Current vs. Ancient Christian Thinkers

[Upchurch]

In another thread, (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21791) ceo_esq refered to a 5th - 6th century Christian philosopher, Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius, in answer to a modern question about Christianity. That got me to thinking.

Why do you suppose it is that modern Christian thinkers never seem to reach the same level as ancient Christian thinkers of centuries ago? The two I'm most familiar with are Augustine and Aquinas, for example.

Now granted, ancient Christian thinkers were at a disadvantagd (or were they?) in that, as a whole, we weren't as knowledgable about the world around us as we are now. Their rightings weren't so often contradicted by modern scientific understanding. Also, I'm sure the ancient world had it's share of really lousy thinkers whose works simply didn't last until the present because they really didn't deserve to.

However, much of what I have read didn't really rely on understanding of the physical world. Further, their arguments are mostly logically consistant with premises clearly stated. Ancient Christian thinkers really were just good and forming their ideas and arguments and seemed genuinely unafraid to take on really hard issues that had the potential to blow their arguments out of the water. They did this, it seems, out of a genuine need to know that many modern scientists now share but modern Christians do not.

Many of your modern Christian thinkers don't seem nearly as capable as their ancient counterparts. I'm not nearly as familar with the modern ones as I am with the ancient ones, however, and I may be way off base. The only ones I can think of are on the order of Billy Grahm, etc. and he pales in comparison. Does anyone know of well known modern Christian thinkers who are on par with the ancient Christian thinkers?

If not, why not? What is the cause of this degredation in the quality of Christian thought?

[arcticpenguin]

Maybe all the good ideas have been taken.

[Upchurch]

Funny how there seems to be a never ending supply of bad ones.

[arcticpenguin]

I mean, suppose you independently came up with a really brilliant idea on, uh, the trinity or something. You tell you fellow monk about it, and he says, "yeah, that's pretty much what Augustine said way back when". Coming in second just doesn't count for much.

[whitefork]

Billy Graham was highly regarded at divinity school I've heard, but what he says in his crusades can't be considered formal theology.

Check out Paul Tillich, Martin Buber, Paul Ricoeur and Hans Kung. For something much more non-mainstream, Mircea Eliade.

I suspect that the context in which theology happens today - post Nietzsche "death of god", post Holocaust, post-Hiroshima, worldwide plague of aids, rise of fundamentalist Islam, and so forth, has made it far more problematic for those trying to speak about god.

Thomas, Augustine, Origen, they had real answers. Today, we've got questions that might well have given them migraines.

No one's likely to write the Summa Theologica today, but there is real work of substance happening. And the divinity schools have to get their teachers from somewhere.

[Upchurch]

Ultimately, I'm not even really talking about the quality of the ideas themselves but the quality of the arguments for those ideas. Read Augustine and you see that he really tries to work things through. Read modern Christian literature and it's more like the passing of ideas with no support or depth.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Upchurch
They did this, it seems, out of a genuine need to know that many modern scientists now share but modern Christians do not.

Upchurch,

You are overgeneralizing here. Maybe if you specified what Christian writings you found intersting? Christian writing is such a broad subject.

The "Ancients" built the foundations for religion, philosopgy, and science. Are there modern equivalents to Socrates, Plato, Hume, Aristotle, Zeno, Thales, Pythagoras? These men built the foundation of what we call philosophy. There's no need to build it again. Are there modern equivalents to Archamedies, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Galileo. These men built the foundation of modern science. Here's a question: Can the average person on the street name one "famous" scientist? :D

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by LCBOY

Here's a question: Can the average person on the street name one "famous" scientist? :D
Yes, Albert Einstein. If you had specified a living 'famous' scientist it might be tougher. Stephen Hawking, maybe.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Yes, Albert Einstein. If you had specified a living 'famous' scientist it might be tougher. Stephen Hawking, maybe.

Yes, I meant living scientist. If you went to the mall and asked random people to name a famous scientist AND ask them what they are famous for, I think you would be suprised by their answers. ;)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Check out Paul Tillich, Martin Buber, Paul Ricoeur and Hans Kung.
Good start, except that Martin Buber wasn't Christian. How about:

Karl Barth
Karl Rahner
Hans Urs von Balthasar
Gabriel Marcel
Jean-Luc Marion
Alvin Plantinga
Karol Wojtyla (alias John Paul II)
Alasdair MacIntyre

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by LCBOY

You are overgeneralizing here. Maybe if you specified what Christian writings you found intersting? Christian writing is such a broad subject.
Well, that's true. I have overgeneralized a bit. Perhaps I've just been reading too many billiefan links lately.

