Have you read these Christian Philosophers for Apologetic Value?

[Silmarien]

You've commented on my thread which has the gumball machine analogy. So either you responded to a thread without reading the OP, or else you forgot who I am and what I've said. Please review my "Atheists are reasonable, and theists are not" thread so you can correct yourself here.

I'm quite aware of much of what you've said around here. If you want to be viewed as a reasonable agnostic instead of as a fundamentalist atheist, you are welcome to not compare theistic philosophy to Mother Goose tales.

You remain utterly lost. Theology is to apologetics as a judge is to an attorney. Apologists, like attorneys, have an a priori conclusion that they must defend, and this scenario nearly always leads to dishonesty. I have never met an honest apologist. Theologians, on the other hand, study religion objectively.

You seem to be confusing theology with secular religious studies, since theologians do not study religion objectively. They are the ones who historically formulated the dogma that would become any given religion and more currenty reinterpret or comment broadly upon it. Theology can be studied from either a religious or a secular perspective, or somewhere in between, but there is nothing remotely adjudicative about the field.

This thread was about the apologetic value of Christian philosophy, not about professional apologetics. I don't have much use for the latter either, but that doesn't make Christian philosophy in general dishonest.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think you give theologians too much credit, and we need to remember another group - the historians of religion. The historians are the group that most atheists would consider to be contributing to human progress. The theologians are more like people who spend society's resources designing improved heffalump harnesses.

Maybe I misunderstood the word, but I thought that someone like Richard Carrier would be considered a theologian. In that case, being a theologian has nothing to do with one's religion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not worried, because I have a cat, and cats always land on their feet

Perhaps. But also remember that "Speed Kills."

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm quite aware of much of what you've said around here.

And yet you said this:

Atheist Presuppositionalism!

1. God does not exist.
2. Therefore, God does not exist.
3. Therefore, any study thereof is inherently meaningless.

So if you know my position, and yet you said this - seemingly as though you want to saddle me with it to make it my position - then you have deliberately set up a straw man. Your credibility is dwindling.

If you want to be viewed as a reasonable agnostic instead of as a fundamentalist atheist,

I am not an agnostic, so I don't know why you think I'd prefer to be viewed as one. (EDIT: I am actually an agnostic atheist, but explaining that would require me to fix what I assume is a slew of incorrect definitions you're holding onto.) Also, you present a false dichotomy here: that I must be an agnostic or a "fundamentalist atheist." A "fundamentalist atheist" is, I presume, the caricature that you painted above. I clearly stated my position in another thread that you commented on, and here in this thread you indicated that you know who I am. So either you insist upon being dishonest, or you're incapable of following the discussion. In either case, you're losing my interest.

you are welcome to not compare theistic philosophy to Mother Goose tales.

Then you must tell me the fundamental difference between the two things. The only difference I can see is that some people believe that religious propositions are true, whereas no one believes in the propositions of Mother Goose tales. Aside from that, I see them both as preposterous stories with no factual backing - and that was my point. Having a discussion on, or being an expert in, some field which cannot be factually verified in any way is utterly silly, and you may as well have a PhD in Mother Goose.

You seem to be confusing theology with secular religious studies, since theologians do not study religion objectively.

As I said to another user here, that may be the case. It depends on how we define "theologian." However, I am not inclined to listen to your opinion on the matter because you like to prop up straw men.

They are the ones who historically formulated the dogma that would become any given religion and more currenty reinterpret or comment broadly upon it. Theology can be studied from either a religious or a secular perspective, or somewhere in between, but there is nothing remotely adjudicative about the field.

An American acquiring a PhD in Hinduism would probably be objective. And he or she would be a theologian as far as I can tell.

I could see either of us being right here, but the difference between us is that I don't see you admitting to error should my position be vindicated.

This thread was about the apologetic value of Christian philosophy, not about professional apologetics. I don't have much use for the latter either, but that doesn't make Christian philosophy in general dishonest.

I never said Christian philosophy is dishonest. Go back and read it again. I said apologetics is dishonest, and we both know why.

 

[cloudyday2]

Maybe I misunderstood the word, but I thought that someone like Richard Carrier would be considered a theologian. In that case, being a theologian has nothing to do with one's religion.

