Re: MD Philosophy and Theology

From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 19:19:26 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Pirsig the postmodernist?"

    DMB,

    > DMB says:
    > The conversation between you two about the meaning of the word "theology"
    > was very helpful. I agree with Sam's meaning, "what the religious
    community
    > says about itself". As I understand it, theology is the study of the whole
    > system of doctrines and beliefs that define a particular religion. Its
    > sectarian by definition. That's exactly why I think it is NOT
    intellectual.
    > I don't expect every area of intellectual inquiry to strictly adhere to
    the
    > scientific method, but any discipline that begins with the conclusions
    > violates the most basic of intellectual values.

    The we should say that Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are theologians,
    since they assume materialism, and then try to make sense of the world, just
    as a Christian theologian assumes that God exists and that Jesus revealed
    God, and then try to make sense of the world. Pirsig assumes that Quality is
    Real, and that the subjective is as real as the objective, and then tries to
    make sense of the world. Peirce pointed out that reason uses (in addition to
    deduction and indection) what he called abduction, which is to say that "we
    have A. If C is the case, then A follows. Therefore (until a better
    hypothesis comes along), C." I don't think one can ever say that any
    intellectual activity (other than straight deduction, which is rarely
    interesting) operates without assumptions. The only difference between
    theologians and secular intellectuals is that the former are more likely to
    be upfront about theirs.

    In any case, what do you make of natural theology, or Bultmanns's
    demythologization project, or the Death of God theologians? (Again, not
    whether you agree with any of it, but whether or not it is intellectual
    activity).

    Also, you haven't answered my question:

    "just to be sure we are on the same page, can I
    assume that you have read some modern mainstream theologians (say, Bernard
    Lonergan, Karl Rahner, Paul Tillich -- whoever), and have decided that their
    work is not a set of intellectual patterns?"

    If you haven't, then it seems to me you have made up your own myth about
    theology and take it to be literal fact.

    - Scott

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 19:20:44 BST