现代性的罪恶:对“对施莱尔马赫上帝论的巴尔特式批判”的回答

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 RELIGION
Daniel J. Pedersen
{"title":"现代性的罪恶:对“对施莱尔马赫上帝论的巴尔特式批判”的回答","authors":"Daniel J. Pedersen","doi":"10.1111/ijst.12750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is a longstanding critique of Schleiermacher's theology which claims that, due to his account of the divine attributes, we cannot truly speak about God, but only about ourselves. This essay aims to refute this charge – often couched in charges of ‘subjectivism’ or ‘nominalism’ – by direct engagement with a recent and clear articulation of this line of criticism in the spirit of Karl Barth. This essay specifically addresses three main sub-charges: one, that Schleiermacher denies knowledge of God; two, that he is a causal skeptic in the line of Hume or Kant; and three, that his doctrine of the divine attributes only aims to speak of our consciousness, and not of God. This essay demonstrates that all three sub-charges are false. This essay then shows how all three of Schleiermacher's views on these matters can be found in a signal Reformed Scholastic thinker, demonstrating that Schleiermacher's views on the doctrine of God are distinctly modern only by selectively, not wholly, parting from his ancient, medieval and early modern forebears.</p>","PeriodicalId":43284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Systematic Theology","volume":"27 2","pages":"193-220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijst.12750","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Vices of Modernity: A Reply to ‘A Barthian Critique of Schleiermacher's Doctrine of God’\",\"authors\":\"Daniel J. Pedersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ijst.12750\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>There is a longstanding critique of Schleiermacher's theology which claims that, due to his account of the divine attributes, we cannot truly speak about God, but only about ourselves. This essay aims to refute this charge – often couched in charges of ‘subjectivism’ or ‘nominalism’ – by direct engagement with a recent and clear articulation of this line of criticism in the spirit of Karl Barth. This essay specifically addresses three main sub-charges: one, that Schleiermacher denies knowledge of God; two, that he is a causal skeptic in the line of Hume or Kant; and three, that his doctrine of the divine attributes only aims to speak of our consciousness, and not of God. This essay demonstrates that all three sub-charges are false. This essay then shows how all three of Schleiermacher's views on these matters can be found in a signal Reformed Scholastic thinker, demonstrating that Schleiermacher's views on the doctrine of God are distinctly modern only by selectively, not wholly, parting from his ancient, medieval and early modern forebears.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43284,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Systematic Theology\",\"volume\":\"27 2\",\"pages\":\"193-220\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijst.12750\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Systematic Theology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijst.12750\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Systematic Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijst.12750","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对施莱尔马赫的神学有一个长期的批评,他声称,由于他对神性属性的描述,我们不能真正谈论上帝,而只能谈论我们自己。本文旨在驳斥这种指控——通常以“主观主义”或“唯名主义”的指控来表达——通过直接接触卡尔·巴特(Karl Barth)最近对这条批评路线的清晰表述。这篇文章特别提出了三个主要的子指控:第一,施莱尔马赫否认上帝的知识;第二,他是休谟或康德那样的因果怀疑论者;第三,他关于神性属性的学说只是针对我们的意识,而不是针对上帝。这篇文章证明这三个子指控都是错误的。这篇文章随后展示了施莱尔马赫在这些问题上的三个观点是如何在一个改革宗经院哲学家身上找到的,表明施莱尔马赫关于上帝教义的观点是明显现代的,只是有选择性地,而不是完全地,与他的古代,中世纪和早期现代祖先分开。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Vices of Modernity: A Reply to ‘A Barthian Critique of Schleiermacher's Doctrine of God’

There is a longstanding critique of Schleiermacher's theology which claims that, due to his account of the divine attributes, we cannot truly speak about God, but only about ourselves. This essay aims to refute this charge – often couched in charges of ‘subjectivism’ or ‘nominalism’ – by direct engagement with a recent and clear articulation of this line of criticism in the spirit of Karl Barth. This essay specifically addresses three main sub-charges: one, that Schleiermacher denies knowledge of God; two, that he is a causal skeptic in the line of Hume or Kant; and three, that his doctrine of the divine attributes only aims to speak of our consciousness, and not of God. This essay demonstrates that all three sub-charges are false. This essay then shows how all three of Schleiermacher's views on these matters can be found in a signal Reformed Scholastic thinker, demonstrating that Schleiermacher's views on the doctrine of God are distinctly modern only by selectively, not wholly, parting from his ancient, medieval and early modern forebears.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Systematic Theology has acquired a world-wide reputation for publishing high-quality academic articles on systematic theology and for substantial reviews of major new works of scholarship. Systematic theology, which is concerned with the systematic articulation of the meaning, coherence and implications of Christian doctrine, is at the leading edge of contemporary academic theology. The discipline has undergone a remarkable transformation in the last three decades, and is now firmly established as a central area of academic teaching and research.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信