Wikipedia describes Richard Carrier as a historian. I imagine theologians as the people who invent the ideas that are later used by the apologists. Actually according to Bart Ehrman the majority of religious historians are Christians and therefore unable to follow the facts all the way in some cases. It's only a minority of the religious historians who are objective IMO.

EDIT: Theologians are the people who speculate about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Wikipedia describes Richard Carrier as a historian. I imagine theologians as the people who invent the ideas that are later used by the apologists. Actually according to Bart Ehrman the majority of religious historians are Christians and therefore unable to follow the facts all the way in some cases. It's only a minority of the religious historians who are objective IMO.

Carrier is a historian, yes. His degree is on Roman ancient science. His theological contribution is a new(ish), comprehensive interpretation of the gospels which argues that Jesus never existed as a man. This, I believe, qualifies him as a theologian.

 

[cloudyday2]

Carrier is a historian, yes. His degree is on Roman ancient science. His theological contribution is a new(ish), comprehensive interpretation of the gospels which argues that Jesus never existed as a man. This, I believe, qualifies him as a theologian.

Theologians are the people who debate transubstantiation versus consubstantiation, original sin, and so forth. They take some Christian denomination's dogma as loosely factual and then they try to make it more robust. Theologians are not at all objective about Christianity IMO. They might be smart, but they aren't open-minded.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Theologians are the people who debate transubstantiation versus consubstantiation, original sin, and so forth. They take some Christian denomination's dogma as loosely factual and then they try to make it more robust. Theologians are not at all objective about Christianity IMO. They might be smart, but they aren't open-minded.

But Carrier is arguing a position on a theological issue, right?

Also...

My understanding is that one must merely be knowledgeable on theology. I'm an American, but if I went and got a PhD in Islamic studies, wouldn't I then be a theologian?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Theologians are the people who debate transubstantiation versus consubstantiation, original sin, and so forth. They take some Christian denomination's dogma as loosely factual and then they try to make it more robust. Theologians are not at all objective about Christianity IMO. They might be smart, but they aren't open-minded.

...I think I agree with you to some extent, Cloudy. But, if theologians lean toward a more exploratory type of theology, then we might want to classify them as Philosophical Theologians, and these are similar to but not identical to Christian Philosophers.

The difference between the two might be seen in the scope of their respective investigations. Philosophical Theologians will want to look at the nuances of a variety of theological views, while Christian Philosophers will do this, but also consider how disciplines like Logic and Epistemology, as well as Metaphysics and Axiology play into the overall outlook upon Christian faith.

 

[Dirk1540]

What is reality? What drives reality? Why is there something instead of nothing? Why is that somethingness impressively organized instead of a giant dust cloud of incoherence? Why is there this top/down hierarchy of higher cognitive functions such as emotions and decision making, and why are humans on the top of that totem pole here on Earth?

So far I believe these philosophical questions haven't caused anyone to start accusing anyone else of chasing Mother Goose.

What if we move even higher up on the totem pole, beyond humans, matter of fact what if we go to the absolute top of the totem pole, to what literally drives reality...would that top/down hierarchy of cognitive understanding (that we see here on Earth) actually reverse itself? When we reach the top of this totem pole of literal reality do we find that it strangely is cognitively inferior to those thing below it and it is nothing but emotionally empty mechanical movements that are on autopilot (that lack the concept of decision making)? If you agree with this conclusion that it's mechanical and on autopilot than you are rational. If you disagree with it, and infer that the driver of reality would grasp the concepts that inferior humans grasp, then you are a Mother Goose chaser.

That to me seems like the accurate spot where accusations of Mother Goose or Peter Pan come pouring in, when you conclude that the driver of reality has a grasp of emotions and decision making. It must be blind mechanics or you are being ridiculous!! I don't follow how the mechanically emotionally void conclusion is more logical, but I especially do not follow how the theory that it's not just a mechanical autopilot force would justify mocking the theory as if it's supporters are all Mother Goose chasers.

