Re: MD Philosophy and Theology

From: Elizaphanian (
Date: Fri Apr 04 2003 - 11:47:57 BST

  • Next message: Elizaphanian: "Re: MD Philosophy and Theology"

    Hi David,

    > 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
    > 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.

    I don't think ANY view can avoid frameworks. The question is the degree of
    self-awareness about the framework employed. I think theologians (at least
    since the time of Aquinas, who talked about it in detail) have been very
    self-aware. I think Modern secularism is almost entirely lacking in such
    self-awareness. As such, theology is intellectually superior - in pure MoQ

    > DMB quoted "my trusty Oxford Companion to Philosophy"
    > "Theologians sometimes claim that philosophical appraisal has no
    > in relation to what they see as a 'revealed' system of belief.

    See my response to Rick on this. Your Oxford companion is (conventionally)
    misconstruing what theologians claim.

    > 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
    > 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.

    Can you point to a theologian that denies this? I'm not aware of one.

    > SECOND: however much of his religious
    > beliefs a theologian regards as revealed, that cannot constitute a
    > 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."

    Quibbles about 'authority', but again, this seems to be arguing against a


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 04 2003 - 12:58:04 BST