From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Fri Apr 04 2003 - 11:47:57 BST
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
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.
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
terms!
> DMB quoted "my trusty Oxford Companion to Philosophy"
> "Theologians sometimes claim that philosophical appraisal has no
legitimacy
> 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
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.
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
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."
Quibbles about 'authority', but again, this seems to be arguing against a
strawman.
Sam
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 : Fri Apr 04 2003 - 12:58:04 BST