Monday, July 18, 2016

Must a scholar of religion adopt methodological atheism?

No, according to Michael Cantrell.

1 comment:

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

That is a pretty interesting article,. IOt crosses paths with a lot of my interests, Postmodernism which I did in doctoral work, Peter Berger I studied way back and soc major,history of science and history of theology.

When I was a sociology major I took a course inc Soc of religion by Ansan Schoupe who has sense gone on to academic fame for study of cults. I was taking that class about the time that Berger paper was being published, unfortunately I was under graduate then so that was out of league.

The most important thing to remember is even though he had positivism as a mode for atheism that;'s still a far cry from New atheism. I am guessing that Keith Parsons is probably an example of the kind of positivism going in the 70s, He;s pretty reasonable about regarding religiosity a kind fo respect.

Billy Abraham was shaped and taught by that period of positivism at Oxford. He was one of my role models for what prosativism was about once I got to Perkins. So my question about Berger would be did he understand atheism as an attack on Christendom or did he think of it as neutral? Did he mean actual undermining of religious belief or just centrality and unbelief?

He did not mean callimg God invisable Pink univcorn