Ahistoricity in Analytic Theology

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
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.
Categories
Reprint years
2018
ISBN(s)
1051-3558
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BRAAIA-5
Upload history
Archival date: 2018-03-07
View other versions
Added to PP index
2018-03-02

Total views
117 ( #43,848 of 65,587 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #59,648 of 65,587 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.