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.

"And of course, you have put your hand on the other great problem with Heinlein: ..."

And his own received him not
"Oh, he knows it would be different for him. He's one of the good ones."

And you may say to yourself, ..."
""Scott Pruitt is pervasively, laughably corrupt"Honestly, this is what gets me about him. His corruption ..."

And you may say to yourself, ..."
"This is actually the name I was thinking of, yes. Though there are others..."

And you may say to yourself, ..."

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.