My appologies.

However, would you agree that the items billie links to are of inferior quality to the older variety?
Are there modern equivalents to Socrates, Plato, Hume, Aristotle, Zeno, Thales, Pythagoras? These men built the foundation of what we call philosophy.I'm not talking about philosophy in general. I'm talking about Christianity writings, specifically what is currently reffered to as apologetics.

The philosophers you mentioned are all pre-Christian (except Hume). I'm talking those who would today be considered applogetics like Augustine or Aquinas. (I'll get his name spelled right one of these days.)

Again, I'm not talking about rebuilding foundations or coming up with new ideas, I'm talking about constructing logically consistant arguments that try not to ignore any relevant information. My contention is that those who did it in the past are much better at it than the more modern ones.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Good start, except that Martin Buber wasn't Christian.


Piffle. Neither was Jesus.

Great additions there, ceo.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Good start, except that Martin Buber wasn't Christian. How about:

Karl Barth
Karl Rahner
Hans Urs von Balthasar
Gabriel Marcel
Jean-Luc Marion
Alvin Plantinga
Karol Wojtyla (alias John Paul II)
Alasdair MacIntyre

Well, now I see that we're beginning to narrow it down not just to Christian philosophy or theology, but apologetics specifically, which knocks out some of the names I suggested.

Has there been a great decline in serious apologetics? It's true that we don't seem to run up against the next Aquinas these days. Why?

Hmm... I'll think this one over.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ceo_esq


Well, now I see that we're beginning to narrow it down not just to Christian philosophy or theology, but apologetics specifically, which knocks out some of the names I suggested.Sorry. Didn't mean to narrow the field so much as to clarify it. We were starting to shoot out into philosophy or religion in general and I was talking specifically about Christianity because it is what I am most familiar with and it's the carp that billie spews so often.

(Not that I mean to pick on ol' billiefan, but he does seem to find the worst items to use as support, doesn't he?)
It's true that we don't seem to run up against the next Aquinas these days. Why? Right. That's kind of the point I'm trying to get across. Not so much the quality of the idea itself but the quality of the argument behind it.

As for the why, that is really a good part of the question. Decline of the intellegence of the populous in general? I can't imagine that would be true since (I believe) humanity, in general, is much more literate than we were during the first millennium.

Great question. I've got some thinking to do too.

[whitefork]

The passage of time weeds out the inferior work in almost all fields. Aquinas and Augustine certainly had a number of contemporaries who are mercifully forgotten, and if we could jump ahead 100 years, we'd know who of our contemporary theologians, if anyone, has made a lasting mark.

Just as in music and literature, perhaps 90% of the philosophy that's written in any age is mostly worthless junk.

One of the sad things about electronic media is that everything will be preserved. Quite depressing is it not - maybe we will have lost the editing function of the passage of time?

[SFB]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Their rightings weren't so often contradicted by modern scientific understanding.

Pun intended??

:D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by SFB


Pun intended??I wish. That's a good one and so subtle even I missed it. :D

Good catch.

[LCBOY]

Upchruch,

What kind of "carp" has billiefan posted? :D

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Their rightings weren't so often contradicted by modern scientific understanding.
:D :D :D
I see others have already point this out.

Basically, you are correct. There was a time when Faith thought Reason would win people to its side. That's manifestly not true anymore, and so Faith is only interested in defending its turf, not discovering new territory. Hence the arguments are now emotionally compelling instead of rationally compelling.

One of the last reasonable theologians I am aware of is Francis Schaeffer. His stuff is quite reasonable (he is the kind of Christian Roadtoad would like). Unfortunately, he's dead, and neuroscience has refuted his argument. Still, it was a dang good try.

If you want rational theologians today, you get the likes of Bishop Spong - who is almost indistinguishable from an atheist.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Upchurch
As for the why, that is really a good part of the question. Decline of the intellegence of the populous in general? I can't imagine that would be true since (I believe) humanity, in general, is much more literate than we were during the first millennium.

Great question. I've got some thinking to do too.

I am curious about this, too. Does higher literacy implies higher intellegence? I do not believe that humanity is more intelligent today than 100, 200, 500, 1,000, or 2,000 years ago. We have more information but that doesn't make man more "intelligent". The ancients produced amazing achievments in science and engineering that just boggle the mind. The achievemnts of the ancient Chinese, Egyptians, Israelites, Mayans, Sumerians, etc are amazing. Ok, I don't want to hijack this thread anymore...back to Christianity! :)