Why not, since the "one and only God" is one and only in the sense that He is thought to be in all things or all things are thought to be in Him. Zeus is a relatively minor deity compared to this. The claim is never that Zeus is all things, or that he is in all things or that all things are in him; Zeus is more like a human personality with all its foibles writ large. In Christianity there are Archangels and Angels, and they are minor deities of sorts, deities at least compared to human beings, so there is no reason to say that the monotheistic idea of.God logically excludes the possibility of lesser deities.

Alvin Plantinga is a theistic personalist, not a classical theist. — darthbarracuda

I'm beginning to think you have such a stringent notion of "classical theist" that only a very select few can qualify as one. If that's the case, then one can hardly complain if classical theism flies under the New Atheists' radar.

In any case these books by those pop-science superstars are not very well accepted in the philosophical community at large. Krauss's "nothing" is actually "something", despite his pretentious douchebaggery.

Well, the existence of God is also not widely accepted among the philosophical community. What of it? (And plenty of philosophers are pretentious douchebags: so, of this ad hom, I would also ask what of it?)

Hitchens and Harris attack straw-men. None of them seem capable, or willing, to understand religious belief, or theist belief for that matter. It's just a publicity stunt.

Nonsense. Again, simply because they attack beliefs which you don't hold, and which you consider to be shallow or puerile, it doesn't follow that they attack(ed) straw men. They may not attack your notion of theism, but that is a complaint about their interests, priorities, or agenda; it says nothing about the content of their arguments, which is what you purport to do when you claim that they strawman their opponents. Attacking beliefs which people around the world adhere to (as you yourself said) is not strawmanning.

But this is misunderstanding the argument. The argument is that God is simple, out of necessity. Complexity does not explain complexity. Indeed, if there was a person who designed the universe as it is, then it would also need an explanation. But this doesn't lead to atheism immediately; it merely pushes the explanation back more. It's a caricature to see the classical theistic God as akin to a mega-human with a personality, likes and dislikes, etc. God is theorized out of necessity, a byproduct of the PSR and a certain view of causality.

Reject the PSR and you're left with an irrational universe. We can bite this bullet, for sure. But if we don't bite this bullet, then God becomes a plausible explanation for why things exist. — darthbarracuda

But I am not arguing that there is no God.

The argument I am addressing is simply Dawkins' challenge to the theist assertion that complexity entails a designer. Whether jesuitical contortionists want to characterize their God as Simple or complex is irrelevant here. The intentions, understanding, and capabilities of an entity capable of intending, understanding, and implementing its design of the universe surely are far more complex than the complexity apprehended by the theists, and on which they base their claim that complexity entails a designer. Thus either an infinite regress of designers of designers, or the complexity does not entail a designer. Thus, the theist assertion that complexity entails a designer fails.

I was responding to the claim that it was a caricature of religious belief to describe God as having personality characteristics. This feature obtains whether one is considering the OT or the NT — Arkady

True, but not everyone that describes God through personal terms is therefore suggesting that God is actually representative of those terms. Using the terminology that God is thoughtful, or is a male, are simply ways in which, mystics in particular, write about a concept, God, that no words can really adequately represent without saying nothing.

Consider Eckhart, I believe, who wrote,

And so we say that when everything is removed, abstracted and peeled off from the soul so that nothing at all remains but a simple 'is' - that is the proper characteristic of His name.

Do you think that Eckhart is saying that God has a penis and balls, and is just like "us" for possessing a supposed maleness? Not at all. He simply uses words like "His" as a way to talk about something words can't fully describe.

This doesn't work because the Universe is not anything over and above all the finite caused processes that constitute it. If you want to posit 'something' like a virtual 'quantum foam' or whatever that is not itself caused and that gives rise to the universe of things that 'quantum foam' is not part of the universe because it does not exist in spacetime. That 'quantum foam' is starting then to look like the 'unmoved mover' or God.

