Sarah Coakley - Analytic Theology
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- What happens when deep questions of God are addressed by the precise methods of analytic philosophy? It’s not about “proving” the existence of God. It is about clarifying the attributes and doctrines of God. So why is analytic theology controversial?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on analytic theology: bit.ly/3m4P8QP
Sarah Coakley is an Anglican systematic theologian and philosopher of religion with wide interdisciplinary interests. In 2011 she became deputy chair of the School of Arts and Humanities at Cambridge University.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
RLK, I think, is at his best here. His questions are both pertinent and reveal some grasp of various traditions. His various conversations with Sarah Coakley have been most revealing, and Coakley's responses have been eminently clear.
Video: This is interesting.
Comments: Intimidated by vocabulary.
Fucking grow up.
It's hilarious that every video on theology on this channel brings out every edgy armchair sophist of the back waters of TH-cam, disparaging them without bringing forth any arguments or even intelligible discourse whatsoever
Tyler Lynch I wonder how different, at its core, those sentiments were from this one.
Intimations of God induce a Pavlovian reaction in self-styled sceptics. A desire to throw words at the notion in case God escapes religious captivity and runs amok among intelligent people.
Its quite difficult to argue intelligently on and about a fantasy that so many people believe. How do you bring intelligent discourse to a study of the size and shapes of unicorns?
@@brudno1333 That's an appeal to absurdity, which is a logical fallacy.
yes, this is some high quality youtube
@@zenbum2654 What prompted you to denigrate a random stranger on the Internet?
@@zenbum2654 actually I was bored with everything in general.
@Saint Christopher naaa most people are full of shit. i enjoy myself
"Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the Truth"
It is in the best interests never to come too close to truth...
@@rubiks6 🙂
@@rubiks6It's funny that people like you, who quote all those words of wisdom, never, not for a moment, think that they could also apply to you...
@@rubiks6 You should know better why... You are a perfect example of why it would in your best interests not to get too close to the truth, because you prefer "truth', as you would like it to be... and not as it is...
Excellent!!
Fantastic 👏🏻👽
Can use analytic theology directly on the language and narratives in the text of the Bible, without preconceived doctrine or theology, for personal experience of the language and narratives?
I have a phd in the study of fairies behavior.
euphoric
If I where you, I would be a an atheist too.
@Lightbringer Why do you claim that there is definitely a creator? You don't know that.
Consider a post-doc in Analytic Fairyology.
@Lightbringer This is an argument from ignorance. Just because you can't imagine it happening doesn't mean it can't happen.
Besides, what do you suppose this intelligent source arises from? If you didn't just stop thinking at this point, you'd notice that by postulating a creator you haven't solved the problem, you've just shifted it further. Is the creator also supposed to have a creator?
What is continental philosophy? What does continental philosophy emphasize?
Personal experience and human emotion can be logically connected to the language and narratives of sacred text in Bible using analytic theology?
Sacred text of Bible has historical context from which analytic theology can relate narratives and language to personal experience and human emotion?
Analytic theology uses logic of language in narrative of sacred text for personal experience and human emotion? Human emotion and personal experience can be connected to God through analytic theology of narratives and language in sacred text?
Christ taking on human nature to redeem from sin allows personal and emotional experience of human nature to logically connect to the narrative and language of the text in the Bible using analytic theology?
Analytic theology of narratives and language in Bible to form emotion and personal experience; as well as personal experience and emotion for narratives and language of Bible to develop theology?
Lots of words. Any real meaning?
Are you asking about the video, or about the comments? Or both? Or is your question meaningless?
In case you're curious, it's spelled "desideratum". Took me a few tries to look up the meaning.
Yes. And it's even detectable if you try something called listening.
Christian analytic philosophy could not be distinguished from Buddhism on Hinduism. Perhaps this is why it will never be developed, since it would became just another word salad, describing infinite logical loops of common natural phenomena and classifications of various moral virtues. Bible is a story, so best analytic method can do is to explain what people in book meant with those adventures and conversations.
This is interesting phenomena because only Christianity decided for narrative instead of rules and interpretations. It wasn't always so, but story telling became important when Rome was converted from ancient Greek mysticism to Catholicism. They didn't just abandon their pantheon of gods, biggest problem was what to do with diverse European paganism, since every tribe has already developed their own system of divine natural forces and spirits. So they decided for a story of Jesus and build an idea of humanistic values around his personality. Difference is, Jesus was about being a model citizen in new world empire, his life and ideas are theology, no other spiritual practices, rituals or meditations are required. Other world religions are focused on consciousness, mindscapes and tribal, family life, they demand discipline and obedience from believers, but can't describe common mental or cultural space where religion can became part of every day experiences.
Christianity was developed from Hebrew occult mysticism, based on unknown God and system of sephirots, representing moral values and their interactions, much like eastern traditions still are today.
