Andrew Radde‐Gallwitz
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- January 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199574117
- eISBN:
- 9780191722110
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574117.003.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies, Theology
The Introduction defines divine simplicity and theological epistemology. The latter is distinguished from religious epistemology, which asks, ‘On what grounds is someone's holding a certain belief ...
More
The Introduction defines divine simplicity and theological epistemology. The latter is distinguished from religious epistemology, which asks, ‘On what grounds is someone's holding a certain belief justified?’ Theological epistemology starts from beliefs about God held by religious people and asks, ‘In what sense does the believer attribute these to God?’ The doctrine of divine simplicity, according to which God's unity precludes a diversity of parts or attributes, raises problems for theological epistemology. Divine simplicity forces theologians to explain how divine attributes are predicated of God without introducing composition, complexity, or, most importantly, contradiction into God. In referring the various scriptural portrayals of God to a simple entity, early Christians attempted to explain how these can be coherent and consistent. Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa are unique in their approach to these ideas. They steer a median course between the identity thesis, according to which God's attributes are identical with God, and radical apophaticism, which says that no attribute can properly be ascribed to God. Basil and Gregory view divine attributes as propria, unique identifying characteristics inherent in the divine nature, but not identical with its essence. Attention is given to Christopher Stead's interpretation of Basil and Gregory.Less
The Introduction defines divine simplicity and theological epistemology. The latter is distinguished from religious epistemology, which asks, ‘On what grounds is someone's holding a certain belief justified?’ Theological epistemology starts from beliefs about God held by religious people and asks, ‘In what sense does the believer attribute these to God?’ The doctrine of divine simplicity, according to which God's unity precludes a diversity of parts or attributes, raises problems for theological epistemology. Divine simplicity forces theologians to explain how divine attributes are predicated of God without introducing composition, complexity, or, most importantly, contradiction into God. In referring the various scriptural portrayals of God to a simple entity, early Christians attempted to explain how these can be coherent and consistent. Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa are unique in their approach to these ideas. They steer a median course between the identity thesis, according to which God's attributes are identical with God, and radical apophaticism, which says that no attribute can properly be ascribed to God. Basil and Gregory view divine attributes as propria, unique identifying characteristics inherent in the divine nature, but not identical with its essence. Attention is given to Christopher Stead's interpretation of Basil and Gregory.
Randal Rauser
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- February 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199214600
- eISBN:
- 9780191706509
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199214600.001.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Theology
The justification of theology within the public square remains a matter of pressing concern. After the dissolution of Christendom, a number of Christian philosophers sought to justify theology ...
More
The justification of theology within the public square remains a matter of pressing concern. After the dissolution of Christendom, a number of Christian philosophers sought to justify theology relative to a foundation of reason (René Descartes, John Locke) or primal experience (Immanuel Kant). While theologians widely accepted these preconditions and so sought to defend theology by appealing to proof and evidence or religious experience, these efforts more often distorted theology. In order to navigate this debate over theological justification one must understand central epistemological concepts, including faith and reason, justification and knowledge, and foundationalist and coherentist theories of noetic structure. Philosophically, the theory of classical foundationalism that has dominated in modernity has crucial, if not quite fatal, weaknesses. Recently many philosophers, like Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnam, have embraced a non‐foundationalist epistemology. While philosophical non‐foundationalism has been appropriated by theologians like Stanley Grenz and Nancey Murphy as a way to ensure theological justification and autonomy, the anti‐realist non‐foundationalist themes are deeply problematic and impact adversely on Grenz's and Murphy's proposals. Bruce Marshall offers another way to appropriate non‐foundationalism that avoids anti‐realism while explaining justification and truth within a Trinitarian framework. Unfortunately, Marshall's theory also faces significant philosophical and theological objections. The failure of non‐foundationalism warrants a return to foundationalism, albeit in the moderate form proposed by Alvin Plantinga. While objections remain, Plantinga's proper‐function foundationalism provides the best account of theological rationality, justification, and knowledge, while grounding theological rigour, prima facie doctrinal conservatism, and the potential for a robust ecumenism.Less
