{"id":251924,"date":"2026-07-13T01:38:31","date_gmt":"2026-07-12T22:38:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/1kitap1.com\/en\/analytic-theology-oliver-d-crisp-michael-c-rea\/"},"modified":"2026-07-13T01:38:31","modified_gmt":"2026-07-12T22:38:31","slug":"analytic-theology-oliver-d-crisp-michael-c-rea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1kitap1.com\/en\/analytic-theology-oliver-d-crisp-michael-c-rea\/","title":{"rendered":"Analytic Theology – Oliver D Crisp Michael C Rea"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"<\/figure>\n

The Wrst of these observations is that analytic theology is likely to be interested in a particular kind of metaphysical inquiry: one which attempts \u2018to give a correct account of what are the ultimate constituents of the world and how they interact\u2019, in the words of Richard Swinburne.1 The second observation is that analytic philosophy of religion (to which Crisp anticipates analytic theology bearing a signiWcant resemblance) is frequently accused, with some rectitude, of being \u2018ahistorical\u2019 and of failing to pay attention to \u2018the social and cultural factors that shape Christian doctrine\u2019.2 The problem at the intersection of these two observations is the fact that academic theology over the past several generations has, for broadly (intellectual-)historical reasons, largely shied away from the kind of metaphysical inquiry that Crisp describes in preference to examination of the social and cultural conditioning and impact of religious doctrines.<\/p>\n

That is to say, over the last two centuries or so of the Weld\u2019s development, the sort of metaphysical project described by Crisp has increasingly been regarded by theologians as simply not viable, and the view among theologians that this development represents a historically informed advance rather than a decline in collective wisdom has been com- mon. Proponents of this view are likely to see those practicing analytic theology as described by Crisp as failing to realize that they are engaged in a fruitless endeavor precisely because of their \u2018ahistoricity\u2019.3 1 See p. 36 above.<\/p>\n

2 See p. 50 above. 3 Some sort of antipathy between historical awareness and a willingness to engage in metaphysics is implied by Jean Luc Marion\u2019s statement that \u2018[i]f we understand by modernity the completed and therefore terminal Wgure of metaphysics, such as it develops from Descartes to Nietzsche, then \u2018\u2018postmodernity\u2019\u2019 begins when, among other things, the metaphysical determination of God is called into question\u2019: God Without Being, tr. Thomas A. Carlson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), p. xxi.<\/p>\n

The suggestion, I take it, is that those who assume that theological metaphysics is a viable undertaking have failed to keep pace with the movement of history itself. One way of responding to this charge is to engage the history of theology with respect to the question of metaphysics. In the analytic mode, this means examining the work of those historical theologians who are reputed to have been responsible for shifting the emphasis of theological inquiry away from metaphysics\u2014and, crucially, to ask whether the positions articulated and the arguments advanced have merit.<\/p>\n

\n

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University\u2019s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With oYces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York # Oxford University Press 2009 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2009 All rights reserved.<\/p>\n

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Library of Congress Control Number: 2008942635 Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India Printed in Great Britain on acid free paper by the MPG Books Group in the UK ISBN 978 0 19 920356 7 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 For Mathilda Anais Crisp, who has already shown herself to be \u2018mighty in battle\u2019 and For Christina Brinks Rea, who came with gentleness and peace, and love in abundance.<\/p>\n

This page intentionally left blank Contents Notes on Contributors ix Introduction 1 Michael C. Rea I. IN DEFENSE OF ANALYTIC THEOLOGY 1. On Analytic Theology 33 Oliver D. Crisp 2.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is a short excerpt from the opening of “” by Unknown, quoted for review and introduction purposes. All rights belong to the copyright holders.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n

Table of Contents<\/p>\nToggle<\/span><\/path><\/svg><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n