Talk:Philosophy of religion

Philosophy of religion as a part of metaphysics

What is the "first PO cause argument"? We need to be told Myrvin (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded by Cowtowne - that phrase is entirely OBSCURE as demonstrated by Mr Google here:

 http :// bit .ly /71I8Dq   Accept my apology, my prose is

jabbery. Maybe clever, or perhaps quite a brickhead... Initial theory is the two letters "PO" are spurious, typos, and stand for nothing. Why's this error unfixed for five months, when it is the leading sentence of a complex, erudite, pedantic synopsis.

 http :// bit.ly /52yUhU  (redact teh spaces) 

=> revised theory; and a workable conclusion. "PO" has no context. Inclusion of undeclared abbreviations is surely ill-advised. Perhaps... PM =Prime Mover. Because this article appears to be unattended... it will get some TLC with this micro-tweak from me. ( sorry if this oversteps the protocol... alas, you are duly notified herein) So much for the 35minutes wasted upon this glimmer of incomplete scholarship which was confounding. Ciao from Cowe Cowtowne (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)≈

Philosophical theology

There would seem to be a good deal of overlap with Philosophical theology William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

DISTINCT from theology, or a variant of it?

Currently, part of the (unsourced, btw) text reads: "Theologians, distinct from philosophers of religion, often consider the existence of God as axiomatic or self-evident and explain, justify or support religious claims by rationalization or intuitive metaphors." However, looking at the list of philosophers of religion, a great deal of them are theologians - and famous ones at that. In other words: It appears fairly meaningless to try and make such a sharp division between theologians and philosophers of religion, unless you want to remove the designation of philosopher of religion from such characters as Augustine of Hippo or St. Thomas Aquinas, who may fit the category of philosophical theology anyway.Mojowiha (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I could see this article being merged with theology, as the theology article notes "Richard Hooker defined 'theology' in English as 'the science of things divine,' [...] Theologians use various forms of analysis and argument [...] to help understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote any of myriad religious topic" and that theology may "challenge (ex. biblical criticism) or oppose (ex. irreligion) a religious tradition or the religious world-view."

I could imagine a possible form of article that needs to remain separate, but the current form reads like a POV-fork of theology.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to rewrite this with refs. Myrvin (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Copy or too-close paraphrase in /* Problem of Divine Hiddenness */

The text here seems too closely related to its single source, section 2 of Hiddenness of God at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger from Philosophical theology, 16 October

The article about "Philosophical theology" presents an intellectual argument put forward seemingly largely by one individual Mortimer J. Adler, about the nature of the philosophy of religion - attempting to draw a distinction between what he calls "philosophical theology" by religious outsiders, such as Aristotle, and Natural theology, by insiders. Its most appropriate place would likely be as a much-contracted entry in the philosophy of religion article (and possibly as a mentioned criticism on the Natural theology page. As it stands, having an article entitled Philosophical theology provides significant scope for confusion with the Philosophy of religion and Religious philosophy pages to the extent that casual readers could readily be confused. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Merge into "theology" — The article is nothing more than a case of hyperfragmentation of knowledge; Wikipedia is not Wiktionary.--Æo (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Do not merge - Philosophical theology is like philosophical anthropology, philosophical psychology, or philosophical cosmology: it's a specifically philosophical take on an otherwise independent field of inquiry. The term is used in this sense to denote the theological thinking of, e.g., Aristotle, Chrysippus, Plotinus, or Avicenna. This is something quite different from philosophy of religion, religion not being an independent field of inquiry, nor a traditional subject of philosophical thinking. I'm not sure in what context the term philosophy of religion is normally used, but it seems to be a broad category of philosophical thinking about many subjects touching upon religion (the nature of good and evil, the demarcation between religion and science, etc.). This is wholly different from philosophical theology, which endeavors to answer the simple question: what is god? This question, and the answers given by philosophers such as the ones I've mentioned, are normally taken to be independent of religion: it's a purely rational/speculative take on God, without reference to scriptural authority. Although it shares this latter feature with natural theology, the difference is that while natural theology is a form of religious apologetics geared towards proving the existence of God, philosophical theology is always embedded within a broader philosophical framework, from which it tries to formulate a coherent answer to the philosophical question as to the nature of God. It's true that our current Philosophical theology article is in a bad state, but this topic does without a doubt deserve its own, separate article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Do not merge - Demarcating between these topics is a thorny one, and arguing where the lines are between philosophy of religion and philosophical theology is a debate philosophers and theologians, both religious and not, have been having for a very long time (see, for instance, sections 1 and 3 of Philosophy and Christian Theology in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a very short synopsis of that debate). The previous version of the Stanford article also notes that there is a historical aspect to this—for much of the twentieth century, there was a fairly strict separation between philosophy and theology, but among many philosophers with an interest in theological questions, there isn't such a clear boundary anymore. Wikipedia will not resolve this: talk pages are good for many things, but they will not be the venue where a definitive demarcation of academic fields is developed. Instead, I'd suggest this—go and have a look at the table of contents for The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion and then do the same with The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology, and notice that they do not cover the same area. Institutionally, the sort of things discussed in the Philosophical Theology are not the sort of thing taught to philosophy students in their intro to philosophy of religion courses (at least in England) but are the sort of things discussed in theology lectures. I'd agree with Apaugasma that the Philosophical Theology article on WP needs _a lot_ of work (not least to cover non-Christian philosophical theology), but merging doesn't fix that. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Closing, with no merge. Klbrain (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)