From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Dec 07 2004 - 06:26:25 GMT
Thank you, Sam --
I see that Denys Turner is a Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, so my
interest in his advice to "fallen Christians" is not a primary concern.
Forgive me if this sounds like arrogance on my part--I've been accused of
that--but your suggestion seems like another instance of requiring a
"position statement" in advance of the message. I deliberately steered away
from religious beliefs in my thesis which, after all, isn't about religion.
If the reader is more comfortable in the assumption that I'm preaching
religion under the guise of philosophy, that's his perogative; but he's
going to be disappointed. The philosophy of Essence is no more, no less
than I've laid out in my thesis. I've included some supportive ideas from
theists, of course, but the foundation of Essentialism doesn't rest on
theology. I wanted to introduce it in a manner that would have equal appeal
to agnostics, atheists, Judeo-Christians, philosophers and scientists alike,
and I think I've been equally critical of all these factions. If compelled
to put a label on Essentialism, I suppose I could classify it as a
'non-theistic, anthropocentric value theory'.
Besides, I don't see the idea "that 'theism' must be rejected, and so,
therefore, must Christianity" is at all pivotal to the present discussion on
Morality. Certainly I'm not defending Christianity here. For some unknown
reason you seem to willing to extend the traditional notion of Christianity
in order to include me. Thanks, but the fact that I don't feel it necessary
to "condemn" religion doesn't mean I'm advocating it.
You quote Turner as saying:
> ...since today my purpose is to encourage the atheists to
> engage in some more cogent and comprehensive levels of denying, I shall
limit my comment to saying
> that thus far they lag well behind even the _theologically_ necessary
levels of negation, which is
> why their atheisms are generally lacking in theological interest... such
atheists are, as it were,
> but theologians in an arrested condition of denial: in the sense in which
atheists of this sort say
> God 'does not exist', the atheist has merely arrived at the theological
starting-point.
Do you really think I'm an erstwhile atheist turned would-be theologian "in
an arrested condition of denial"? Now there's a personality disorder that
would give even Freud the jeebies! No, can't say that I was ever an
atheist, but will admit that I've gone through the whole Protestant mythos,
including baptism, church every Sunday, Luther League -- even an early study
of Jehovah's Witness literature. (Incidentally, those Watchtower people know
their Bible as well as you folks know Lila--and quote it almost as much!)
> From an initial reading of your website, and taking some notice of your
varied comments in the
> forum, it seems pretty clear to me that what you're arguing for fits quite
happily into the
> onto-theological tradition.
It's gratifying to know that I "fit happily" somewhere, but
"onto-theological" is a new label for me. Does the prefix relate to
'ontological' by any chance?
> Are you familiar with Jean-Luc Marion's "God without Being"? If you're
> interested, I could point you in the direction of where these issues are
currently being discussed
> within academic theological circles.
Hmmmn . . . intriguing. I still say I don't belong in theological
circles -- especially in academia. But, yes, point me to the source and
I'll try to follow it up.
Thanks for checking out my website, Sam, but do be careful with those
presumptions. ;-)
Essentially yours,
Ham
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 07 2004 - 06:29:29 GMT