Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(Yesterday at 2:25 am)Disagreeable Wrote: Philip Goff's Christianity is the least silly version of Christianity that I have ever heard. Although, it's still very, very silly.
He debates William Lane Craig here:
I don't want to watch a video with William Lane Craig in it, but here's a readable article by Goff:
(Yesterday at 2:25 am)Disagreeable Wrote: Philip Goff's Christianity is the least silly version of Christianity that I have ever heard. Although, it's still very, very silly.
He debates William Lane Craig here:
I don't want to watch a video with William Lane Craig in it, but here's a readable article by Goff:
This seems to lay out his position pretty clearly.
This is a somewhat surprising thread, on two counts, in just two posts... that Disagreeable has something positive to say about Christianity, and that you, Bel, don't seem to like William Lane Craig At least we may have that in common (the latter not the former) if not much else As to that article, it's vaguely interesting to me but also very depressing... how low people will sink in order to hang onto Christianity... even if it involves rewriting the whole story of Christianity... but as with all of these things, these, let's say, more 'abstract' theories of Christianity, they all fall apart when they have to relate to what we actually see and/or what the Bible claims... and this felt no different on that score. So just as classical theism may seem appealing to some in some sort of abstract sense, picking up the actual Bible and reading a few lines of that, throws abstract theories like that out the window, just as this 'Goff' abstract theory of an imperfect god, trying to take credit for what we actually see in science, feels like it's heading towards the same sort of clutching at straws, towards the end of that article, as classical theology theists face when trying to relate that abstractness to what we actually see or what is actually claimed. So yeah, pretty depressing to me to see these sorts of theories... that just show how desperate people can be to hang onto the idea of Christianity being true, at all costs, even if it means rewriting their understanding of it from scratch.
(Yesterday at 9:00 am)emjay Wrote: Bel, don't seem to like William Lane Craig At least we may have that in common (the latter not the former) if not much else
I've never figured out exactly where William Lane Craig fits into the scheme of things. As far as I can tell no serious scholar of religion talks about him at all, yet he's clearly popular with a certain type of Christian.
The only time he drifts across my radar is when he's debating with someone else, and this gives me the impression that he functions just like the team that plays basketball against the Harlem Globetrotters. He exists in order to be beaten.
(Just now to check this I visited Edward Feser's blog. I expect you know: Feser is a very serious and very intelligent guy who writes about theology. And his blog has a good search feature so you can find everything he's written on a given topic. By coincidence his two most recent posts are all about Craig, which is by far the most attention he has paid to him so far. And both of these posts are patient and precise explanations of why he thinks Craig is very wrong. It's amusing, because Feser starts off saying nice things about Craig, but these are the kind of nice things an academic says before he completely dismantles a person.)
Quote:As to that article, it's vaguely interesting to me but also very depressing... how low people will sink in order to hang onto Christianity... even if it involves rewriting the whole story of Christianity... but as with all of these things, these, let's say, more 'abstract' theories of Christianity, they all fall apart when they have to relate to what we actually see and/or what the Bible claims... and this felt no different on that score.
It's interesting to me that you use the Bible as the touchstone for determining what falls apart and what doesn't. I'm sure you know that the Bible has been read in infinitely many different ways over the centuries, and every Christian points to it for support.
I've seen people claim that what you call "abstract" theories of Christianity are modern cope to make things compatible with science, but in fact they are often among the very oldest Christian beliefs. People get mad at me when I point out that ancient writers were more comfortable than we are with non-literal interpretations of things, but it really is true. When Christianity was still young there was a long tradition of reading Neoplatonic interpretations into Homer, for example. Porphyry's explication of Homer's "cave of the nymphs" episode is a famous example. The idea that a spiritual text means one and only one thing -- its surface meaning -- would seem strange to scholars from biblical times, until today.
Good or bad, I think Christianity survives and thrives because people can make of it whatever they will. It's not unusual at all for Goff to look at the parts that seem right to him and reject the rest. I'm not defending his conclusions or saying it's a good way to go about things, but it's certainly a tradition with a long history.
William Blake, to give another example, absolutely believed that the Bible was the word of God and the "Great Code of Art," but also believed that its literal truth was of no importance. And while his contemporaries thought he was odd, he was in fact deeply rooted in a long tradition, which went back through the British Antinomians all the way the earliest Christian mystics.
Quote:So just as classical theism may seem appealing to some in some sort of abstract sense, picking up the actual Bible and reading a few lines of that, throws abstract theories like that out the window, just as this 'Goff' abstract theory of an imperfect god, trying to take credit for what we actually see in science, feels like it's heading towards the same sort of clutching at straws, towards the end of that article, as classical theology theists face when trying to relate that abstractness to what we actually see or what is actually claimed. So yeah, pretty depressing to me to see these sorts of theories... that just show how desperate people can be to hang onto the idea of Christianity being true, at all costs, even if it means rewriting their understanding of it from scratch.
I don't know whether it's fair to say that Goff is desperate. That would be a personal private motivation, and I can't know what he's feeling deep down.
Classical theism is definitely not rooted in desperation.
I haven't given Goff's opinions much thought so far. It may well be that he deserves your criticism, and he is trying hard to hold on to something for emotional reasons that he has no other justification for. It's been done before often enough.
3 hours ago(This post was last modified: 3 hours ago by The Grand Nudger.)
(5 hours ago)Belacqua Wrote: Good or bad, I think Christianity survives and thrives because people can make of it whatever they will. It's not unusual at all for Goff to look at the parts that seem right to him and reject the rest. I'm not defending his conclusions or saying it's a good way to go about things, but it's certainly a tradition with a long history.
This is why any religion sticks around - until it doesn't. It's had a good run for what it is. What new age syncretism tells us, though, is that just as it was in the pre christian and proto christian world, the religions host culture has lost faith and confidence in it's underpinnings. The idea of atonement that came to typify christianty for the last few thousand years was not what "jesus" believed - but an entirely antithetical notion that "paul" believed.
If we're to believe the cultists...it only took about eight years before christians decided that christ was full of shit..and they've not slowed down since. The earliest christians would not call contemporary christians christian, and vv. Soon enough, just as before, they won't call themselves christians anymore. The new elements will have supplanted what little remained of it's original form.
Hell, if we asked sociologists and shitbird preachers...we already live in a post christian world. One of the few things those two groups agree on.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
At least we may have that in common (the latter not the former) if not much else 