Why not, since the "one and only God" is one and only in the sense that He is thought to be in all things or all things are thought to be in Him. Zeus is a relatively minor deity compared to this. The claim is never that Zeus is all things, in that he is in all things or that all things are in him; Zeus is more like a human personality with all its foibles writ large. In Christianity there are Archangels and Angels, and they are minor deities of sorts, deities at least compared to human beings, so there is no reason to say that the monotheistic idea of.God logically excludes the possibility of lesser deities. — John

It is simply logically inconsistent to assert that there exists only one instantiation of the kind of being we call a deity, AND there exist lots of other instantiations of the kind of being we call a deity.

True, but not everyone that describes God through personal terms is therefore suggesting that God is actually representative of those terms. — Heister Eggcart

Many people do, so it is perfectly legitimate to address those beliefs. And, again, Christians qua Christians would seemingly necessarily be committed to the veracity of the Incarnation (at a bare minimum), in which case God assumed human form for a time, and most definitely possessed a personality.

Do you think that Eckhart is saying that God has a penis and balls, and is just like "us" for possessing a supposed maleness? Not at all. He simply uses words like "His" as a way to talk about something words can't fully describe. — Heister Eggcart

God presumably did have a penis and balls for a time. (I actually do think most people think of God as a male, albeit not an anatomically correct one, presumably. If all of this gendered talk is mere allegory or a placeholder, one wonders why theists don't just say "it"?).

I fully realize that the absolute vast majority of "Christians" are dumber than rocks and hold such a superficial understanding of God as they think "him" to be, although I cannot necessarily blame them. Not everybody can be an Augustine through life.

And with what darth was saying, it's the guys like Eckhart or, in some ways, Augustine as well, that do not see God in such a way as most modern "Christians" do. And it is the irony of many New Atheists that they are as superficially and nuance-blind as those they persecute so vehemently. This is why darth mentioned that they're being stupid for generalizing as if conquering the typical Baptist Christian's theology is a fully encompassing slaying of the Christian God. That isn't the case, which is why I don the facepalm pose when I read or read about fellows like Dawkins.

t's really depressing that I have to keep explaining this to you across multiple threads and multiple forums — Arkady

What's depressing is the condescending manner in which you claim to be 'explaining' something that I understand perfectly well, as if your hard-boiled atheism actually amounts to a source of instruction. There are many things you have 'explained' to me in those previous conversations, which I think you're completely incorrect about.

The depiction of God as a kind of super-human agent is not part of any legitimate theology. I don't think that Stephen Meyer or any of the ID proponents depict God as a super-human agency, and if they do, then I think they're falling into the same kind of error that Dawkins is; which is quite possible, because religious fundamentalism and scientific materialism have a lot in common, and is one of the reasons that Dawkins seems to think that all religion is fundamentalism. (It's significant that the protagonists on the Uncommon Design website often take issue with the theological philosophy of Ed Feser and David Bentley Hart, on account of the classical form of theology they espouse is often incompatible with their literalistic interpretation of Biblical texts.)

But Dawkin's characterisation of God is incorrect in all respects, which is why Terry Eagleton called his review of the book 'Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms. For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.

I don't believe in the God that Dawkins doesn't believe in, but I'm still not atheist.
— Terry Eagleton

So testimony (of alleged "sages" or not) is not excluded as a matter of principle--it is simply judged, implicitly or explicitly, to be insufficient to warrant acceptance of the proposition at issue. — BrainGlitche

But it depends on what is being proposed. Obviously for empiricial questions - the nature of blackbody radiation, how metal fatigue can cause aircraft structures to fail - then someone with expertise in the relevant subject matter is required. What about the question, 'is the Universe an intentional creation, or is it the product of unconscious processes?' Who is an 'expert' on that question? Who would you approach for 'expertise' on that matter? There's are many issues closer to home which involve 'life questions' - questions of the foundation of meaning and value. Who are the experts on those? You might say, moral philosophers. Well, what is the basis of their 'moral philosophy?' Is it Christian? Marxist? Evolutionary naturalism?

