When you say "Training" do you actually mean the Scientific approach being applied where no single religion is adhered to but all are observed impartially (a la PhD), or do you mean the whole "Live a life of a piety, go to Mosque/Synagogue/temple/church/outhouse on a given religious day and be brainwashed the same repetitive strain of fundamental hogwash" (I think it gets termed "Life schooling")?
Tiassa introduced several ideas.
First, there was 'atheists suck'. I simply ignored that one since it didn't seem to merit a response.
Second, there was the idea that religion discussion on Sciforums should be conducted in a more scholarly manner. I agree with that and would really like to see it happen. But realistically, it isn't likely to happen when the bulk of Sciforums participants and moderators alike have little academic training in the study of religions.
(It would be nice if the Physics forum was conducted at the level of a graduate seminar at Cal Tech, but if few of its participants have the necessary background, it isn't going to happen.)
Third, there was the idea that renaming the 'religion' forum the 'theology' forum would somehow make a substantive change in the quality of discussion there. I expressed my opinion that changing the forum's name wouldn't change anything except the forum's name.
I also made some remarks where I sought to distinguish between 'theology' as an academic discipline and what I termed 'religious studies'.
'Theology' has traditionally been conducted from within the theistic religious traditions, by believers in those traditions. It's a scholarly pursuit that seeks to rationally understand and systematize a tradition that's already accepted a-priori. Human reason is put to work understanding God's revelation, but mustn't be placed above God's word in judgement of it. We often see theology conducted in specialized 'theological seminaries', operated by religious denominations for the preparation of their own clergy and scholars.
What I'm calling 'religious studies' is something superficially similar but actually quite different. It's a product of the enlightenment, the so-called 'age of reason'. Religious studies has no qualms about reason being its highest principle, even if reason creates intellectual doubts about tradition, revelation and orthodoxy. This newer variety of religious scholarship brings the resources of history, philosophy, philology, psychology, archaeology, anthropology and any other academic discipline that's relevant to the study of religion. Other names have been applied to this kind of study, including 'phenomenology of religion', 'history of religions' and 'comparative religion', but I personally prefer 'religious studies' because the other names typically seem to prescribe particular methodological approaches. The phrase 'religious studies' seems to me to be more inclusive in terms of method.
My reason for highlighting a 'theology'/'religious studies' distinction was to further problematize the suggestion that renaming the 'religion' forum the 'theology' forum would somehow improve it.
