In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.
If this transfer of goods from the ivory tower to the pew continues (and it shows every sign of gathering momentum rather than abating), then the next major revival of evangelical Christianity, as strange as it may sound, may well come through the intellectual re-engagement of the church, as her people discover sound arguments for Christian faith and answers to the objections lodged against it -- and so, strengthened by the conviction that Christianity is not just "true for them" but objectively true for all, become emboldened, winsome, and intelligent witnesses for Christ in a decaying culture.
And I see this as well. There is a small but growing surge of intellectual Christians that is able to eloquently defend Christianity. Right now though, it's primarily through the areas of philosophy and theology. But, I see it growing into the area of science as well.
In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.
If this transfer of goods from the ivory tower to the pew continues (and it shows every sign of gathering momentum rather than abating), then the next major revival of evangelical Christianity, as strange as it may sound, may well come through the intellectual re-engagement of the church, as her people discover sound arguments for Christian faith and answers to the objections lodged against it -- and so, strengthened by the conviction that Christianity is not just "true for them" but objectively true for all, become emboldened, winsome, and intelligent witnesses for Christ in a decaying culture.
And I see this as well. There is a small but growing surge of intellectual Christians that is able to eloquently defend Christianity. Right now though, it's primarily through the areas of philosophy and theology. But, I see it growing into the area of science as well.
I think this is partly due to the dying of fundamentalism.
People are aware now more than ever that you can believe in God and understand and appreciate the teachings of Jesus without being a bible thumping maniac that screams from a pulpit.
Also, acceptance of scientific findings and allowing them to meld with God's creation and the mechanisms He used/uses has been a helpful step. No doubt theists today are more tolerant and liberal, allowing others to see a different perspective of God and what acknowledging Him can be.
I have all the hope in the world that science and belief will be seen to work together, as intended.
But not in the area of apologetics that seek to confirm premodern understandings by applying a modern intellectual gloss to shopworn notions; I don't think we can get the old time religion back, nor should we. I always find that approach wanting, unable to stand up to scrutiny, and I predict that if this is the wave of the present it will fade. I find Williiam Lane Craig to be an example of this, as well as other scholars in fields outside of theology who are out of their depth. And Plantinga is fighting a rear guard action, and unimpressively.
Having said that, any thinker who takes modernity or postmodernity seriously, finds new ways to articluate and reappropriate religious ideas, and successfully points out the flaws, arrogance and fundamentalism found in scientism, rationalism, positivism, secular-meassianism, and reductionism, making room for true spiritual transformation will find a BIG fan in me. In my own flawed way I try to do that. Imagine my surprise to find more reasonable and informed voices on the non-theistic side and getting little traction on the christian side since coming here. That speaks volumes.
God, send us geniuses that are at neither extreme. Wait, the mainstream div schools are full of them!
FWIW, after reviewing centuries of attempts, I found a satisfying reponse to Hume, Russell, and the Vienna Circle positivists in the persons of Wittgenstein and his theistic followers and commentators (from Norman Malcom to DZ Phillips). I'm sure there are others. I also find Buddhist epistomology (see a book called A History of Buddhist Philosophy; I forget the author's name, he's at the University of Hawaii) to be very amenable in this regard. 2500 years ago those buddhists got past much of what has kept the west in knots in the modern era. Great reading for any modern Christian. And Karen Armstrong's new book, a case for God, does a MARVELLOUS job of summariizing new strategies for faith that overcome both religious and atheistic fundamentalisms. It's a great book; she writes beautifully about the virtues of the religious life in the last chapter.
Analogy: If to save the patient (i.e. religion, sp. Christianity), we need to cut out the diseased organ (i.e. premodern, literalist, magical thinking and stale hidebound understandings of orthodoxy) then I think we should be willing to perform that surgery, live with the new body (pun intended...HEY, maybe I should write a book with that title!) and maintain faith that all will be well. Is the spirit of God not alive and always present?