To avoid a semantics war let's just all agree momentarily to refer to that which sits on top of the totem pole as 'God.' So the theory that a mindless emotionally void intelligence drives reality, wouldn't that philosophically mean that humans know more than God? (At least in the category of cognitive understanding?). Or let's allow the semantics war, doesn't this philosophically mean that humans know more than Mother Nature? Doesn't this philosophically mean that humans know more than the universe? Etc.

 

[cloudyday2]

But Carrier is arguing a position on a theological issue, right?

Also...

My understanding is that one must merely be knowledgeable on theology. I'm an American, but if I went and got a PhD in Islamic studies, wouldn't I then be a theologian?

I don't think so. Islamic studies is more like history or sociology. Here is the Wikipedia article. Notice that the existence of God is taken as an assumption in theology. Usually theologians are associated with a seminary, and they teach future priests and pastors the detailed implications of that denomination's beliefs.

Theology begins with the assumption that the divine exists in some form, such as in physical, supernatural, mental, or social realities, and that evidence for and about it may be found via personal spiritual experiences and/or historical records of such experiences as documented by others. The study of these assumptions is not part of theology proper but is found in the philosophy of religion, and increasingly though the psychology of religion and neurotheology. Theology then aims to structure and understand these experiences and concepts, and to use them to derive normative prescriptions for how to live our lives.

Theology - Wikipedia

 

[Silmarien]

And yet you said this:

Atheist Presuppositionalism!

1. God does not exist.
2. Therefore, God does not exist.
3. Therefore, any study thereof is inherently meaningless.

So if you know my position, and yet you said this - seemingly as though you want to saddle me with it to make it my position - then you have deliberately set up a straw man. Your credibility is dwindling.

To compare theistic philosophy to Mother Goose tales is to engage in atheistic presuppositionalism. The only way to determine whether or not theistic philosophy has any merit is to study it. To conclude that it does not without first taking the time to carefully examine it is quite clearly presuppositionalism.

If you would like to come across like a reasonable agnostic atheist, I would suggest avoiding this type of reasoning.

I am not an agnostic, so I don't know why you think I'd prefer to be viewed as one. (EDIT: I am actually an agnostic atheist, but explaining that would require me to fix what I assume is a slew of incorrect definitions you're holding onto.) Also, you present a false dichotomy here: that I must be an agnostic or a "fundamentalist atheist." A "fundamentalist atheist" is, I presume, the caricature that you painted above. I clearly stated my position in another thread that you commented on, and here in this thread you indicated that you know who I am. So either you insist upon being dishonest, or you're incapable of following the discussion. In either case, you're losing my interest.

There is no dichotomy. As you pointed out in your other thread, the only truly reasonable position is agnosticism. This can be combined with either theism or atheism, though it does not need to be. If you would like to identify as an agnostic atheist, I don't particularly care. A label is a label; it's the underlying positions and motivations that matter.

You also might want to stop accusing anyone who disagrees with you of dishonesty. That's also a fundamentalist tactic.

Then you must tell me the fundamental difference between the two things. The only difference I can see is that some people believe that religious propositions are true, whereas no one believes in the propositions of Mother Goose tales. Aside from that, I see them both as preposterous stories with no factual backing - and that was my point. Having a discussion on, or being an expert in, some field which cannot be factually verified in any way is utterly silly, and you may as well have a PhD in Mother Goose.

Don't you have a degree in mathematics despite believing that mathematics and in fact logic itself is a human invention? Given your epistemology, any Ph.D is ultimately comparable to Mother Goose.

As I said to another user here, that may be the case. It depends on how we define "theologian." However, I am not inclined to listen to your opinion on the matter because you like to prop up straw men.

Then you will continue to have no idea what you're talking about. Theology doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean. It is by definition the critical study of the nature of the divine. It parts ways from philosophy of religion because theology assumes as its starting point that the divine exists and does not seek to prove it. A major example of a theologian would be Saint Thomas Aquinas.

A secular student of theology may simply be interested in it on a cultural level, in which case it effectively becomes akin to intellectual history. I don't think they would consider themselves theologians unless they were involved in some sort of Death of God religion-without-theism project, though.

Richard Carrier, in contrast, is a historian. All of his degrees are in ancient history, not theology. The fact that he is also an atheist apologist does not by any means make him a theologian. Simply having an opinion about religion is not sufficient.

