God Without Metaphysics: Some Thomistic Reflections on Heidegger’s Onto-Theological Critique and the Future of Natural Theology

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Justin Gable
{"title":"God Without Metaphysics: Some Thomistic Reflections on Heidegger’s Onto-Theological Critique and the Future of Natural Theology","authors":"Justin Gable","doi":"10.5840/acpq2021616233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Heideggerian critique of onto-theology has attained a semi-canonical status for continental philosophy of religion. But is the critique itself sound, and does it actually result in a richer philosophical and theological discourse concerning God? In this paper, I argue that Heidegger’s onto-theological critique suffers from serious difficulties. First (section II) I examine the critique, summarizing and condensing the critique in its essentials. I use Westphal’s fourfold criteria as a way of giving it some precision, while presenting it in relative independence from Heidegger’s own account of Being. In section III, I examine the results of non-onto-theological discourse on God post-Heidegger, suggesting, using the examples of John Caputo and Richard Kearney, that Heidegger’s onto-theological critique has not inspired a less problematic religious discourse. In the fourth and final section, I question the legitimacy of the critique itself. While Heidegger’s critique of onto-theology has the seemingly admirable goal of rendering our discourse about God less instrumental and idolatrous, a careful analysis of the criteria themselves reveals that onto-theology either misinterprets natural theological discourse on God or subjects it to impossible requirements.","PeriodicalId":44497,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/acpq2021616233","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Heideggerian critique of onto-theology has attained a semi-canonical status for continental philosophy of religion. But is the critique itself sound, and does it actually result in a richer philosophical and theological discourse concerning God? In this paper, I argue that Heidegger’s onto-theological critique suffers from serious difficulties. First (section II) I examine the critique, summarizing and condensing the critique in its essentials. I use Westphal’s fourfold criteria as a way of giving it some precision, while presenting it in relative independence from Heidegger’s own account of Being. In section III, I examine the results of non-onto-theological discourse on God post-Heidegger, suggesting, using the examples of John Caputo and Richard Kearney, that Heidegger’s onto-theological critique has not inspired a less problematic religious discourse. In the fourth and final section, I question the legitimacy of the critique itself. While Heidegger’s critique of onto-theology has the seemingly admirable goal of rendering our discourse about God less instrumental and idolatrous, a careful analysis of the criteria themselves reveals that onto-theology either misinterprets natural theological discourse on God or subjects it to impossible requirements.
没有形而上学的上帝:对海德格尔本体论批判与自然神学未来的托马斯式反思
海德格尔对神学的批判在大陆宗教哲学中已经达到了半规范的地位。但是,批判本身是否合理,它是否真的导致了关于上帝的更丰富的哲学和神学话语?本文认为,海德格尔对神学的批判存在着严重的困难。首先(第二节)考察批判,对批判的本质进行总结和浓缩。我用威斯特法尔的四重标准来给它一些精确性,同时相对独立于海德格尔自己对存在的描述。在第三节中,我考察了后海德格尔对上帝的非神学话语的结果,并以约翰·卡普托和理查德·科尔尼的例子表明,海德格尔对神学的批判并没有激发出一种问题较少的宗教话语。在第四部分,也是最后一部分,我质疑批判本身的合法性。虽然海德格尔对神学的批判似乎有一个令人钦佩的目标,那就是让我们关于上帝的话语不那么工具化和偶像崇拜,但对标准本身的仔细分析表明,神学要么误解了关于上帝的自然神学话语,要么将其置于不可能的要求之下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
50.00%
发文量
24
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信