Last time I sketched out the broad, old, deep case for the Christian God being a being. This time, I want to explain where and why I get off the Thomist metaphysical bus before it reaches its destination. The Thomist project looks something like this. (I know this is oversimplified; I don’t think it matters for the subjects before us though. Correct me in the… Read More »why I am not a Thomist 2 – the possibility of a non-simple Source
Our friend Dr. Ed Feser has got himself worked up into full drunken polemicist mode. I earn ridicule and ire normally reserved for Dawkins types. Evidently I touched a nerve by pointing out that most (analytic) philosophers now – reflecting a fairly wide consensus since early modern times – think of God as the greatest being there is or could be, and not as “Being… Read More »why I’m not a Thomist 1 – the Christian tradition that God is a Being
Philosopher Ed Feser thinks my comments about God (here and here) are ridiculous. So, he breaks out his rhetorical brass knuckles, and tries to knock some sense into me. Feser may suspect that I’m trolling, simply dishing out accusation of “atheism” just to get a rise out of people, or to get attention, or just for the joy of annoying others. But I’m afraid the… Read More »Passing Feser’s Laugh Test
At his blogs Ben Nasmith has been writing so very good posts weighing trinitarian vs. unitarian theologies, and in particular thinking about Richard Bauckham and Samuel Clarke. In Monotheism and the unitarian-trinitarian dilemma he concludes, I think rightly: to answer this question we need a clear understanding of the monotheism of the Bible. That links to a post at his other blog, THE “HERESY OF CLARITY” –… Read More »Ben Nasmith on ancient Jewish monotheism
0.75x 1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 0:0000:30:28 podcast 16 – How is Jesus “the one Lord”? Apple PodcastsGoogle PodcastsPlayer EmbedShare Leave a ReviewListen in a New WindowDownloadSoundCloudStitcherSubscribe on AndroidSubscribe via RSSSpotify Paul calls Jesus “the one Lord.” What does this mean? In episode 15, we saw why we can’t take Paul to mean that Jesus is Yahweh himself. In this episode, we see what, according to… Read More »podcast 16 – How is Jesus “the one Lord”?
0.75x 1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 0:0000:22:02 podcast 15 – Are Paul’s “one God” and “one Lord” one and the same? Apple PodcastsGoogle PodcastsPlayer EmbedShare Leave a ReviewListen in a New WindowDownloadSoundCloudStitcherSubscribe on AndroidSubscribe via RSSSpotify In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul says, …yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ,… Read More »podcast 15 – Are Paul’s “one God” and “one Lord” one and the same?
Daniel Calder surveys the Top 7 weirdest Christian theologians. Of these, how many are atheists? Consider, for example, John Scotus Eriugena (c.800 – c.877). The author gives an encyclopedia quote which rings true to me. In general, the system of thought just outlined is a combination of neo-Platonic mysticism, emanationism, and pantheism which Eriugena strove in vain to reconcile with Aristotelean empiricism, Christian creationism, and theism.… Read More »7 Weird Theologians
Dr. James McGrath has responded to my post on belief in “God” where this amounts to an ineffable Ultimate – which, I claimed, is a variety of atheism. He seems to think that thinking that God resembles humans to any degree or in any way counts as “anthropomorphism.” I think that’s a goofy use of the term, but why quibble about words? So, in James’s… Read More »more thoughts on “God,” atheism, and panentheism
Not “inconceivable” – but rather, “God.” Check out this interesting post, The Dread God Roberts, at our friend Dr. James McGrath’s blog Exploring Our Matrix. (Which amazingly, just had its 10th birthday. He was blogging way before it was cool.) Dr. McGrath describes himself as a Progressive Christian. I commented over there, and he’s replied. The part of his post that got me going was this. Tillich’s… Read More »Atheistic belief in “God”
Suppose you want to really study my entry “Trinity“ in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If you’re like me, when you want to really read something, you’ll print it out (and then proceed to destroy it with a pencil and a highlighter). And if you do print it all out, it’ll make your printer burst out in tears. The whole thing, with supplementary discussions, comes… Read More »“Trinity” in paperback form
At one point in our discussion, I said, “Well, it seems logical that if Jesus was fully human, then He had to learn.” Their response was, “I don’t use logic. I just use Scripture.” I just about broke out laughing. It seemed pretty obvious to me that logic was not being used. Ha! One guy also kept saying, “I don’t speculate about Scripture. I just believe what it says.”
Oh, “logic” (really, human reasoning ability) was being used… just not well! 😉
In any case, he answers the question of the post affirmatively.
