Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sophisticated theology
For an example of modern "sophisticated" theology, see this example of mind-numbing philoso-babble. I have to grant the author one point: he cleverly escapes the New Atheist critique of religion by offering no actual content whatsoever.
6 comments:
Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.
With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.
No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.
See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.
Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.
I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.
Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.
I've already answered some typical comments.
I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
bb,
ReplyDeleteI offered no content because in that post I was simply giving the structural side to a larger argument. The structures themselves are fairly content-less without their corresponding embodiments (I linked to Fowler for his definitions of those).
But I don't define faith or God or religion in the abstract because all that does is privileges one level or another.
The way I'm going about it I think is more concrete--in answer to the questions about what is faith or what is God I would answer that you first have to look at the classic forms. About how people actually live these out and define them both historically and currently. I then think it is legitimate to make an argument that they follow (generally) a set of patterns.
There is no one faith then. Nor one understanding of God. It does get out of (or maybe under) the New Atheist critique but not in the way you think it does.
I dunno, Chris. It sounds like bullshit to me. <shrugs>
ReplyDeleteI don't have the stamina to read that crap. Fowler's stages of faith? Kinda like Kübler-Ross's stages of grief, or the AA 12 steps.
ReplyDeleteIt's all just made up. There is just no reason to believe any of it.
I hope you at least read my comments. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI do not think "evidence" means what you think it means.That's golden.
ReplyDeleteI stole the line from The Princess Bride.
ReplyDelete"Inconceivable!"