Do Christian Parents Abuse their Children?

[shadow]

Neo-Scholastic<snipped for focus>

I agree completely. Dawkins has a very good reputation as a biologist but he is a very poor theologian and/or philosopher.

Biologists generally aren’t inclined to study theology. The reasons why should be pretty obvious.

...Alvin Plantinga...

Is this the argument from sophisticated theology I smell?

Do this: Knowledge of God
Download and open it in whatever PDF reader you use. Now with the sidebar open, scroll up and down till you get fed up, then click a random page.
Do you understand it, can you even read it?
Do it again, scroll up or down and click a page.
Do you understand it, can you even read it?

Welcome to the seriously fucked up world of theology, sophisticated or otherwise.
<Snip>

So one way to argue that proper function can be accommodated by
naturalism is to give an analysis of proper function in terms of properties that
are naturalistically acceptable. To give an analysis of a concept or property
(or relation), furthermore, is at least to give necessary and sufficient conditions
for it. 26 Suppose P is the property in question: to give an analysis of P is first of
all to suggest some other (possibly complex) property Q, such that it is neces-
sary in the broadly logical sense that a thing has that property P if it has the
property Q, and necessary that it has P only if it has Q. That is, the analyzans
(the analysis) must be necessary and sufficient for the analyzandum (the prop-
erty or relation to be analyzed). Consider, for example, the traditional analysis
of knowledge as justified true belief:

I swear on my eyes I chose that page at random.
Now tell me, how many Christians 'are' Christians due to reading Alvin Plantinga? As opposed to being Christians via having the silver chain yoked around their necks at four years old?

Analyzandum? Jesus glue sniffing Christ.

So I think that paragraph is saying that an analysis has to be as complex as its subject. Which is kind of obvious and I have no idea why it's phrased like this aside from trying to lose readers so that it can claim anyone who doesn't agree is just to stupid to understand.