The justification of theology within the public square remains a matter of pressing concern. After the dissolution of Christendom, a number of Christian philosophers sought to justify theology relative to a foundation of reason (René Descartes, John Locke) or primal experience (Immanuel Kant). While theologians widely accepted these preconditions and so sought to defend theology by appealing to proof and evidence or religious experience, these efforts more often distorted theology. In order to navigate this debate over theological justification one must understand central epistemological concepts, including faith and reason, justification and knowledge, and foundationalist and coherentist theories of noetic structure. Philosophically, the theory of classical foundationalism that has dominated in modernity has crucial, if not quite fatal, weaknesses. Recently many philosophers, like Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnam, have embraced a non‐foundationalist epistemology. While philosophical non‐foundationalism has been appropriated by theologians like Stanley Grenz and Nancey Murphy as a way to ensure theological justification and autonomy, the anti‐realist non‐foundationalist themes are deeply problematic and impact adversely on Grenz's and Murphy's proposals. Bruce Marshall offers another way to appropriate non‐foundationalism that avoids anti‐realism while explaining justification and truth within a Trinitarian framework. Unfortunately, Marshall's theory also faces significant philosophical and theological objections. The failure of non‐foundationalism warrants a return to foundationalism, albeit in the moderate form proposed by Alvin Plantinga. While objections remain, Plantinga's proper‐function foundationalism provides the best account of theological rationality, justification, and knowledge, while grounding theological rigour, prima facie doctrinal conservatism, and the potential for a robust ecumenism.
Andrew Radde-Gallwitz
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- January 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199574117
- eISBN:
- 9780191722110
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574117.001.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies, Theology
Divine simplicity is the idea that, as the ultimate principle of the universe, God must be a non‐composite unity not made up of parts or diverse attributes. The idea was appropriated by early ...
More
Divine simplicity is the idea that, as the ultimate principle of the universe, God must be a non‐composite unity not made up of parts or diverse attributes. The idea was appropriated by early Christian theologians from non‐Christian philosophy and played a pivotal role in the development of Christian thought. Andrew Radde‐Gallwitz charts the progress of the idea of divine simplicity from the second through the fourth centuries, with particular attention to Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa, two of the most subtle writers on this topic, both instrumental in the construction of the Trinitarian doctrine proclaimed as orthodox at the Council of Constantinople in 381. He demonstrates that divine simplicity was not a philosophical appendage awkwardly attached to the early Christian doctrine of God, but a notion that enabled Christians to articulate the consistency of God as portrayed in their scriptures. Basil and Gregory offered a unique construal of simplicity in responding to their principal doctrinal opponent, Eunomius of Cyzicus. Challenging accepted interpretations of Cappadocian brothers and the standard account of divine simplicity in recent philosophical literature, Radde‐Gallwitz argues that Basil and Gregory's achievement in transforming ideas inherited from the non‐Christian philosophy of their time has an ongoing relevance for Christian theological epistemology today.Less
Divine simplicity is the idea that, as the ultimate principle of the universe, God must be a non‐composite unity not made up of parts or diverse attributes. The idea was appropriated by early Christian theologians from non‐Christian philosophy and played a pivotal role in the development of Christian thought. Andrew Radde‐Gallwitz charts the progress of the idea of divine simplicity from the second through the fourth centuries, with particular attention to Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa, two of the most subtle writers on this topic, both instrumental in the construction of the Trinitarian doctrine proclaimed as orthodox at the Council of Constantinople in 381. He demonstrates that divine simplicity was not a philosophical appendage awkwardly attached to the early Christian doctrine of God, but a notion that enabled Christians to articulate the consistency of God as portrayed in their scriptures. Basil and Gregory offered a unique construal of simplicity in responding to their principal doctrinal opponent, Eunomius of Cyzicus. Challenging accepted interpretations of Cappadocian brothers and the standard account of divine simplicity in recent philosophical literature, Radde‐Gallwitz argues that Basil and Gregory's achievement in transforming ideas inherited from the non‐Christian philosophy of their time has an ongoing relevance for Christian theological epistemology today.