Another problem is, Bible is a written word of God and that's why it can never change. It's on every individual reader to find meaning in Biblical narrative itself, words stay the same, only interpretations can change over time. But this is exactly what European oligarchies demands from modern citizens, since nothing is more important for an invisible Empire than a human condition.
If analytical theology doesn't want to became another form of Hindu theosophy, than it must evolve into legal morals, theory of culture, psychology, genetics,... same BS that almost destroyed a planet not a 100 years ago.
👽👍👍
A great example of word salad pretending to be wisdom.
Thats pretty much the great majority of philosophy...
@@zenbum2654 I've corrected my spilling. Now please explain why it's me who's being condescending if there really is even one good philosophical reason to believe claims there's a god?
@@zenbum2654 Well that's all very interesting but as Albert Einstein rightly pointed out: *If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.* In light of that statement perhaps you can explain what was so profound about what she said then without the need to resort to word salad? (Or then again, perhaps you'll _decline_ because you know you _can't!_) _We'll see..._
@@zenbum2654 *I'm confident that Einstein could not have explained the Ricci Tensor, a critical concept in his General Theory of Relativity, to a 6yo, unless that 6yo was a savant with a PhD in physics.*
> Well Einstein never stipulated the 6 year old needed to be a savant with a PhD did he so I don't think we should care what you hapen to think & listen to what Einstein thought seeing as he has a _reputation_ for genius & unless I'm very much mistaken you _don't._
*So perhaps even Einstein didn't understand Relativity.*
> That's hardly likely seeing as his discovery of this highly unintuitive phenomena & his explanation of it is the idea which made him a household name & he gave it that name himself too so you couldn't be more wrong.
*At any rate, I don't pretend to be an expert at Analytic Theology (or Relativity or many other things).*
> Is anyone (including the woman in this video?) It's kind of like saying you're an expert in _astrollogy_ rather than _Astronomy_ or in _alchemy_ rather than _Chemestry._
*And I don't think the intended audience of CTT is 6yo's.*
> Did I say it was?
*Although it looks like many of the comments here were written by them.*
> And yet you willingly admit that you can't explain the basis of what she is claiming here, _even to someone who's better at spilling than a 6 year old & (accurately) predicted that you couldn't. But hey that's irrelevant yeah?
A great example of someone quick with the dismissive because they can't take the time to actually listen.
The whole field of analytic philosophy is so dry and needs to stop.
Why pays attention to philosophy anyways? Money grabbing universities coming up with courses nobody needs?
@@tomashull9805 Well that's why philosophy is in the arts. Nobody really needs arts but people just like it. Whether people should spend money on arts education is another matter. I think ethics is an important branch of philosophy though.
@@zenbum2654 Philosophy is the study of what it is possible to know. Understanding the limitations and possibilities of knowledge avoids prejudicial statements based on ignorance.
@@borderlands6606 Here is one thing my study of philosophy has taught me: It would be a very boring world if nobody ever made any prejudicial, ignorant statements.
@@zenbum2654 I agree. Nevertheless, when people who identify with parsimony and academic disinterest talk out their backside, philosophy is a useful brake on their vanity and ambition.
The problem I have with theologians is that they don't appear to me to be applying any serious rational critique to their religious doctrines. I often see atheistic skeptics arguing scientific reasons that religious doctrines can't be true. For example that it's not scientifically possible for someone to die and raise from the dead. I personally don't even bother with those kinds of arguments. The bottom line is that if a supernatural God actually exists, then violating physical laws would not be an issue.
However, if we ignore all the physical problems with theology and just look at the utter absurdities of what it demands in terms of the mere behavior of this Biblical God, it seems to me to be readily apparent that the doctrines can be nothing other than man-made nonsense. The very idea of a supposedly omnipotent, all-wise, creator God behaving in the ways requires for Christian or any Abrahamic doctrines to be true, that God would need to be seriously mentally ill, or extremely inept.
I just personally can't see how any intelligent person can take these religious doctrines seriously. Not only this, but the fact that educational institutions even allow theology to be a respected academic subject causes met to question the validity of academia. The very idea that they even allow for the serious consideration of things like Christian doctrine to be studied like as if it could potentially be true, is a sad state of affairs for academia.
I mean, sure, academia can allow for the study of art, and mythologies. But theology isn't treated as a mythology. It's treated as though it could potentially be true. IMHO, it's truly sad that we haven't moved beyond this.
Am I saying there cannot be a god of any kind? No. But I think it should be obvious to any thinking person that something like Christian doctrine cannot possibly be true. Nobody considers the ancient religious doctrines of Greece to potentially be true. Why they haven't recognize this for the Abrahamic religions is beyond me. If there is a "god" it most certainly isn't Yahweh or Jesus anymore than its Zeus or Apollo.