To be honest and inclusive, while it's not my cup of tea, anyone interested in this topic should check out theological post liberalism and paleo-orthodoxy. I say yuck, but others might like it. It's well worth a close look. Lastly, if you really really want to fry your brain, read Christophany by Riamon Pannikar (then PM me and explain it to me because it taxed me beyond my abilities to comprehend); he's a real deal Christian who has done amazing work. I refuse to die without first grasping what he is saying. More work ahead.
Last edited by Slopeshoulder on Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Slopeshoulder wrote:I'm all for intellectual christianity!!!
But not in the area of apologetics that seek to confirm premodern understandings by applying a modern intellectual gloss to shopworn notions; I don't think we can get the old time religion back, nor should we. I always find that approach wanting, unable to stand up to scrutiny, and I predict that if this is the wave of the present it will fade. I find Williiam Lane Craig to be an example of this, as well as other scholars in fields outside of theology who are out of their depth.
Having said that, any thinker who takes modernity or postmodernity seriously, finds new ways to articluate and reappropritae religious ideas, and successfully points out the flaws, arrogance and fundamentalism found in scientism, rationalism, positivism, secular-meassianism, and reductionism, making room for true spiritual transformation will find a BIG fan in me. In my own flawed way I try to do that. Imagine my surprise to find more reasonable and informed voices on the non-theistic side and little traction on the christian side since coming here. That speaks volumes.
God, send us geniuses that are at neither extreme.
FWIW, after reviewing centuries of attempts, I found a satisfying reponse to Hume, Russell, and the Vienna Circle positivists in the persons of Wittgenstein and his theistic followers and commentators (from Norman Malcom to DZ Phillips). I'm sure there are others. I also find Buddhist epistomology (see a book called A History of Buddhist Philosophy; I forget the author's name, he's at the University of Hawaii) to be very amenable in this regard. 2500 years ago those buddhists got past much of what has kept the west in knots in the modern era. Great reading for any modern Christian. And Karen Armstrong's new book, a case for God, does a MARVELLOUS job of summariizing new strategies for faith that overcome both religious and atheistic fundamentalisms. It's a great book; she writes beautifully about the virtues of the religious life in the last chapter.
Analogy: If to save the patient (i.e. religion, sp. Christianity), we need to cut out the diseased organ (i.e. premodern, literalist, magical thinking and stale hidebound understandings of orthodoxy) then I think we should be willing to perform that surgery, live with the new body (pun intended...HEY, maybe I should write a book with that title!) and maintain faith that all will be well. Is the spirit of God not alive and always present?
Love me some Karen Armstrong -there's your genious!!
PS - I like the analogy & agree. Moving forward is the only way. Clearly, God made us to evolve...let's do it gracefully. (Unlike the way I am moving thru my 40s) :2gun:
FWIW, I just found an Pannikar explanation (funny, it wasn't here before...and posted on 3/12, my birthday...hmm...)! Check this out. And remember, this guy is in good standing, highly respected, never disciplined or silenced. This is GREAT stuff. http://www.contemplative.org/christophany_overview.pdf
Forget WLC. Anyone who really gets this stuff will give my good buddy Zyzzx a run for it. Ya hear Z, they're coming for ya!
(Ironically, Z would like that and probably discuss not debate).
otseng wrote:And I see this as well. There is a small but growing surge of intellectual Christians that is able to eloquently defend Christianity. Right now though, it's primarily through the areas of philosophy and theology. But, I see it growing into the area of science as well.
I have sensed the same trend, and think that we should be a little grateful for the New Atheists on this point. They have definitely helped to bring religion back into the public discussion, and taking David Hart as an example, this has served as a sign to many that arguments on all sides are lacking in intellectual rigor.
I personally believe that, if we can engage atheists respectfully, thoughtfully, and compassionately (particularly in those moments in which it is tempting not to do so), this trend will continue to pick-up momentum.
We must continually ask ourselves whether victory has become more central to our goals than truth.
