8 years ago: A fondness for beetles

August 16, 2005, on this blog: A fondness for beetles

Bad theology is incompatible with science, but that’s not the biggest problem facing it. The more immediate problem facing bad theology is that it is incompatible with good theology.


One side’s hate and one is ..."
"Hm. I take that back. It's even less great than I thought. I'll look into ..."

Sunday favorites
"I really prefer to take "worship" out of the thing entirely. "Fetishize" isn't great for ..."

Sunday favorites
"Dagwwod dog or pluto pup?"

Biblical archaeology review

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Carstonio

    How would one know good theology from bad theology? My admittedly limited reading about the subject suggests that it requires the acceptance of a set of assumptions. To me, inferring anything about the character of a god is almost empirically the same as inferring the existence of a god. Even if one assumes for argument’s sake that a god exists, I see all sorts of other possibilities for the abundance of beetles. What if the god hates beetles, or has no particular preference for them, but created the abundance by accident? Or as part of a wager with Satan? And if the god doesn’t make accidents, what would be the basis for asserting that about the god’s character?

  • EdinburghEye

    As I understand it, good theology is internally self-consistent.
    But I’m an atheist, so my understanding of theology may not be identical with a believer’s understanding of theology.