h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A very interesting and well written contribution.

I should like to posit two suggestions.

Firstly that the the most obvious objection to classical theism is experience. From liberal protestantism and German idealism has grown a much fuller approach to the idea of experience and praxis in Christian theology. Further philosophical and theological reflection of the twentieth century has shown there to be serious holes in the doctrines of classical theism. Fiddes has reworked the idea of impassibility, Hick of religious exclusivism, and for specifically Christian doctrines, the idea of the incarnation and the trinity no longer rest on a firm footing. The shift in philosophical and religious langague that took place from the 19th century onwards means all ideas of classical theism must be re-examined, as you mentioned, but you did not draw out the shift in the understanding of reality which this has also fascilitated. Which brings us back to expeierence and whether or not the empty doctrines of classical theism have any relevance, let alone any coherene for the place the world finds itself in.

My second point it this - that religions are not monoliths or totalitarian entites, nor are they capbable of being given a convenient gloss so as to be able to speak about them. The classical theism you outlined does not encompass the main premise of Chrisian theism, namely that God is three persons in one essence, a relational trinity in which God is both immanent and ecomonic. I do not have enough data to be able to comment on Islam and Judaism, but to my mind 'classical theism' is generally a reference to a specific period of Christian thought characterised by such as Aquinas, and I think it's dangerous to use the language of a seperate religion in a specific period to conceptualise another. The latter isn't a point I'm entirely happy on so I wait to be corrected. However what I am sure on is that if classical theism does nothing except pull out the nicely syncretic bits of three religions whilst ignoring their unique and fundamental claims (such as soteriology) then does this not render it a little invalid? Classical theism attempts to capture the 'essence' of God? Well what is God? God, in the three traditions cited, is a maximally loving creator who wishes humanity to be united with itself in perfection. Whether philosophy likes it or not God is personal in all three traditions cited (and you yourself treat God as such by using the gendered (and thus personal) pronoun 'he'), to conveniently forget that God must continue to be relevant and efficacious by offering achievable salvation to successive generations is the main fault of classical theism - the imprisoment of three personal and relational concepts of God in the philosophical categories of Greek cosmological thought.

Thank you very much for your comments. I am rather busy with RL at the moment, but when I have time I shall ameliorate my entry in line with your comments, which are invaluable to me.

I'll keep you posted .

I'd appreciate being kept updated, RL is busy for me too, darn finals. Glad my otherwise useless knowledge was some help to someone!

I am very sorry, I haven't done anything yet. Darned AS's are a- comin. Did you go through AS's?

Thanks for your help. Updates made.