From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 03:47:29 BST
Sam, Rick and y'all:
I'm enjoying the thread too, Gents. Like Rick, I'm say behind on everything
and only have a few minutes to write.
Sam said:
I think you're running together philosophy of religion and theology. They
overlap, but their basic approaches are distinctly different. Whilst
theology operates within a faith tradition, with a potential to grow away
from that base. ... After all, the vast majority of theological writing is
in fact based in a particular framework.
DMB says:
Within a faith tradition? Based in a particular framework? That's the
clincher for me. If that's what theology is at it core, then I don't think
we can rightly call it intellectual in the Pirsigian sense, and probably not
in the conventional sense either. What I'm finding is that more philosophy
is mixed up in theology than I ever thought and in some very strange ways -
particulariy in Christian theology. More about that later.
Sam said:
The essential conceit which I object to is the notion that there is 'neutral
ground' from which it is possible to impartially assess the truth claims of
different religious beliefs (ie 'objectively').
DMB says:
I'm almost entirely with Rick in his repsonse to this point. All this talk
about "objectivity" and "impartiality" got started in the first place, I
think, because I'd said that 'to begin with the conclusion' violates the
most basic of intellectual values. Once again I turned to my trusty Oxford
Companion to Philosophy. Curiously, Theology had no entry of its own, but
there was an article called "Theology and Philosophy". I quote....
"Theologians sometimes claim that philosophical appraisal has no legitimacy
in relation to what they see as a 'revealed' system of belief. But surely
this cannot be right. FIRST: to preface a statement of doctrine with such
words as 'It is divinely revealed that...' cannot confer coherence on whatis
logically incoherent or make a contradicion come out as true. There is
therefore legitimate work for logic and philosophy of language in the
analysis of such docturnal claims. SECOND: however much of his religious
beliefs a theologian regards as revealed, that cannot constitute a complete
theistic system. The revealed totality has to be intelligibily related to
the deity who allegedly revealed it, imparted it to mankind; and its
authority needs to be more convincignly established that the of rival
claimants. What is taken to be the esssential nature of that deity cannot
itself be derived from revelation. It is a proper topic for philosophical
(metaphysical) inquiry. A philosophical component - an epistemology of
belief - is thus vitally necessary to a revealed theolgy."
More later,
DMB
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 : Thu Apr 03 2003 - 03:51:51 BST