It would be logically inconsistent to claim that there are more than one absolute, supreme, all-encompassing deity; but that is not the claim. Zeus, Horus and Athena are not absolute, supreme all-encompassing deities. They could even be thought to be merely aspects, or faces,of such an absolute deity; as it is thought with Hindu deities. Remember that even in the Christian conception God is triune: three in one or one in three. Of course there is no room in present Christianity for Zeus and the others, but that is merely a conventional matter not a logical one. It is perfectly logically possible that Christianity could change and incorporate deities from other pantheons.

I fully realize that the absolute vast majority of "Christians" are dumber than rocks and hold such a superficial understanding of God as they think "him" to be, although I cannot necessarily blame them. Not everybody can be an Augustine through life. — Heister Eggcart

Why is it "superficial" to believe the holy texts of one's religion? I don't believe that the rarified air of "sophisticated theologians" is any more worth listening to than personal notions of God (and, again, if one is a Christian of any stripe or level of philosophical sophistication, one is seemingly necessarily committed to the Incarnation at the very least). Indeed, most rebuttals of Dawkins' and company's arguments seem to consist of saying "don't they realize..." and then unleashing a torrent of theological word salad, as if amazed that anyone could be ignorant of such things.

And with what darth was saying, it's the guys like Eckhart or, in some ways, Augustine as well, that do not see God in such a way as most modern "Christians" do. And it is the irony of many New Atheists that they are as superficially and nuance-blind as those they persecute so vehemently. This is why darth mentioned that they're being stupid for generalizing as if conquering the typical Baptist Christian's theology is a fully encompassing slaying of the Christian God. That isn't the case, which is I don the facepalm pose when I read or read about fellows like Dawkins.

If you consider what the New Atheists do to be persecution, I can only say that you either are prone to extreme hyperbole, or you don't know what "persecution" means.

What's depressing is the condescending manner in which you claim to be 'explaining' something that I understand perfectly well, as if your hard-boiled atheism actually amounts to a philosophy. There are many things you have 'explained' to me in those previous conversations, which I think you're completely incorrect about. — Wayfarer

I'm sorry you feel condescended to. But, I would question which one of us is not doing philosophy, as you never offer any arguments for your viewpoints, and instead only continue to flog the words of your preferred authors (Eagleton, Nagel, and the rest).

The depiction of God as a kind of super-human agent is not part of any legitimate theology. — Wayfarer

Not "legitimate theology," is it? Yes, like I said: a No True Scotsman fallacy. Whether it's "legitimate" or not is beside the point: these types of beliefs are real (whether you agree with them or not). To claim that a designer God has had no place in Christian thinking is simply untrue.

I don't think that Stephen Meyer or any of the ID proponents depict God as a super-human agency, and if they do, then I think they're falling into the same kind of error that Dawkins is; which is quite possible, because religious fundamentalism and scientific materialism have a lot in common, and is one of the reasons that Dawkins seems to think that all religion is fundamentalism. (It's significant that the protagonists on the Uncommon Design website often take issue with the theological philosophy of Ed Feser and David Bentley Hart, on account of the classical form of theology they write about, is often incompatible with their literalistic interpretation of Biblical texts.)

To depict God as a designer is most definitely to attribute agency to it (as a designer must have intentions, plans, intelligence, etc). You are free to lump Meyer and Dawkins into the bin of people whose arguments you dislike (and therefore ignore), but this smells like an outgroup homogeneity bias on your part: people with whom you disagree are all the same.

n any case these books by those pop-science superstars are not very well accepted in the philosophical community at large. Krauss's "nothing" is actually "something", despite his pretentious douchebaggery. Hitchens and Harris attack straw-men. None of them seem capable, or willing, to understand religious belief, or theist belief for that matter. It's just a publicity stunt. — darthbarracuda

There are tens of millions of fundamentalist religious believers in the world whose behavior is informed by their beliefs. Simple, straightforward readings of their various texts promote and justify violence toward others, even death to the unbeliever.

