliation to religious institutions. It did not have one single source corroborating the statements, even though it was tagged for RS since 2008, besides being of dubious nature in content.
It might be a thing idea if there could be a stub on the concept of propositional theology, which seems fairly common in modern-day pastoral practice.  Another type of sociological theology is the theology of welcome.  ADM (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Adding a Criticism Section
I see that some have suggested adding a criticism section yet I do not see one in the main article -perhaps it was deleted? Anyhow, without going back to find out if there was one attempted, I will start adding some criticisms of theology by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thinkers as well as by such philosophers as Thomas Paine, Karl Popper, Walter Kaufmann, and maybe some of the positivists. However, perhaps I am forgetting something but I'm thinking at least a link to Liberation Theology is needed in the article, as it shows some important uses and understandings of the concept. Plus, perhaps some philosopher's philosophies ought to be recast as being closer to theology such as Martin Heidegger, Hegel, and perhaps Robert Adams. Teetotaler 4 January, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Starting points might be such critics of theology as Protagoras, who was exiled from Athens for "not knowing anything about the gods", maybe Heraclitus(?), but more importantly early critics of theology such as Epicurus, the Epicureans, the Skeptics, and the Cynics(?), Celsus(?), and maybe some of the atheists like Feuerbach, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud?, A.J. Ayer, though not sure about Bertrand Russell. Though of course the criticism section should not be longer than the main article itself, it should help in a better understanding of what is at issue. Teetotaler 4 January, 2010
Like above, I think a criticism section would be an excellent addition and that's a start. However, criticism isn't necessarily the issue here. Constructive criticism is, because most of those people you listed, such as Marx, were more anti-spiritualism, or atheists, in the sense that they opposed the object of theology -- God, not theology itself. Adding atheist quotes, or nontheist/deists, etc., to criticism is more of a criticism towards God himself, not theology (I'm not trying to say you shouldn't add quotes from them, but only ones that are relevant to the discipline of theology, and its practices, and philosophy). I think many of those would be best suited on the God page. It's a good idea to keep in mind that theology, and God, are distinct terms.
Also, when I use the term "God" here, I'm not implying one deity; I'm using it as a generalization for all things that may fall under theology's scope of study. 22:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk)
- Mahigton -thanks for adding to the criticism section, I like how you fixed up the Protagoras quotation. However, I am wondering if some of the changes you made were necessary. For example, I was under the impression that it was uncontroversial that 'theology' was coined by Plato (or Socrates) -I may very well be wrong and perhaps that information would do better in the main body of the article and not the criticism section. Also, I thought it was not very controversial to say that Protagoras was exiled from Athens because of his views on the gods, just like Anaxagoras before him, who was arrested and kicked out of Athens because of religious intolerance. You say he "may have been" where I think there isn't much controversy. Also, I do not interpret Protagoras as being an atheist or an agnostic or a skeptic for that matter. He never said, as an agnostic would argue, that nothing scientific can be said about the gods. His view was a personal view and not dogmatic like that of an agnostic who knows that something cannot be known. (Hope this isn't nit-picking.) Also, I think we should retain the word "theology" and "science of the divine" in the criticism section and not use "rational discourse". Though I realize that in a sense they are interchangeable, I think the first two formulations are clearer where as "rational discourse" strikes me as more of a positivist claim. I could very well be wrong. Lastly, while the Dawkins quote you added is interesting for a comment about christian theology, its not really a critique of theology in general. However, I am adding a nice quote from Thomas Paine which is similar to that one so I'm wondering what you will think. Hope we both can make this section clear and important. Teetotaler 8 January, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC).
- Okay, added a few more quotes. Hope you don't mind (Magigton) that I went ahead a reverted a few words in the firt paragraph. Feel free to change them back or discuss here why the current version is inadequate. Teetotaler 9 January, 2010
- I don't mind - but my reasons were as follows:
- Okay, added a few more quotes. Hope you don't mind (Magigton) that I went ahead a reverted a few words in the firt paragraph. Feel free to change them back or discuss here why the current version is inadequate. Teetotaler 9 January, 2010
- (1) "rational discourse" rather than "science": the term "science" is only used in the rest of the article in the quote from Hooker and the phrase "Queen of the Sciences" - the words "rational" and "discourse" are more prevalent. "Science" is, of course, fine, if it is taken in the broader sense of scientia or Wissenschaft, but narrower usage in contemporary English perhaps makes the phrase misleading, especially when discussing a pre-modern source? Perhaps a phrase more directly picking up on the opening paragraph would be better: "reasoned discussion"?
- (b) Was Protagoras in fact forced into exile? The article here on Protagoras records some (older) scholarly doubt on whether that happened. A quick check at the (normally fairly reliable) Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy suggests the doubt is still current; it is at least worth not being too dogmatic in our phrasing here.
- (c) Skeptic or agnostic? The latter seems to me a somewhat better description of the quote - and fits better the purpose of quoting it here. The point of citing Protagoras here is not that he is in this quote denying the existence of the gods (which I think is what will most naturally spring to many readers' minds if the word 'skeptic' is used in this context), but denying that there are means available for settling the question one way or the other. Hence we can use him as an example of someone critical of theology per se. 'Agnostic' seems to me to point to that aspect of the matter marginally more directly than "skeptic". Both terms seem to be in use elsewhere in discussions of Protagoras, and each has 'baggage', but I still prefer 'agnostic'.
- (d) As for the Plato coinage question - his usage of theologia is cited earlier in the article, so seemed redundant here - and I think it wise also to avoid the claim that he coined the term, resting as it does on an argument from silence.