Biblical scholarship and theology are also two different things.

An American acquiring a PhD in Hinduism would probably be objective. And he or she would be a theologian as far as I can tell.

I could see either of us being right here, but the difference between us is that I don't see you admitting to error should my position be vindicated.

I specifically said that theology could be studied from either a religious or a secular perspective, but this does not suddenly cast it in an adjudicative role. That is not what theology is. I myself am a non-Hindu with an interest in Hindu theology--this doesn't mean I study it simply to determine whether or not it's true. I find it fascinating and probably a useful counter to all sorts of Western assumptions about the world.

I never said Christian philosophy is dishonest. Go back and read it again. I said apologetics is dishonest, and we both know why.

In that case, go back and read the whole thread again. It was about Christian philosophy, not apologetics. If you take issue with the latter, there are plenty of other places on the forum to complain.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't think so. Islamic studies is more like history or sociology. Here is the Wikipedia article. Notice that the existence of God is taken as an assumption in theology. Usually theologians are associated with a seminary, and they teach future priests and pastors the detailed implications of that denomination's beliefs.

Theology - Wikipedia

Ok, so Carrier is not a theologian then.

 

[cloudyday2]

Ok, so Carrier is not a theologian then.

But I would go further than Aron Ra. Comparing theologians to the people who study Mother Goose is an insult to the people who study Mother Goose. At least the people who study Mother Goose know that they are studying fiction. JRR Tolkien was inspired by fairy tales to invent Middle Earth. In contrast, the theologians are confronted every day with the shortcomings and absurdities of their beliefs, but they just keep on doggedly trying to apply band-aids to keep the monstrosity afloat. A responsible scholar would be calling "abandon ship! every man for himself!".

 

[Nihilist Virus]

To compare theistic philosophy to Mother Goose tales is to engage in atheistic presuppositionalism. The only way to determine whether or not theistic philosophy has any merit is to study it. To conclude that it does not without first taking the time to carefully examine it is quite clearly presuppositionalism.

This is incompatible with what you say below.

If you would like to come across like a reasonable agnostic atheist, I would suggest avoiding this type of reasoning.

I've already explained my reasoning, and you have not addressed my point.

There is no dichotomy. As you pointed out in your other thread, the only truly reasonable position is agnosticism. This can be combined with either theism or atheism, though it does not need to be. If you would like to identify as an agnostic atheist, I don't particularly care. A label is a label; it's the underlying positions and motivations that matter.

Ok.

You also might want to stop accusing anyone who disagrees with you of dishonesty. That's also a fundamentalist tactic.

When I make that accusation, I back it up.

Don't you have a degree in mathematics despite believing that mathematics and in fact logic itself is a human invention?

Yes.

Given your epistemology, any Ph.D is ultimately comparable to Mother Goose.

Again you ignored my point. I said,

Having a discussion on, or being an expert in, some field which cannot be factually verified in any way is utterly silly, and you may as well have a PhD in Mother Goose.

Mathematics, for example, is absolutely verifiable despite being a human invention. Theology is a human invention that is not verifiable in any aspect.

Then you will continue to have no idea what you're talking about. Theology doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean. It is by definition the critical study of the nature of the divine.

I have been convinced by cloudyday2 that theology carries with it the assumption that God exists.

It parts ways from philosophy of religion because theology assumes as its starting point that the divine exists and does not seek to prove it. A major example of a theologian would be Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Above, you said,

The only way to determine whether or not theistic philosophy has any merit is to study it.

Just now, you said,

...theology assumes as its starting point that the divine exists...

So let me make sure I understand your position. You seemingly agree that I am reasonable in concluding that the body of facts known to humanity is insufficient to warrant belief in any deity. But then you say here that I must study a philosophy which assumes the existence of a deity as a starting point to know if the philosophy has any merit. This is nonsensical.

If I'm reasonable in concluding that there is insufficient evidence to support belief in the existence of fairies, do I need to read up on fairy lore? Fairy lore would already assume the existence of fairies and argue finer points, like whether they use pixie dust or magic wands. But isn't it silly for me to seriously consider these claims if I haven't yet been convinced of the existence of fairies?