Harris asserts that such beliefs need to be challenged, rather than given a free pass as off limits just because they're "religious." It is such beliefs and their implications, epistemic warrant, and consequences that he typically addresses.

don't believe that the rarified air of "sophisticated theologians" is any more worth listening to than personal notions of God — Arkady

So you've not read "sophisticated theologians", yet still have the gall to write upon their work as if you do understand what they're saying without having read anything by them? :-}

Indeed, most rebuttals of Dawkins' and company's arguments seem to consist of saying "don't they realize..." and then unleashing a torrent of theological word salad, as if amazed that anyone could be ignorant of such things.

Ah, so because you can't make sense of the "theological word salad", it's the ones replying to Dawkins that are wrong because they're not understood...yeah, got it... :-}

I have read them in their responses to Dawkins and company (Dawkins seems to draw most of their ire, in my impression). No, I don't understand them, which is why I called it "word salad." As far as I can tell, they throw around meaningless, obscurantist buzzwords such as "ground of all being," and then call it a day, satisfied that they've thereby refuted the New Atheists' claims. I'll say this of theists like Swinburne or Plantinga: they at the very least offer copious, clear arguments for their views, agree or disagree with them.

To the extent that the sample of Sophisticated Theologians' work I've read (in rebutting Dawkins, for instance) is unrepresentative of their oeuvre, I am more than willing to restrict my criticism only to those attempted rebuttals.

Yes, like I said: a No True Scotsman fallacy. Whether it's "legitimate" or not is beside the point: these types of beliefs are real (whether you agree with them or not). To claim that a designer God has had no place in Christian thinking is simply untrue. — Arkady

Notice, I corrected my statement about what you write to 'not a source of instruction' rather than 'not a philosophy' as I recognise that your ability in debate is considerable! And, I do often quote the same sources on these arguments, as I'm familiar with the niche of literature that has grown up around it. It saves having to repeat it all from scratch.

But this is not a case of 'no true scotsman'. It is a case of understanding the subject properly. I think that the mainly American tendency that has now crystallised around the title of 'intelligent design' is an unfortunate development, in many respects, and is *not* characteristic of the broader Christian tradition. It is a matter of record that neither the Anglican, Catholic, nor Orthodox communions defend or advocate any kind of intelligent design theology. (Yet they do support theistic evolution and natural theology, which are different arguments.)

As you may recall, another of the books I often quote in this matter is Karen Armstrong's A Case for God which is much nearer to my understanding of the issue than either the ID camp or the evangatheists. She points out in that book how 'design arguments' grew out of the early modern conviction that natural laws 'shewed God's handiwork', not realising at the time that this argument could then be used against theology, as knowledge of 'God's handiwork' expanded.

HOWEVER, all of that said, I think the attempt to 'prove that God exists' with reference to empirical facts always amounts to a species of fundamentalism. But the attempt to prove that God doesn't exist, with reference to those same facts, is also a species of fundamentalism, and that on those grounds, Dawkins, et al, amount to a kind of 'secular fundamentalism'.

But one asymmetry in all of this is, that even the most bone-headed young-earth creationist is nevertheless supposed to be bound by a moral code, which requires that he or she tend to the sick, practice charity and mercy, and observe the other elements of Christian morality. Moreover their belief system situates them in a broader context both culturally and spiritually. Whereas, the diehard atheist inhabits a universe that is meaningless and purposeless by definition, where the only kind of purpose or meaning that is available is that generated by the ego, in a Camus-like act of defiance.

Dawkins actually bemoans the adoption of Darwinian principles as the basis for a moral philosophy, wiithout seeming to realise that he has spent the whole second part of his career dissolving the traditional alternative in the acid of 'Darwin's dangerous idea'. Which is one of the reasons he's considered such a klutz.

