Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Theology after the Birth of GodArguing about Axiological Engagement

Theology after the Birth of God: Arguing about Axiological Engagement [Like other complex organisms, we human beings navigate our environments by fighting, fleeing, feeding, and copulating (the four “f”s). That is not all we do, but if we do not do those things well we will not survive to pass on our genes and cultures. Often we do these things without thinking. In fact, things often go better for us if we do not think too much (or too long) about them in moments of stress or excitement; just do what comes naturally. On the other hand, it is also important to learn how to adequately evaluate the appropriateness of each “f” as we engage other complex organisms. And so sometimes we reflect on the relative value of things, and on the potentially good or bad effects of our past and prospective engagements. Occasionally—or, if we are philosophically oriented scientists or theologians, regularly—we also think, and even argue about, the conditions for our (more or less thoughtful) evaluations.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Theology after the Birth of GodArguing about Axiological Engagement

Part of the Radical Theologies Book Series
Shults, F. LeRon
Theology after the Birth of God — Oct 15, 2015
Download PDF
33 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/theology-after-the-birth-of-god-arguing-about-axiological-engagement-2V5ACBycOV

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Palgrave Macmillan US
Copyright
© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Nature America Inc. 2014
ISBN
978-1-349-47336-6
Pages
79 –112
DOI
10.1057/9781137358035_4
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[Like other complex organisms, we human beings navigate our environments by fighting, fleeing, feeding, and copulating (the four “f”s). That is not all we do, but if we do not do those things well we will not survive to pass on our genes and cultures. Often we do these things without thinking. In fact, things often go better for us if we do not think too much (or too long) about them in moments of stress or excitement; just do what comes naturally. On the other hand, it is also important to learn how to adequately evaluate the appropriateness of each “f” as we engage other complex organisms. And so sometimes we reflect on the relative value of things, and on the potentially good or bad effects of our past and prospective engagements. Occasionally—or, if we are philosophically oriented scientists or theologians, regularly—we also think, and even argue about, the conditions for our (more or less thoughtful) evaluations.]

Published: Oct 15, 2015

Keywords: Inductive Inference; Surprising Fact; Deductive Inference; Abductive Inference; Horrendous Evil

There are no references for this article.