Randal Rauser
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- May 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199203567
- eISBN:
- 9780191708190
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199203567.003.0004
- Subject:
- Religion, Theology, Philosophy of Religion
This chapter applies recent philosophical analysis on the nature of bullshit to contemporary theology. It begins by outlining two factors that contribute to academic bullshit: careerism and ...
More
This chapter applies recent philosophical analysis on the nature of bullshit to contemporary theology. It begins by outlining two factors that contribute to academic bullshit: careerism and theological scepticism. Next, it outlines the major types of bullshit that arise from scepticism, including intention-based and product-based bullshit. Finally, it applies this analysis to recent theology: here it is argued that Sallie McFague's view of theology as persuasive metaphor is an example of intention-based bullshit while Jürgen Moltmann's view of theology as perpetual conversation is a type of product-based bullshit. Both views signal the devolution of theology from knowledge discourse into a perpetual bull session.Less
This chapter applies recent philosophical analysis on the nature of bullshit to contemporary theology. It begins by outlining two factors that contribute to academic bullshit: careerism and theological scepticism. Next, it outlines the major types of bullshit that arise from scepticism, including intention-based and product-based bullshit. Finally, it applies this analysis to recent theology: here it is argued that Sallie McFague's view of theology as persuasive metaphor is an example of intention-based bullshit while Jürgen Moltmann's view of theology as perpetual conversation is a type of product-based bullshit. Both views signal the devolution of theology from knowledge discourse into a perpetual bull session.
Murray A. Rae
- Published in print:
- 1997
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198269403
- eISBN:
- 9780191683633
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198269403.001.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Theology
This book is a study of Søren Kierkegaard's elucidation of the condition by which the Truth may be learned. Like Kierkegaard's pseudonym, Johannes Climacus, we are concerned in particular with that ...
More
This book is a study of Søren Kierkegaard's elucidation of the condition by which the Truth may be learned. Like Kierkegaard's pseudonym, Johannes Climacus, we are concerned in particular with that Truth which concerns us ultimately and which is confessed by Christians to be disclosed in Jesus Christ. Called faith by Climacus in Philosophical Fragments, this condition is characterized by a transformation of the individual under the impact of revelation and is received as a gift from God rather than attained through human resourcefulness. The epistemological ramifications of this transformation are explored both in terms of the New Testament concept of metanoia and in comparison with claims to cognitive progress in other fields. This book concludes that the account of Christian conversion given by Climacus in Philosophical Fragments and approved by Kierkegaard in his acknowledged works is a faithful elucidation of the concept of metanoia and remains a pertinent challenge to the persistent attempts of moderns and post-moderns alike who propose to learn the Truth on quite different terms. The book thus seeks to develop a new interpretation of Kierkegaard and to challenge some widely followed theological epistemologies.Less
This book is a study of Søren Kierkegaard's elucidation of the condition by which the Truth may be learned. Like Kierkegaard's pseudonym, Johannes Climacus, we are concerned in particular with that Truth which concerns us ultimately and which is confessed by Christians to be disclosed in Jesus Christ. Called faith by Climacus in Philosophical Fragments, this condition is characterized by a transformation of the individual under the impact of revelation and is received as a gift from God rather than attained through human resourcefulness. The epistemological ramifications of this transformation are explored both in terms of the New Testament concept of metanoia and in comparison with claims to cognitive progress in other fields. This book concludes that the account of Christian conversion given by Climacus in Philosophical Fragments and approved by Kierkegaard in his acknowledged works is a faithful elucidation of the concept of metanoia and remains a pertinent challenge to the persistent attempts of moderns and post-moderns alike who propose to learn the Truth on quite different terms. The book thus seeks to develop a new interpretation of Kierkegaard and to challenge some widely followed theological epistemologies.