But it depends on what is being proposed. Obviously for empiricial questions - the nature of blackbody radiation, how metal fatigue can cause aircraft structures to fail - then someone with expertise in the relevant subject matter is required. What about the question, 'is the Universe an intentional creation, or is it the product of unconscious processes?' Who is an 'expert' on that question? Who would you approach for 'expertise' on that matter? There's are many issues closer to home which involve 'life questions' - questions of the foundation of meaning and value. Who are the experts on those? You might say, moral philosophers. Well, what is the basis of their 'moral philosophy?' Is it Christian? Marxist? Evolutionary naturalism? — Wayfarer

Sure, our judgment about whether there is or is not sufficient reason to subscribe to a proposition depends on what is being proposed. I wasn't the one to invoke the sages--who allegedly have some kind of special access to some reality beyond the limits of the rest of us, and whose say-so is taken to be sufficient for us to sign on.

It's epistemic judgment all the way down. When we decide for ourselves, we do so based on whether or not we just there to be sufficient reason and evidence, When we accept the opinion of tradition or experts or sages, we do so only if we at least implicitly judge their expertise or sagacity to be sufficient. But regarding the theistic claim of the OP, we have learned long ago that uncorroborated testimony alone about such claims is not sufficient to warrant our subscription to the claim.

I wasn't the one to invoke the sages--who allegedly have some kind of special access to some reality beyond the limits of the rest of us, and whose say-so is taken to be sufficient for us to sign on. — BrainGlitche

The testimony of sages is significant in the context of arguing 'from religious experience', because it is they who are able to speak from such experiences. Sure, one guy turning up on a forum and saying 'hey I've seen the light' adds up to nothing. But if you look at the records from across cultures and across history, of many individuals who claim such insights, then that is a source of information about what is being claimed. That situates such claims within a domain of discourse, and gives you some way of corroborating them against some kind of criteria. But none of those claims will still amount to what many current thinkers would regard as 'empirical' insofar as they don't propose matters of fact which can be measured mathematically and assessed in the third person.

So, again, you've only read rebuttals to a work you're already in agreement with...yipee...

Strange that you seem entirely disinterested in understanding the terminology theologians, and philosophers too, both employ in order to talk about such concepts as being or God. It really does strike me as bizarre as to why are you complaining about not understanding something, yet refuse to be curious enough to seek out the simple meanings of words in order to bring about the understanding you so obviously lack, by even your own admission.
:-d

The testimony of sages is significant in the context of arguing 'from religious experience', because it is they who are able to speak from such experiences. Sure, one guy turning up on a forum and saying 'hey I've seen the light' adds up to nothing. But if you look at the records from across cultures and across history, of many individuals who claim such insights, then that is a source of information about what is being claimed. That situates such claims within a domain of discourse, and gives you some way of corroborating them against some kind of criteria. But none of those claims will still amount to what many current thinkers would regard as 'empirical' insofar as they don't propose matters of fact which can be measured mathematically and assessed in the third person. — Wayfarer

If we consider the many, many testimonies of those across the world presently and throughout history who've had what the understand to be a religious experience, the most obvious observation we make is, as I've said, that the content is a function of the particular historical and social context.

So, again, you've only read rebuttals to a work you're already in agreement with...yipee... — Heister Eggcart

Not sure what you mean by "only read." I most definitely have read authors with whom I disagree, on matters of philosophy, politics, and religion.

Strange that you seem entirely disinterested in understanding the terminology theologians, and philosophers too, both employ in order to talk about such concepts as being or God. It really does strike me as bizarre as to why are you complaining about not understanding something, yet refuse to be curious enough to seek out the simple meanings of words in order to bring about the understanding you so obviously lack, by even your own admission.

If you have a "simple meaning" for "ground of all being," for instance, I'm all ears. One wonders why the authors who use such terms don't offer "simple meanings" of it. Perhaps because they're engaged in obscurantism?

Not sure what you mean by "only read." I most definitely have read authors with whom I disagree, on matters of philosophy, politics, and religion.