- (e) Good point about the Dawkins quote. Of course, he uses the quote in a discussion of theology more generally - but perhaps someone could dig out an appropriate quote which doesn't specify Christian theology - one of the ones about "fairyology", say?
- (f) Finally, on the "could"/"can" thing: I prefer the "can" on stylistic grounds, because "Whether or not" has already done the job of putting the sentence into the subjunctive. In other words, I'd rather see the two options presented as "There can!" versus "There can't!" rather than "There could not be!" versus the still uncommitted "There could be (perhaps)!"
- Thanks for the additional quotes; they seem good to me - though I wonder whether the Popper is a little too obscure in this context?
The criticisms are primarily from the more agenda-oriented, militant of atheists, like anti-theists and new atheists (Coyne, Dawkins, Myers etc), who not only readily admit their hostility to theology but also their ignorance of the subject; therefore, to what extent are their criticisms even valid or worthy of consideration? It is like taking serious Ray Comfort's objections to Evolution. Just as Comfort has no education or understanding of Evolution, creating a straw man he can easily attack and debunk, the same goes with these critics of Theology. It's pointless to argue with anyone who equates God to a flying spaghetti monster or theology to “fairyology” for it proves they're either unfamiliar with the best, most sophisticated arguments for God and/or they're not interested in engaging in honest, intellectual discourse or debate; in some cases they may even be considered "trolls." If their criticisms merit mentioning, perhaps their hostility and agenda against theology, and their admitted ignorance of the subject do as well so readers are aware that what they have to say on the subject should maybe be taken with "a grain of salt," just as we're supposed to do with, for example, the Ray Comforts and Discovery Institutes of the world.
Moreover, if you're going to have a section for criticisms, have one for defenses as well; for example, defenses by John Haught, John Lennox, John Polkinghorne, Keith Ward, atheist Michael Ruse, etc.
Some have said the criticism section is warranted because more and more criticisms of theology are coming from science. No, they're not coming from "science" but scientists; science doesn't speak for science, scientists speak for it, and simply because they are scientists doesn't mean they can offer any insight into the validity of theology or God as those are subjects typically outside the scope of their training and understanding. Furthermore, scientists are not omniscient and many of them are not without bias. Some, like Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, use their position to further the religion-science conflict thesis, attack religion and advocate atheism. Take Evolution, for example, many atheists believe it to be, as biologist William Provine does, the "greatest engine of atheism." I suppose this is what we are to believe, that if Evolution is true, then there is no God. However, they're unfamiliar with theologians like St Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa who saw the possibility of life having developed through some evolutionary process; St Augustine actually argued Scripture shouldn't determine facts but facts should determine how we interpret Scripture.
Themes in Theology
I have started a section wit this title. One of the major themes in Theology is Theology of salvation, but there exist several others. Perhaps we can add them. What do you think? thanks Alan347 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for contributing to the page. I have, however, removed your proposed new section. There is a separate page on Christian Theology which includes information on major themes, so this article serves the somewhat different function of providing an overview of the origins and spread of theology as a discipline, not restricted to Christianity.--mahigton (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
PUSSELE I have a question for every body. Someone in fixing his bath room appliances with Gold. Pure gold. And He justifies his action by quoting in book of revelation the roads are made up of gold and in the gospels he quoted that the prayer of the lord particularly the one about the coming of his kingdom. The question is what was he missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- This page is for discussing the article not the topic. Please see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALKNO. Jojalozzo 13:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
First Paragraph in Criticism section doesn't read clearly
The first paragraph of the Criticism section currently reads:
"Charles Darwin used theology to show that in Darwin's opinion living organisms are not the way an intelligent designer would have made them. Therefore in Darwin's opinion theology supports natural selection. Steven Dilley, a philosopher of science educated at Arizona State University claims the above"
First this doesn't seem to read clearly, it should at least say something like:
"Steven Dilley, a philosopher of science educated at Arizona State University claims Charles Darwin in the "Origin of Species" used theology to show that living organisms are not the way an intelligent designer would have made them."
However looking at the link to that article I'm not even sure that is the claim being made in the paper. It sounds rather as if Darwin was seeking to infer knowledge of God from the theory of evolution - and hence some sort of theology - but it doesn't seem to be as negative as that summary claims.
First of all, someone who is using theology in order to prove something doesn't belong in the "Criticism" section. Secondly, I can't agree with the phrasing ("Steven Dilley claims that Charles Darwin used theology to show that [...] living organisms are not the way an intelligent designer would have made them") : while it is true that Darwin's theory is not the same as Intelligent Design, I don't see why the Creator to whom Darwin refers couldn't be thought of as a "designer" = one who has a "a plan (with more or less detail) for the structure and functions of an artifact, building or system" (according to Wiktionary's definition of the word "design"). I quote from the abstract of S. Dilley's essay: "the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation" (this doesn't sound like criticism of theology, but another version of it).MHortulanus (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Including criticism from Dawkins
Dawkins is definitely a vocal critic, but his ignorance of theology is so complete that the criticism makes little sense, and its inclusion on the page thus seems misleading (particularly among criticisms from those who understand the subject). The large cross-over between theology and history/language studies/philosophy, coupled with the presence of atheist theologians, immediately rob his beliefs of any grounding in reality. It is like including Bill Maher in the criticism section of Prozac. Yes there are valid criticisms, but it's not going to come from people who know nothing on the subject. Wikiditm (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)