Distinction Between Philosophy and Theology?

[Jeremy E Walker]

In my understanding he, the philosopher was the madman, and he wasn't particularly happy about either the state of affairs of God or the modernist replacements for the concept.

Interesting indeed...


I was thinking of a remark you made earlier, about how, and I quote: "If 27.8 were a high representation of believers in an academic branch, then we could conclude Nitzche right about where the usefulness of God as an explanation was headed."

This remark troubled me. After thinking briefly on it, I now know why.

Your remark fails to take into account whether or not the 27.8 percent is an increase or a decrease over a given period of time. Your remark would have some measure of legitimacy if and only if the 27.8 percent is a decrease in the percentage of believers in an academic branch over a given period of time, lets say several decades.

If for example at the beginning of the twentieth century the percent of believers in an academic branch was oh lets say 35 and then we see a decrease during the middle of the twentieth century to a percent of 30 and then now arrive at the 27.8 figure, your remark might be appropriate, and even then it does not necessarily follow that Nietzsche was right. The decrease could be due to other factors.

But what if the 27.8 is not a decrease, but rather an increase, lets say, oh, up from 25 percent at the middle of the twentieth century, which was up from 23 percent at the beginning of the century. If this were the case then it could be argued that Nietzsche was flat wrong. Of course, we acknowledge the increase could be due to other factors just as before.

So what I would really be interested in is seeing if this 27.8 is an increase or a decrease.

I do know this, that there has been a veritable renaissance if you will, within contemporary philosophy regarding God. Some of the brightest and most influential contemporary philosophers are theists.

This is food for thought.

 

[variant]

Interesting indeed...


I was thinking of a remark you made earlier, about how, and I quote: "If 27.8 were a high representation of believers in an academic branch, then we could conclude Nitzche right about where the usefulness of God as an explanation was headed."

This remark troubled me. After thinking briefly on it, I now know why.

Your remark fails to take into account whether or not the 27.8 percent is an increase or a decrease over a given period of time. Your remark would have some measure of legitimacy if and only if the 27.8 percent is a decrease in the percentage of believers in an academic branch over a given period of time, lets say several decades.

If for example at the beginning of the twentieth century the percent of believers in an academic branch was oh lets say 35 and then we see a decrease during the middle of the twentieth century to a percent of 30 and then now arrive at the 27.8 figure, your remark might be appropriate, and even then it does not necessarily follow that Nietzsche was right. The decrease could be due to other factors.

But what if the 27.8 is not a decrease, but rather an increase, lets say, oh, up from 25 percent at the middle of the twentieth century, which was up from 23 percent at the beginning of the century. If this were the case then it could be argued that Nietzsche was flat wrong. Of course, we acknowledge the increase could be due to other factors just as before.

So what I would really be interested in is seeing if this 27.8 is an increase or a decrease.

Since Nietzsche's time it is certainly a decrease, nor do I not think they are trending well for him being wrong.

I do know this, that there has been a veritable renaissance if you will, within contemporary philosophy regarding God. Some of the brightest and most influential contemporary philosophers are theists.

This is food for thought.

I hadn't noticed such a trend.

 

[quatona]

What, in your view, are the classic statements on this issue?

Thelology is philosophy, albeit with a huge a priori assumption.

 

[Sayre]

Since Nietzsche's time it is certainly a decrease, nor do I not think they are trending well for him being wrong.



I hadn't noticed such a trend.

He is right - the percentage of philosophers who are theists is increasing.

 

[variant]

He is right - the percentage of philosophers who are theists is increasing.

By what amount and for how long? You have some data?

The arguments don't seem to be getting any better.

 

[Sayre]

By what amount and for how long? You have some data?

The arguments don't seem to be getting any better.

The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism

Might be helpful.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I hadn't noticed such a trend.

By what amount and for how long? You have some data?

The arguments don't seem to be getting any better.

In the November/December 2013 99th issue of Philosophy Now subtitled The God Issue, University of Western Michigan philosopher Quentin Smith is quoted by Dr. William Lane Craig, (Research Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology, California) as lamenting what Smith called “the desecularization of academia that evolved in philosophy departments since the late 1960s.” (‘The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism’, Philo, Vol 4, #2, at philoonline.org).

You see variant, things really began to take off in the late 60's with the collapse of verificationism. The article goes on to say:

Complaining of naturalists’ passivity in the face of the wave of “intelligent and talented theists entering academia today,” Smith concludes, “God is not ‘dead’ in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.”

**Emphasis mine**.

Dr. Craig goes on to say that with this renaissance of Christian philosophy came the resurgence of interest in natural theology.

So variant, while it is no doubt that the majority of philosophers today can be classified as non-theists, there is an undeniable resurgence of interest in God among bright and budding philosophers.

God is not dead after all.

This is food for thought!

philosophynow.org/issues/99/Does_God_Exist

 

[quatona]

He is right - the percentage of philosophers who are theists is increasing.

But what about the percentage of theists who are philosophers?

 

[Sayre]

But what about the percentage of theists who are philosophers?

Ha!

Sadly very few .

 

[variant]

In the November/December 2013 99th issue of Philosophy Now subtitled The God Issue, University of Western Michigan philosopher Quentin Smith is quoted by Dr. William Lane Craig, (Research Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology, California) as lamenting what Smith called “the desecularization of academia that evolved in philosophy departments since the late 1960s.” (‘The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism’, Philo, Vol 4, #2, at philoonline.org).

You see variant, things really began to take off in the late 60's with the collapse of verificationism. The article goes on to say:

Complaining of naturalists’ passivity in the face of the wave of “intelligent and talented theists entering academia today,” Smith concludes, “God is not ‘dead’ in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.”