Except those theologians you don't understand because you've not read them. Those guys are clearly wrong. "Just look at how little I've read them!" >:O

If you have a "simple meaning" for "ground of all being," for instance, I'm all ears. One questions why the authors who use such terms don't offer "simple meanings" of it. Perhaps because they're engaged in obscurantism? — Arkady

The chemist finds chemistry more simple to understand than the poet. yet does this mean the content of each profession is any easier to grasp? No. But you do have to do the work and delve into the language of the writing concerned if indeed you are interested in fully understanding what someone means. You, however, have shown to not at all be of such an interest, which is why I'm struggling to hold a conversation with you.

I mean, here we are, on a philosophy forum, a discussion board for a field study perhaps the most purposely verbose and nuanced of employers of the human language that there is, and you've not the patience to read some theology in order to understand what someone means. I hope to God that you've not read Dawkins' biology papers, for I must only assume that you would find him entirely wrong because you don't understand the scientific uses of words in his field, >:O

the content is a function of the particular historical and social context. — Brainglitch

So a Marxist historian would say, or a sociological theorist. But I don't believe it is, and I don't think it is an empirical question in the sense that is nowadays intended.

Except those theologians you don't understand because you've not read them. Those guys are clearly wrong. "Just look at how little I've read them!" >:O — Heister Eggcart

As far as I can tell (and yes, I admittedly have read a limited amount of certain Sophisticated Theologians) they don't write in a manner in which they want or expect to be understood (which is why I called it "obscurantism"). As for them being "wrong," their claims don't even seem substantive enough to be wrong ("not even wrong" as some theories are described).

The chemist finds chemistry more simple to understand than the poet. yet does this mean the content of each profession is any easier to grasp? No. But you do have to do the work and delve into the language of the writing concerned if indeed you are interested in fully understanding what someone means. You, however, have shown to not at all be of such an interest, which is why I'm struggling to hold a conversation with you. — Heister Eggcart

How does your judgment follow from anything I've said? As I said, if you can give me a clear, concise definition of a term of art of Sophisticated Theologians such as "ground of all being," you would have my gratitude.

I mean, here we are, on a philosophy forum, a discussion board for a field study perhaps the most purposely verbose and nuanced of employers of the human language that there is, and you've not the patience to read some theology in order to understand what someone means.

Insofar as the samples of their work I've read is representative of their work in general, why would I read the obscurantist cant promulgated by Sophisticated Theologians? Piling more nonsense on top of nonsense doesn't yield sense. (Since you're so apparently well-read, again, please do me the favor of explaining what "ground of all being" means.)

I hope to God that you've not read Dawkins' biology papers, for I must only assume that you would find him entirely wrong because you don't understand the scientific uses of words in his field, >:O

Which "biology papers" of Dawkins' do you speak of? As far as I'm aware, it's been decades since he's done original work in biology (and little of it, at that).

they don't write in a manner in which they want or expect to be understood — Arkady

No, that sounds more like you.

As I said, if you can give me a clear, concise definition of a term of art of Sophisticated Theologians such as "ground of all being," you would have my gratitude. — Arkady

This isn't about one single thing, you've attempted to rub your boot in the face of all theology, categorizing some book reviews as if they represent anything more than a casual, opinionated response. I'm not going to read books for you. If you want to understand what you don't, read more about it yourself.

Piling more nonsense on top of nonsense doesn't yield sense. — Arkady

More impatience. You haven't told me that you've read any theology, so how you know its nonsense without reading it is beyond me.

Which "biology papers" of Dawkins' do you speak of? As far as I'm aware, it's been decades since he's done original work in biology (and little of it, at that). — Arkady

Some say my point is still sailing over your head...

Perhaps I should learn how to fly so that I can retrieve it and try again, hummmmm...

