Atheistic praxis and should I seek an interview with Oral Roberts University?

Christ's Chapel at Oral Roberts University, Tulsa Oklahoma (Looks nice)

1. I have had many major formatting difficulties with this post!

2. I am interviewed at...

3. A dear relative satirically suggests that due to my debt I should pursue a career as a televangelist via a job as a professor at...

oral roberts university

-Would it work for me to work there with my Reformed views?

-Would you support me as a televangelist? I think I have a face for radio.

-I do not know much about the University and I am not presenting or implying any firm opinion.

4. Below are edited thoughts on atheistic praxis from my PhD. Views on my Reformed sovereignty theodicy can be primarily found here:


Critical/Atheistic Praxis

Praxis is concerned with not merely applying theoretical knowledge, but adding to knowledge in the process of practically applying theory.

These three theodicy (free will, sovereignty and soul-making) view evil as part of the end goal praxis of bringing about a greater good and justifying God, his perfect goodness and plans in the end. C. Robert Mesle has noted these types of views that use greater good arguments make God the author of evil and make evil less than genuine. Mesle (1986: 418). Atheist William Rowe states that not all evil can be used for the greater good and certainly some must be gratuitous. Rowe (1990: 1-3). The greater good argument can always be challenged with good counter-arguments. Rowe (1990: 1-3). Mesle (1986: 418). Although I disagree with the concept of gratuitous evil, I accept Rowe’s point that some evil is inscrutable which is evil that cannot be understood reasonably well by human beings. Rowe (1990: 3). An atheistic (possibly agnostic and deistic as well) praxis concerning the problem of evil could be that life has no deeper meaning or purpose beyond physical death, and that all persons suffer and die with no further meaning to life. Darrow (1932)(1973: 453). Science, although very valuable, does not offer humanity an end directed goal of continued life. Darrow writes the best one can do is basically cling to life on earth as we head toward ‘a common doom.’ Darrow (1932)(1973: 453). An atheistic praxis coming from this type of view could be criticized as negative, but science cannot be primarily sought for support of theodicy, and theodicy should be based on solid religious and philosophical reasoning. In the case of free will and sovereignty perspectives, there is a heavy reliance on Scriptural revelation which is based in history. Hick’s view has an understanding that God could begin to be understood to some degree in metaphorical terms through the writings of a variety of religious traditions. Hick (1993: 126). He takes a Kantian understanding that God could not be affirmed as an actual or possible concept, although God can be assumed as possible. Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 1). Hick takes this idea of Kant’s and deduces that when it comes to religious doctrine the noumena realm that relates to the phenomena realm may have little in common with resulting phenomena. Hick in Geivett (1993: 230).

In contrast, I reason:

God has revealed self in historical Biblical Scripture.

The infinite God can make self somewhat known to finite creatures.

God regenerates the elect (John 3, Ephesians 1, Romans 8).

Salvific knowledge of God is not primarily theoretical.

Christainity is of reasonable faith and philosophy of religion.

Certainly, an idea behind the writing of my PhD thesis has been to make it clear that blind faith fueled theodicy is not intellectually acceptable. Theodicy should be based on research and reason using and considering a variety of perspectives.

DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth of the Soul’, in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

DARROW, CLARENCE (1932)(1973) ‘The Delusion of Design and Purpose’, in The Story of My Life, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.

MESLE, C. ROBERT (1986) ‘The Problem of Genuine Evil: A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy’, in The Journal of Religion, Volume 66, Number 4, pp. 412-430. October, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1990) ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’, in Adams and Adams (eds.), The Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

No comments:

Post a Comment