**Emphasis mine**.

Dr. Craig goes on to say that with this renaissance of Christian philosophy came the resurgence of interest in natural theology.

So variant, while it is no doubt that the majority of philosophers today can be classified as non-theists, there is an undeniable resurgence of interest in God among bright and budding philosophers.

God is not dead after all.

This is food for thought!

philosophynow.org/issues/99/Does_God_Exist

Considering the percentages I would call it pretty thin gruel, especially if it's WLC that's the standard barer.

And of course Nietzche was talking about all of academia not just the philosophy department, he was specifically concerned with science.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Ha!

Sadly very few .

The percentage of atheists who are philosophers would be similarly low.

The simple truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people in the world whether they be theist or atheist simply are not philosophers!

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Considering the percentages I would call it pretty thin gruel, especially if it's WLC that's the standard barer.

I provided you with the reference in order to support my claim that there is a resurgence of interest in God in contemporary philosophy. This is really not up for debate.

With regards to Dr. Craig, he is one of the most distinguished and influential Christian philosophers in America. Whatever your personal opinion of the man is is immaterial. You may not agree with his views but that is immaterial to what the man has written in peer reviewed articles regarding the resurgence of interest in God in contemporary philosophical circles. The hard truth of the matter is that there are men and women, brilliant men and women who are philosophers today who also happen to be Christians.

 

[variant]

With regards to Dr. Craig, he is one of the most distinguished and influential Christian philosophers in America. Whatever your personal opinion of the man is is immaterial. You may not agree with his views but that is immaterial to what the man has written in peer reviewed articles regarding the resurgence of interest in God in contemporary philosophical circles. The hard truth of the matter is that there are men and women, brilliant men and women who are philosophers today who also happen to be Christians.

No one said that there weren't, just that the academic idea of God isn't particularly vigorous.

In terms of Craig, I just don't find a rehash of cosmological arguments all that interesting philosophically, but it certainly seems to send a lot of people to message boards to try it out for themselves.

 

[bhsmte]

I provided you with the reference in order to support my claim that there is a resurgence of interest in God in contemporary philosophy. This is really not up for debate.

With regards to Dr. Craig, he is one of the most distinguished and influential Christian philosophers in America. Whatever your personal opinion of the man is is immaterial. You may not agree with his views but that is immaterial to what the man has written in peer reviewed articles regarding the resurgence of interest in God in contemporary philosophical circles. The hard truth of the matter is that there are men and women, brilliant men and women who are philosophers today who also happen to be Christians.

Yes, Craig would be the leader of Christian philosophers without question.

Craig is actually a skilled debater, but one can be a skilled debater and still not have the evidence on his side, which he doesn't. I have watched many of his debates and he is very good at muddying the waters by misrepresenting his opponents position. He is well known for this tactic.

 

[Sayre]

I provided you with the reference in order to support my claim that there is a resurgence of interest in God in contemporary philosophy. This is really not up for debate.

With regards to Dr. Craig, he is one of the most distinguished and influential Christian philosophers in America. Whatever your personal opinion of the man is is immaterial. You may not agree with his views but that is immaterial to what the man has written in peer reviewed articles regarding the resurgence of interest in God in contemporary philosophical circles. The hard truth of the matter is that there are men and women, brilliant men and women who are philosophers today who also happen to be Christians.

I think we need to credit AP to the huge swing in philosophy towards theism, rather than WLC.

 

[quatona]

The percentage of atheists who are philosophers would be similarly low.

The simple truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people in the world whether they be theist or atheist simply are not philosophers!

My question was tongue-in-cheek.
I was actually trying to make the point that the entire "percentage of philosophers who are theists/atheists (and vice versa)" discussion is completely besides the topic of the thread (apart from the fact that the way it is often used here comes down to a bandwaggon fallacy).
I am a little disappointed that this thread has been taken off-topic so soon - simply because I find the thread topic way more interesting than the derail.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

No one said that there weren't, just that the academic idea of God isn't particularly vigorous.

What do you mean?

In terms of Craig, I just don't find a rehash of cosmological arguments all that interesting philosophically, but it certainly seems to send a lot of people to message boards to try it out for themselves.

You may not, but some do. Some intellectuals have actually recounted how they came to be theists after having been presented with the Kalam or the Leibnizian arguments.

While not necessarily a cosmological argument, the argument from design has convinced some great minds like that of Anthony Flew to abandon their atheism.

Certain apologetics are more suited to some while others are more suited to others.

With regards to budding apologists using the arguments on message boards, I have witnessed this firsthand. Some are persuaded, others are not. Some will not be persuaded no matter what evidence or argument is presented.

 

[variant]

What do you mean?

Just what I said.

You may not, but some do. Some intellectuals have actually recounted how they came to be theists after having been presented with the Kalam or the Leibnizian arguments.

While not necessarily a cosmological argument, the argument from design has convinced some great minds like that of Anthony Flew to abandon their atheism.

Certain apologetics are more suited to some while others are more suited to others.

With regards to budding apologists using the arguments on message boards, I have witnessed this firsthand. Some are persuaded, others are not. Some will not be persuaded no matter what evidence or argument is presented.

If all it takes is a bad argument or two.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Just what I said.

That does not help me, but thanks anyway.

If all it takes is a bad argument or two.

What is bad, what is good, is a matter of subjective opinion is it not?

 

[variant]

What is bad, what is good, is a matter of subjective opinion is it not?

No, some arguments are objectively better than others.