So a Marxist historian would say, or a sociological theorist. But I don't believe it is, and I don't think it is an empirical question in the sense that is nowadays intended. — Wayfarer

It is not controversial that evangelicals report their experiences as encounters with Jesus, God, angels, demons; Catholics as encounters with God, Jesus, Mary, demons and various saints and angels; Hindus as encounters with Ganesh, Krishna, Indra, etc.; Sufis as encounters with their saints; folk religion believers as encounters with their various supernatural beings ... You get the point.

This is simply not true, or at least it is merely a perfunctory truism. Because the writings of mystics and sages, like all writings, are associated with particular historical periods, it certainly does not follow that the content (as opposed to the forms) of the writings are "functions" of those "particular historical and social contexts", at least not in any but the most superficial sense. To say of writings that they are nothing more than functions of the cultures in which they occur is to deny the possibility of any genuine revelation or creativity. This would be a claim which cannot but assume its own conclusion in order to justify itself.

No, that sounds more like you. — Heister Eggcart

Really? You understand me well enough to engage in a relatively lucid (if somewhat acrimonious) exchange on this forum. Which post(s) of mine did you find difficult to understand (I think I actually speak with an absolute minimum of philosophical jargon or name-dropping, so your claim is quite perplexing to me)...

This isn't about one single thing, you've attempted to rub your boot in the face of all theology, categorizing some book reviews as if they represent anything more than a casual, opinionated response. I'm not going to read books for you. If you want to understand what you don't, read more about it yourself. — Heister Eggcart

More non-sequiturs. I haven't "attempted to rub my boot in the face of all theology." Have I denigrated, for instance, Augustine or Aquinas (yes, I know they were theologically-inclined philosophers rather than pure theologians). I've explicitly praised philosophers of religion such as Plantinga and Swinburne for at least being clear in their writing, and for offering actual arguments.

As for book reviews, whether or not they're "casual or opinionated," why am I not justified in taking a given person's review as representative of their writing style in general? If anything, I should expect a book review to be less technical than a given author's academic work.

And, I know this conversation isn't just about one thing, but it you could explain "ground of all being" for me, please do so. (I haven't asked you to read a book for me, but as you're apparently so well-read, please share your wealth of knowledge.)

More impatience. You haven't told me that you've read any theology, so how you know its nonsense without reading it is beyond me. — Heister Eggcart

Where did I say that? I said I haven't read "Sophisticated Theologians," who I'd define as a particular strand of early-modern, modern, or post-modern blowhards who espouse obscurantist verbiage (sometimes imported from Heidegger or elsewhere) in lieu of actual argumentation. And, again, insofar as the samples I have read (e.g. in response to The God Delusion) are not representative of a given author's writing in general, then I will restrict my criticism only to that review (though why they would write lucidly in their own works and yet employ word salad in reviewing others' works is beyond me).

Some say my point is still sailing over your head...

Perhaps I should learn how to fly so that I can retrieve it and try again, hummmmm... — Heister Eggcart

No, I think you're missing my point, actually. You assume that when I read something and encounter a term or 2 which I don't understand, that I thereby dismiss that work. But that's not so: I've encountered many technical (or otherwise unfamiliar) terms in the course of my reading, and either looked them up (if they weren't defined in the text), or tried to glean their meaning from context. When Descartes talked about a chiliagon in Meditations on First Philosophy, I didn't throw down the book in disgust: I simply looked it up.

However, while, for instance, quantum physics is difficult to understand (and chock-full of terms which I don't know), I have the impression that its proponents are writing in as clear and concise a manner as possible without sacrificing their point. I don't get that impression when I read samples of Sophisticated Theologians. I get the impression that they're employing obscurantism in order to mask that nothing of substance is being said.

@John

It is uncontroversially true that the content of the vast majority of reported religious experiences from people throughout history and across the world is a function of their historical and social context. No coincidence that Moses got the Ten Commandments from Yahweh rather than Lord Krishna or Osiris or Jesus or Athena or Uranus or Ishtar or Bigfoot or the wee faeries ...

