Who is your favourite theologian from whatever religion, favourite atheist and favourite philosopher? Your reasons for choosing the philosopher, however, must be secular.

My favourite theologian is definitely Friedrich Schleiermacher, because I have a soft-spot for the Irenaean tradition of theodicy and I'm a fan of Schleiermachian ethics.

My favourite atheist is probably Christopher Hitchens, simply for his wit and passion.

My favourite philosopher is obviously Nietzsche, although I do like Roman philosopher Boethius too.

Don't much care about theologians or philosophers, so I'll just do favorite atheist.

Which is obviously Christopher Hitchens. To quote Sam Harris "The man had more style and substance than a few civilizations I could mention."

What he lacked in scientific background he more than made up for in style, wit, and ferocious debate.

>theologian

Theologian: don't study any

Atheist: Pat Condell

Philosopher: Philosophy is the hobby of fat, old, retired men, and I am neither old or retired. (Tolstoy was a cool guy though)

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on June 10, 2015, 03:36:03 PM

Augustine

Ew.

City of God and Confessions are two of the most significant pieces of theology in history. He was a groundbreaking theologian, and it doesn't take full agreement with his views to acknowledge that. Hell, I think Catholics are a solstice holiday away from being apostates, but I still have deep respect for Augustine.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on June 10, 2015, 06:22:35 PM

City of God and Confessions are two of the most significant pieces of theology in history.

And most of it, from what I know, seems to be bullshit.

His ideas about the afterlife in City of God are just nonsense, even if they are closer to the Biblical account of life after death than the writings of St. Paul, and his theodicy trying to justify God's righteousness in the face of evil is equally nonsensical.

I'll give him credit for sticking more closely to the doctrine than Irenaeus and Schleiermacher ever did, but at least they came up with a broadly more respectable answer.

I've never read anything by Schleiermacher, and I'm not really sure what to say about that debate since City of God really isn't about the afterlife. I think if you're going to call Augustine's theodicy "nonsense" you have to do something to qualify it, and while I sincerely don't mean to be rude, I strongly suspect you're mostly parroting someone else's opinion after a cursory read of the relevant Wikipedia pages.

I've never read anything by Schleiermacher, and I'm not really sure what to say about that debate since City of God really isn't about the afterlife. I think if you're going to call Augustine's theodicy "nonsense" you have to do something to qualify it, and while I sincerely don't mean to be rude, I strongly suspect you're mostly parroting someone else's opinion after a cursory read of the relevant Wikipedia pages.

Pretty certain I've thrown this passage in City of God at you before:

19. That all bodily blemishes which mar human beauty in this life shall be removed in the resurrection, the natural substance of the body remaining, but the quality and quantity of it being altered so as to produce beauty.

What am I to say now about the hair and nails? Once it is understood that no part of the body shall so perish as to produce deformity in the body, it is at the same time understood that such things as would have produced a deformity by their excessive proportions shall be added to the total bulk of the body, not to parts in which the beauty of the proportion would thus be marred. Just as if, after making a vessel of clay, one wished to make it over again of the same clay, it would not be necessary that the same portion of the clay which had formed the handle should again form the new handle, or that what had formed the bottom should again do so, but only that the whole clay should go to make up the whole new vessel, and that no part of it should be left unused. β€œWherefore, if the hair that has been cropped and the nails that have been cut would cause a deformity were they to be restored to their places, they shall not be restored; and yet no one will lose these parts at the resurrection, for they shall be changed into the same flesh, their substance being so altered as to preserve the proportion of the various parts of the body. However, what our Lord said, β€œNot a hair of your head shall perish,” might more suitably be interpreted of the number, and not of the length of the hairs, as He elsewhere says, β€œThe hairs of your head are all numbered.”

As for his theodicy, it relies on numerous ideas and propositions which just seem indefensible. That the Fall of Man be taken literally, and that future generations ought to suffer because we were apparently "seminally present" in the loins of Adam. That evil is the absence of good. That free will may lead to people committing evil acts, but that it is necessary for a proper relationship with God (the free will part being the part I take issue with). The idea that God created the world perfect, and then it was corrupted through the immoral exercise of said free will. And the reduction of all suffering to either the privation of good or the punishment of the privation of good.

Those are the things which immediately come to mind. And, of course, people tend to say that you can only judge Augustine by the standards of his time. Sure, fair enough, but Irenaeus managed to make a much better job of it than Augustine did despite coming centuries earlier and contemporaries like the Roman philosopher Boethius also had (at least in my eyes) a much better understanding of free will and moral evil.

Is it that such details are being discussed at all?

Essentially. It hardly looks like mere "musing" to me, and there's absolutely no way Augustine could have that sort of knowledge.

Did God created evil to fulfill a purpose or is it an innate deprivation of His character in humanity? They're not necessarily in conflict if you think that the world as we know it, including the Fall, is exactly how God originally intended, then you see that they're both discussing different sides of the same coin.

As far as I understand it, Augustine never saw suffering as part of God's plan. He saw it quite explicitly as a result of man's disobedience and moral depravity. Is the immoral exercise of free will necessarily distinct from teleological evil or suffering? No, of course not. But like I say, Irenaeus was the one of the two who actually came up with an explanations that seems more philosophically defensible.

I know Schleiermacher criticsed Augustine for the logical contradiction of a world created perfect which was then corrupted--although I don't know if he did it first--and so the Irenaean tradition argues that the world we inhabit is the best possible world God was capable of creating; at least they put some utility in suffering, besides punishment of course, which the Augustinian tradition seemingly has no interest in finding.

But Irenaeus goes on to talk about how everyone goes to heaven and that the mortal world is basically puberty for humanity to transcend into deities themselves, and that's pretty silly in my humble opinion. He has absolutely no biblical basis for that conclusion.

Sure, and like I say I'll give Augustine and his successors like Karl Barth credit for actually sticking to it. But when it comes down to personal preference I much prefer Irenaeus and Schleiermacher, even if they did subscribe to universalism unjustifiably. Although I don't think Irenaeus claimed humanity transcends into deities so much as succeeds in fulfilling the likeness of God, which does have a Biblical basis.

Not a fan of John Hick, though.

I'm not sure Augustine held no purpose for suffering -- any theologian worth his salt can give you a reason for anything. I find City of God hard to discuss because I haven't studied it in several years and it's hard to just pick it up again. Like I said, I don't necessarily ascribe to much of what he says, but you'd be hard-pressed to find another theologian with such a profound impact on the subject to this day.

but you'd be hard-pressed to find another theologian with such a profound impact on the subject to this day.

Sure, but when it comes down to personal preference I just don't find influence that compelling a reason to hold him in high esteem.

1. Martin Luther, and although I don't know if I'd call him a theologian but Dietrich BonhΓΆffer was pretty cool.

2. Don't have one.

3. G.W.F. Hegel