|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 6, 2011 6:06:00 GMT
Keith Parsons says “I have to confess that I now regard “the case for theism” as a fraud and I can no longer take it seriously enough to present it to a class as a respectable philosophical position—no more than I could present intelligent design as a legitimate biological theory.” www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/3853/a_philosopher_of_religion_calls_it_quits/If Swinburne, Plantinga and lightweights like C S Lewis and William Lane Craig are found wanting while trying to put the case for theism. Isn't the Philosophy of Religion becoming Theology and/or Apologetics?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2011 13:28:01 GMT
Keith Parsons says “I have to confess that I now regard “the case for theism” as a fraud and I can no longer take it seriously enough to present it to a class as a respectable philosophical position—no more than I could present intelligent design as a legitimate biological theory.” Parsons is a minor philosopher who spends most of his time around the Secular Web and joins hand with Carrier and his ilk. His remark carries no more weight than if Barker has said it. Evidence? Did you read any of them, especially the first two? What's wrong with theology and Christian apologetics?
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jan 6, 2011 15:54:36 GMT
That's pretty hilarious. It would be like me suddenly becoming a professor of Freudian psychology, publishing articles on it for 20 years and then resigning, claiming that the entire field is bunkum and should no longer be studied. On the one hand it's quite an entertaining publicity stunt but it's also an awesome display of intellectual arrogance.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jan 6, 2011 15:55:59 GMT
I don't know why philosophy of religion would become theology or apologetics. Of course it is useful for a theologian or apologist to be sufficiently versed in the philosophical background (and theological education tends to have an introductory course in philosophy of religion), but mind that theology is an interdisciplinary subject of religious studies and exegesis and cannot fully encompass philosophy of religion without a change of its character. Philosophy of religion is after all very clearly a part of philosophy if you look at the method.
Apologetics will use philosophy, at least if it is the kind that is more erudite than the common straw man of apologetics on New Atheist sites, but there are also different approaches to apologetics, just look at John Lennox and John Polkinghorne who practice apologetics from their experience from their scientific background (in addition to an interest in philosophy), while other apologists might be more interested in taking a cultural angle.
|
|
|
Post by noons on Jan 8, 2011 0:00:10 GMT
Well, having read the article, cross checking a few things, and reading the original blog post, I can't see what the issue is. The article made it seem like Parsons is a philosopher of religion and a theist, who founded a prominent philosophy of religion journal, and now admits that he has no intellectual justification for his theism.
To the contrary, he was an atheist the whole time, and the journal he founded, Philo, has always had an explicitly naturalist perspective, and is published by the Center for Inquiry.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Jan 8, 2011 4:35:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Jan 8, 2011 4:52:54 GMT
Isn't all philosophy like that?
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Jan 8, 2011 16:20:26 GMT
I think so. The problem is, though, with respect to religion, philosophy is an enabler.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2011 17:27:51 GMT
I don't know why philosophy of religion would become theology or apologetics. When the author of this post asked this question, he meant it in a pejorative sense, implying theology and apologetics are utter rubbish and that philosophy of religion is coming closely to them in terms of quality and value.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 10, 2011 22:03:59 GMT
Hi all. Thanks for replying.
I must admit I have a love/hate relationship with philosophy, one the one hand I agree with Cicero. On the other I always read what Dennent, Grayling and Sam Harris(?) have to say. I thought this part of the forum was being sadly neglected.
Parsons would probably agree with you about him being a minor figure as he himself said he thought his announcement would get a few replies so why is their a big debate about his resignation going on in the blog-o-sphere. I just relocated it to here.
Metko, you are mostly right though I would cut theology some slack when it involves the history of religion and how the scriptures came about. Though the rest, Assume the premise (god exist) and make stuff up (this is what god thinks.)
I have read some Swinbume and he left such an impression on me that I can't remember anything he wrote. Plantinga Well the ontological argument what can I say, humans can now define a supreme being into existence OK as long as he's perfect and lets face it all the gods invented by man are anything but. C S Lewis, well he wrote fantasy tales so the Bible would have been right down his street. Though the Eagle and child in Oxford is an awesome pub so I'll give him that.
William Lane Craig, if this is what passes for a Phd in philosophy I weep. The man's a joke, an example of Dunning & Kruger par excellence. I admit I haven't given any evidence so feel free to print some of their awesomeness and I will show you how confuse these people are.
Apologetics is what it says on the tin, It's mostly apologizing for the fact that there is no evidence for god but hay lets believe anyway because it makes people who are scared of their own mortality warm and fuzzy inside.. Yes I'm aware of the etymology of the word but it does kind of sum it up.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Jan 11, 2011 2:03:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 11, 2011 4:44:31 GMT
Well if you're ever in Oxford try the home made pies they're delicious, Getting more and more impressed with Bart Ehrman whenever I hear about him.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 11, 2011 8:18:28 GMT
Hi all. Thanks for replying. I must admit I have a love/hate relationship with philosophy, one the one hand I agree with Cicero. On the other I always read what Dennent, Grayling and Sam Harris(?) have to say. I thought this part of the forum was being sadly neglected. Not quite sure what to make of this as D/G/H haven't excactly published much professional philosophy (as opposed to popular polemics)? Or you can perhaps point me to some (preferable peer reviewed) work by them in analytical philosophy? I have read some Swinbume and he left such an impression on me that I can't remember anything he wrote. Plantinga Well the ontological argument what can I say, humans can now define a supreme being into existence OK as long as he's perfect and lets face it all the gods invented by man are anything but. C S Lewis, well he wrote fantasy tales so the Bible would have been right down his street. Though the Eagle and child in Oxford is an awesome pub so I'll give him that. Can't quite see any arguments here? If you want your position to be taken seriously you have to show less ignorance ("can't remember" etc.) and more familiarity with any person or debate you comment on. William Lane Craig, if this is what passes for a Phd in philosophy I weep. The man's a joke, an example of Dunning & Kruger par excellence. I admit I haven't given any evidence so feel free to print some of their awesomeness and I will show you how confuse these people are. Indeed, you have provided no evidence. Until you actually have read his doctoral thesis or any of his books, I think it would be wise of you to remain silent on the subject of who's a joke.
|
|
|
Post by jim_s on Jan 11, 2011 9:57:29 GMT
Sorry folks, Craig is an excellent philosopher. As evidence I point to the fact that he has been published extensively in numerous journals and by academic publishers which require very high standards and peer review. This doesn't mean that he's right: plenty of the great philosophers are dead wrong. But if you think he doesn't really count as a philosopher because he disagrees with you, you're asking people not to take you seriously.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jan 11, 2011 12:44:02 GMT
C S Lewis, well he wrote fantasy tales so the Bible would have been right down his street. Though the Eagle and child in Oxford is an awesome pub so I'll give him that. That does look like my kind of pub - but not as good as 'Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem' in Nottingham. There was a really eccentric one in London I used to go to occasionally but I've forgotten the name of it already. It was near 'Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese' and it had a cat called Thomas Paine (EDIT - found it - it's called The Seven Stars).
|
|