A secular student of theology may simply be interested in it on a cultural level, in which case it effectively becomes akin to intellectual history. I don't think they would consider themselves theologians unless they were involved in some sort of Death of God religion-without-theism project, though.

I don't know what that second sentence means.

Richard Carrier, in contrast, is a historian. All of his degrees are in ancient history, not theology. The fact that he is also an atheist apologist does not by any means make him a theologian. Simply having an opinion about religion is not sufficient.

I concede that an atheist cannot be a theologian, by definition.

However, please explain to me what a doctorate in theology even means. Explain what falsifiable data is used in the thesis for such a degree.

Biblical scholarship and theology are also two different things.

Agreed.

I specifically said that theology could be studied from either a religious or a secular perspective, but this does not suddenly cast it in an adjudicative role. That is not what theology is. I myself am a non-Hindu with an interest in Hindu theology--this doesn't mean I study it simply to determine whether or not it's true. I find it fascinating and probably a useful counter to all sorts of Western assumptions about the world.

Ok. But again, there's nothing factually verifiable in Hindu theology. So we are talking about a PhD in Mother Goose.

In that case, go back and read the whole thread again. It was about Christian philosophy, not apologetics. If you take issue with the latter, there are plenty of other places on the forum to complain.

Lol, ok. Maybe get 2PhiloVoid to weigh in if you're so inclined.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lol, ok. Maybe get 2PhiloVoid to weigh in if you're so inclined.

Silmarien has been doing a fantastic job of deflecting your points thus far, so I'm hesitant to just barge in. But since you've suggested otherwise, here I am. What part of the discussion in this thread of mine would you like me to "weigh in" on, NV? The Mother Goose comment(s)?

 

[Dirk1540]

As Aron Ra puts it,

"What's the difference between these guys and a guy who has a PhD in Mother Goose?"

Arguing everything under the sun, for the sake of argument, can be counter productive. I assume that the non-Christians in here would say that their goal is to 'Wake people up!' Well, keep telling those 'On the fence' Christians that you don't see a difference between Jesus/God studies and Mother Goose studies...and IF they have done a certain level of research rest assured that you're doing a great job to help push them over to the side of Christianity being true. However if they never researched anything (they just read the Bible, or maybe not even that) I will admit that you will score yourself some victories and push some over to your side.

Contrary to this theory of 'The more things that I argue the more things that have to be defended'...actually to the semi educated on the fence Christian it looks like poor analytical skills. And poor analytical skills (ESPECIALLY if they are coming from a person who's known to be intelligent!!) can easily start to be interpreted as 'Wow there really is truth to people being spiritually blind!'

And I say it's counter productive because that can strengthen their faith. I speak from experience. As a teetering half Christian in the past bad arguments did have a tendency to toss me back into the Christian camp. People arguing with me that Jesus didn't exist often would trigger that type of 'They are spiritually blind' reaction in me. They thought I was pulling my hair out because they were hammering me with doubts, when actually I was pulling my hair out that they didn't get it. And again, the more intelligent the person the stronger my 'People are spiritually blind' reaction was. When I had people who I knew were brilliant insisting to me that Jesus was a fictional character it gave me more confidence to write off ALL of their anti-Christian arguments.

I seriously can't tell if this is an argue everything under the sun tactic, or if you really think Jesus studies and Mother Goose studies are equal.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Arguing everything under the sun, for the sake of argument, can be counter productive. I assume that the non-Christians in here would say that their goal is to 'Wake people up!' Well, keep telling those 'On the fence' Christians that you don't see a difference between Jesus/God studies and Mother Goose studies...and IF they have done a certain level of research rest assured that you're doing a great job to help push them over to the side of Christianity being true. However if they never researched anything (they just read the Bible, or maybe not even that) I will admit that you will score yourself some victories and push some over to your side.

Contrary to this theory of 'The more things that I argue the more things that have to be defended'...actually to the semi educated on the fence Christian it looks like poor analytical skills. And poor analytical skills (ESPECIALLY if they are coming from a person who's known to be intelligent!!) can easily start to be interpreted as 'Wow there really is truth to people being spiritually blind!'