I agree with Jeremy that according to the New Testament, Jesus learned. Any theory about Jesus must incorporate this fact. And while he was doing that, there were truths he did not know.
But that gives rise to this argument:
God is eternally omniscient.
Necessarily, a omniscient being knows all truths; there is at no time a truth that an omniscient being (who exists at that time) does not know.
Somehow I missed this when it came out back in July. Our friend the Tentative Apologist Randal Rauser has a podcast (itunes) now, and he’s done a substantial, no-bs interview of leading Reformed analytic theologian Oliver Crisp, of Fuller Seminary. Listen to it at Randal’s blog here. Crisp does a good job presenting and giving a basic defense of the coherence of the traditional catholic… Read More »analytic theologian Oliver Crisp on the coherence of Incarnation
Like most Christian philosophers, I think David Hume (1711-76) was brilliant, but mistaken about most of the important religious topics he wrote on. Though he says some silly things earlier in the chapter, I could not help but be impressed by this powerful blast of rhetoric from chapter 11 of Hume’s Natural History of Religion (1757). He speaks with all the bitterness and bile of an Enlightenment philosopher raised in a human-reason-hating form of Calvinist Christianity. In the end it is just rhetoric; I don’t see any interesting argument here against mysterians.
But I do agree with Hume that humans have an appetite for “mysteries” – be they apparent contradictions or simply very unclear but profound-sounding claims. I’ve commented on this, I think, as far back as 2003, before reading Hume on this. Philosophical faults aside, he is always an insightful observer of human nature and human history.
I’ve added some emphases and explanations in brackets and a link below. Full text is here.
But [in contrast to polytheistic traditions,] where theism forms the fundamental principle of any popular religion, that tenet is so conformable to sound reason, that philosophy is apt to incorporate itself with such a system of theology. And if the other dogmas of that system be contained in a sacred book, such as the Alcoran [the Qur’an], or be determined by any visible authority, like that of the Roman pontif, speculative reasoners naturally carry on their assent, and embrace a theory which has been instilled into them by their earliest education, and which also possesses some degree of consistence and uniformity. But as these appearances are sure, all of them, to prove deceitful, philosophy will soon find herself very unequally yokedRead More »David Hume vs. Mysterians
0.75x 1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 0:0000:29:07 podcast 10 – Dr. Scott Williams on “Latin” Trinity Theories Apple PodcastsGoogle PodcastsPlayer EmbedShare Leave a ReviewListen in a New WindowDownloadSoundCloudStitcherSubscribe on AndroidSubscribe via RSSSpotify This week, an interview with Dr. Scott Williams, an analytic theologian, trained by some of the best out there, who loves to tackle those hard to read medieval philosopher-theologians like John Duns Scotus, Thomas… Read More »podcast 10 – Dr. Scott Williams on “Latin” Trinity Theories
My “On Baukham’s Bargain” has drawn a response from my biggest fan, the Reformed brawler Steve Hays. I reply in the comments there.
Given how many evangelicals have jumped on the Bauckham Bandwagon, I hope that it’ll get some serious discussion in the journals or elsewhere.
Here’s my first reply to his post:
Steve, it’s odd to spend so many words sniping at my summary of what Bauckham holds forth as advantages of his theory. e.g. After the seventh point (of Bauckham’s!) you object, “That’s a diversionary tactic.” Is that an objection to Bauckham?
Read all the way through, then think, and then, finally start objecting.
About the “fatal concession”, I’m afraid you’re mistaken. The time-explicit version of the indiscernibility of identicals is all I need to make the point.Read More »My diabolical “ruse” exposed – drat!
This was updated last two Fridays ago. I put a lot of work into this revision. I’ll do a podcast some time discussing some of the changes and additions. Most changes were to the main entry, rather than to the Supplementary Documents. I hope that people find it useful. I owe a special thanks to Brian Leftow, who patiently helped me to avoid some serious… Read More »update to “Trinity” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
0.75x 1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 0:0000:15:44 podcast 5 – Anglicans Defending “Athanasius” Apple PodcastsGoogle PodcastsPlayer EmbedShare Leave a ReviewListen in a New WindowDownloadSoundCloudStitcherSubscribe on AndroidSubscribe via RSSSpotify This time, an answer to Nye by Anglican minister and writer William Sherlock (c. 1641 – 1707 – pictured to the left). He offers a unique, but to us surprisingly contemporary rational reconstruction of the claims in the… Read More »podcast 5 – Anglicans Defending “Athanasius”