On a philosophical note, I can see where Eastern Mystical ideas of theology might have a place in philosophy. But even they should be taken as nothing more than philosophical speculation.
I guess the problem is that there are so many people who cling to things like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, that they just aren't prepared to let it go. But as far as I can see, there is no justification for any of these doctrines to be taken seriously by academia. They should have been relegated to the halls of mythology by now. To continue to take them seriously is nothing short of extreme naiveté.
They obviously cannot be true "as written".
Could something else be true that might have some commonality with the underlying principles of these ancient doctrinal myths? Sure. But even if that is the case it doesn't justify a continued support and study of the original doctrines. They clearly cannot be true, "as written".
After all, there could be some truth similar to principles taught by ancient Greek mythology too. That doesn't make the tales of Zeus. Apollo, and company true either. I mean, if someone wants to believe that there is a "god" who cares about righteousness and justice, and may even pass judgement on individual humans after they die, so be it. That may very well be true. But than would not make these doctrines true. So while the idea of eternal life and justice may be appealing (or even potentially true), that's not a good reason to continue to support these obviously false ancient doctrines (i.e. fables).
I think most of them don't actually believe what they say they believe. When lies are normalized, the very notions of truth and belief get distorted. People start conflating the actual literal truth with some metaphorical, symbolic "truths", and proper beliefs - i.e. their actual working models of the world - with all sorts of nonsense that serves completely different functions.
I tried asking a few theists what they would actually _expect_ to happen that I, as an atheist, wouldn't. Or what real-world scenario would surprise them but not me, or vice versa. None of them could answer this question. I concluded that their "beliefs" were not about the actual observable reality, because otherwise answering these questions would be easy - literally any difference in our beliefs would lead to different real-world predictions.
Plus Carl Jung has shown a reasonable psychological explanation for why human minds generate these images and what purposes they serve. It's possible to find great meaning in the images without taking them literally. Which is the mistake most believers make.
In the same manner i see Atheism to be baseless. I don't know how and why people would see the same thing and conclude differently, maybe that's the way it'll always be but personally, i can't see how reality and the idea of God can be separated
Yes, I was disappointed to see that the lady believes in the trash philosophy of the Nicea council.
@@Mooseouma "In the same manner i see Atheism to be baseless."
That's totally irrelevant and unrelated to my points. Where did I even support atheism in my comment?
Your response is basically a very narrow-mined and logically incorrect assumption that if someone doesn't believe in a specific Christian or Abrahamic mythology they must then be an "atheist". A term that is actually improperly used by theists to suggest a "belief" in something when in fact it means nothing more than a non-belief of any particular theism.
Unfortunately theists not only believe clearly false things, but they use totally fallacious arguments in an effort to try to defend their obviously false beliefs.
By the way, any attempt to discredit some other group or tribe doesn't do anything toward supporting the beliefs of the tribe you've chosen to become a part of.
Even if this group you imagine to be "atheists" have things all wrong, that doesn't make your mythology true. So it's a bad argument. Your only hope is to try to defend the theism you worship. Good luck with that. The only people who are going to fall for that are people who are already in that tribe. People who think it actually makes sense for an omnipotent God to become a human man and arranged to have humans brutally crucify himself just so he can hold that over everyone else as some sort of sick guilt trip.
That would be a disgusting immoral God even if it did exist.
sound is the equator and i know how make first day of music or nature and can cut a beat gods face using two pictures
Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽
Analytic Theology is an oxymoron, like Jumbo Shrimp.
Where do you people come from?
@@rubiks6 that is the kind of claim that would require evidence and that theists become experts in dodging as if that is not what you are actually saying.
@@rubiks6 I bet your kind of truth means that we were created in God's literal image...
rubiks6 I wasn’t talking about you
@@rubiks6 Yeah, as you see it...
Lets say we put a man in a planet where there are no animals but only plants. This man has no knowledge of the human body. One day he wants to know what is inside his head/skull. Is there any way he can ever find out? God is like that.
This reminds me on Newton, he poked a needle in his own eye to see how object will disturb a light field inside his visual sensation.
Suppose one day an astronaut from a technologically advanced planet visited him and showed him X-rays of what was inside his head.
That would be revealed knowledge.
Perhaps God is like that.
@@zenbum2654 That's perfectly true but on his own you will agree there is no way that person will ever know. i had just made that example to show there could be a situation where a person could not access knowledge even when that knowledge is as close to him as his head. Perhaps that's the same with consciousness. Like that astronaut God only can reveal the truth.
my job for webb telescope is everything color kingdom analization heaven dreams of construction at nasa make the same tools same idea and know bible from time i believe philosophy of science leads to religion = LiFe
"Sleeves" for God's sake. 01:16
She almost sounds embarrassed herself at the bollocks she talks.
You’re projecting.
@@joshheter1517 What?
@@anaccount8474
I can’t say I’m surprised you don’t know what that means.