And I say it's counter productive because that can strengthen their faith. I speak from experience. As a teetering half Christian in the past bad arguments did have a tendency to toss me back into the Christian camp. People arguing with me that Jesus didn't exist often would trigger that type of 'They are spiritually blind' reaction in me. They thought I was pulling my hair out because they were hammering me with doubts, when actually I was pulling my hair out that they didn't get it. And again, the more intelligent the person the stronger my 'People are spiritually blind' reaction was. When I had people who I knew were brilliant insisting to me that Jesus was a fictional character it gave me more confidence to write off ALL of their anti-Christian arguments.

I seriously can't tell if this is an argue everything under the sun tactic, or if you really think Jesus studies and Mother Goose studies are equal.

...I think he thinks that theology, along with apologetics and Jesus studies, are nothing more than "a wild goose chase," as they say.

 

[Dirk1540]

...I think he thinks that theology, along with apologetics, are nothing more than "a wild goose chase," as they say (which would include, I guess, 'Jesus studies').

But Mother Goose is literally an open book work of fiction, every single letter to be accounted for in an admitted work of fiction...called equal to ancient documents that have their strengths & weaknesses that need to be studied, contrasted with other ANE accounts, etc. OR, called equal to the philosophical arguments for God. So my point was that this comes across as analytical loonacy to some Christians to call these equal!!

What's that cliche? When 2 people argue both become more locked into their position. Something like that. Now imagine what you do when you argue with a Christian and come across as not even 'Getting' the difference between fairy tale genre and a cosmological argument for God? Think about which direction the non-Christian would be locking them into. That was my point, I do notice this 'Everything under the sun' style of argument a lot and I actually do struggle sometimes to tell if it's genuine or not. I bet that it's somewhere in the middle, sometimes it's a tactic but sometimes it's a real position.

 

[Silmarien]

When I make that accusation, I back it up.

You haven't so far.

Mathematics, for example, is absolutely verifiable despite being a human invention. Theology is a human invention that is not verifiable in any aspect.

Rejecting the law of non-contradiction means that things can be both true and false. Nothing is verifiable.

So let me make sure I understand your position. You seemingly agree that I am reasonable in concluding that the body of facts known to humanity is insufficient to warrant belief in any deity. But then you say here that I must study a philosophy which assumes the existence of a deity as a starting point to know if the philosophy has any merit. This is nonsensical.

Philosophy of religion and theology are two different things.

Philosophy of religion involves arguments for and against the existence of God. It is useful to come to an in depth understanding of the various arguments in their strongest forms before discussing them. To dismiss the whole field of study without looking into it first means that you are basing your beliefs on preconceptions and caricatures.

Theology takes as its starting point that God exists. An agnostic or atheist needn't study it if they are not interested, but they should then avoid serious discussions about doctrine. Writing it off as a waste of time is misguided, as theological thought is part of our intellectual heritage and can have value even for non-believers. Take a look at this piece about Rowan Williams' book about Saint Augustine: What non-believers can learn from St Augustine

If I'm reasonable in concluding that there is insufficient evidence to support belief in the existence of fairies, do I need to read up on fairy lore? Fairy lore would already assume the existence of fairies and argue finer points, like whether they use pixie dust or magic wands. But isn't it silly for me to seriously consider these claims if I haven't yet been convinced of the existence of fairies?

I don't believe that fairy lore exists as a field, so the comparison doesn't work. On the other hand, if you were going to write off studies in, say, Celtic mythology and folklore, simply because you personally are not interested in it, I would take issue with that too. There are historians of ancient religions.

However, please explain to me what a doctorate in theology even means. Explain what falsifiable data is used in the thesis for such a degree.

There was a 1936 Master of Arts thesis called Christian Metaphysics and Neoplatonism. The author was Albert Camus.

Falsifiability is a concept in philosophy of science. It is irrelevant outside of science, and if you can't understand how someone could get a doctorate in, say, English literature, I cannot help you.

Ok. But again, there's nothing factually verifiable in Hindu theology. So we are talking about a PhD in Mother Goose.

You are arbitrarily writing off everything that is not a hard science. Anti-intellectualism at its finest.