Note that I never said that what people report as religious experiences is "nothing more than functions of the cultures i which they occur." But it is clear that people draw on content from their own context to explain their experiences. And if we are to take them at their word, then their experiences would justify us in believing in whatever supernatural beings they report encountering. Or, we can accept that they had some kind of powerful experience, but understand their interpretations of them as dependent on their particular historical and social context.

Really? You understand me well enough to engage in a relatively lucid (if somewhat acrimonious) exchange on this forum. Which post(s) of mine did you find difficult to understand (I think I actually speak with an absolute minimum of philosophical jargon or name-dropping, so your claim is quite perplexing to me)... — Arkady

I meant that you don't understand some of the things we've discussed, less that you yourself are not understandable. You write quiet well, better than I, certainly.

More non-sequiturs. I haven't "attempted to rub my boot in the face of all theology." Have I denigrated, for instance, Augustine or Aquinas (yes, I know they were theologically-inclined philosophers rather than pure theologians). I've explicitly praised philosophers of religion such as Plantinga and Swinburne for at least being clear in their writing, and for offering actual arguments. — Arkady

And, I know this conversation isn't just about one thing, but it you could explain "ground of all being" for me, please do so. (I haven't asked you to read a book for me, but as you're apparently so well-read, please share your wealth of knowledge.) — Arkady

Where did I say that? I said I haven't read "Sophisticated Theologians," who I'd define as a particular strand of early-modern, modern, or post-modern blowhards who espouse obscurantist verbiage (sometimes imported from Heidegger or elsewhere) in lieu of actual argumentation.

Well, if you'd have read someone like Augustine or Aquinas, a phrase like "ground of all being" is pretty understandable. :|

Edit: I forgot to answer, haha. Being in itself. If you want me to explain that, then fuck you! ;)

And, yes, I realize at times modern theologians can read as though they're talking about nothing, but much of their language borrows from medieval scholastics, so if you're going to throw away all of their ideas and perspectives as mere word vomit, okay, but you in essence condemn the men and women who came before them as well.

I'll add that many of the modern theologians that I've read are just poor writers. They'll use terminology with established meanings, yet ruin it with poor writing. It's not so much that they're purposely trying to be allusive, but that they just don't know how to properly get their points across. This is one reason why the olden Christian mystics are the benchmark, because they mastered both what to write and how to write it.

As for book reviews, whether or not they're "casual or opinionated," why am I not justified in taking a given person's review as representative of their writing style in general? If anything, I should expect a book review to be less technical than a given author's academic work.

I'm still knee-deep in college, so book reviews are vacuous and unhelpful to me. It's always of more worth to read a well-argued bit of research or the original stuff over a review of popular poop, like Dawkins' books.

No, I think you're missing my point, actually. You assume that when I read something and encounter a term or 2 which I don't understand, that I thereby dismiss that work. But that's not so: I've encountered many technical (or otherwise unfamiliar) terms in the course of my reading, and either looked them up (if they weren't defined in the text), or tried to glean their meaning from context. When Descartes talked about a chiliagon in Meditations on First Philosophy, I didn't throw down the book in disgust: I simply looked it up.

With proper philosophy, perhaps, but it seems you'd have thrown down a Summa Theologica or, let's say more contemporarily, any of the more religious works by Kierkegaard. You don't seem to value the nuance in a good chunk of Christian writing, which is why I have this distinct impression, from what you've said, that you haven't given the same amount of patience or care to an Aquinas as you have with a Descartes.

However, while, for instance, quantum physics is difficult to understand (and chock-full of terms which I don't know), I have the impression that its proponents are writing in as clear and concise a manner as possible without sacrificing their point. I don't get that impression when I read samples of Sophisticated Theologians. I get the impression that they're employing obscurantism in order to mask that nothing of substance is being said.

How have you come upon these two impressions? If you've neither read a whole lot of physics, nor much theology, then I can't see how a mere impression should lead you on the slippery slope of condemning far too many in one field for being somehow ill-intending.