This is only true in “Calvinistic” style interpretations of Christianity I think.

This is only true in “Calvinistic” style interpretations of Christianity I think.

Modern atheism only has defenses against Calvinist type Christianity. It cannot answer Eastern Orthodox or the Protestant lines (Methodist, etc) that did *not* follow Calvin’s line. I’m not sure about Roman Catholic. I also don’t know if it answers forms of Judaism or forms of Islam either.

===

That’s only true when prepositional Logic is an absolute requirement. Calvinism made that error, likely, as Richard mentions, due to the influence of Scholasticism.

===

I consider myself agnostic for convenience but having gone through Orthodoxy for 6 yrs in my late 20s, their theology really *is* doing it right. Palamas’ expounding on essence vs energies is the “it” explanation that ties it all together.

In protestantism context – That’s the flawed road Calvinism went down to unfortunate perfection, leading right into modern atheism with the ease of a logical preposition.

The Arminian road (and others), when you chop the top off you get humanism rather than atheism.

===

Philosophy won’t get you religion. Do some history of religious thought study. It can be hard to find unbiased so just do what you can with the biased sources there are.

===

Wikipedia’s ok. What I like to do is read complaints each religion has about each other. They ALL exaggerate the flaws of the others, which is fun, and in the mix of it all, you can get a feel for things.

===

I don’t know anything about Anselm, Hick or Barth. I know a tiny bit of Dostoevsky, and only a little of Augustine and Aquinas. Locke to me was a political thinker mostly I think, central to American secularism I think.

===

I wonder if those thinkers were picked because they were compatible with standard philosophical dialectic? [shoot me for even using that word]…

===

I think modern philosophy classes spoon feed only certain religious thinkers that are compatible with standard philosophical dialectic, giving the appearance of being now educated in all Abrahamic religions, but in reality is just a narrow slice of the richness of diversity within theology.

For modern philosophy, the universe must first be null. Next, logic. From logic. all follows.

The religious thinkers taught will conform to that. But there are religious thinkers who start from an entirely different footing and lead to much different consequences.

===

What I mean is that philosophy courses in the West seem to focus on a subset of Protestant Christianity when it speaks on religion at all, as if that corresponds not only to all Christians but also to all Jewish and Muslim religious people. Some who go through these philosophy courses of study even believe they now understand all of every religion, based only on the small sample they were taught.

I know philosophy isn’t theology, nor is it comparative religion class, but still, it seems there is a flaw in what is taught.

===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− one = 3

Leave a Reply