Ahistoricity in Analytic Theology
Analytic theology has sometimes been criticized as ahistorical. But what this means, and why it is problematic, have often been left unclear. This essay explicates and supports one way of making that charge while simultaneously showing this ahistoricity, although widespread within analytic theology,...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Philosophy Documentation Center
[2018]
|
In: |
American catholic philosophical quarterly
Year: 2018, Volume: 92, Issue: 2, Pages: 195-224 |
Further subjects: | B
Theology
B DOCTRINAL theology B Philosophy History B Theologians B History Methodology B History & criticism |
Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (doi) |
Summary: | Analytic theology has sometimes been criticized as ahistorical. But what this means, and why it is problematic, have often been left unclear. This essay explicates and supports one way of making that charge while simultaneously showing this ahistoricity, although widespread within analytic theology, is not essential to it. Specifically, some analytic theologians treat problematic doctrines as metaphysical puzzles, constructing speculative accounts of phenomena such as the Trinity or Incarnation and taking the theoretical virtues of such accounts to be sufficient in themselves to defend traditional doctrines with no need for additional, historical premises. But due to the different epistemic structures of metaphysical and theological puzzles, I argue that importing this methodology into philosophical theology results in invalid or question-begging arguments, and it is unclear how a virtue-centric methodology could be repaired without collapsing into a more historical methodology, which some of the best (but unfortunately not all) analytic theologians follow. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2153-8441 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: American catholic philosophical quarterly
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.5840/acpq201831144 |