Systematic theology as a rationally justified public discourse about God / / Michael Agerbo Mørch.

• Superior document: Religion, Theologie und Naturwissenschaft
• VerfasserIn: Agerbo Mørch, Michael,
• Place / Publishing House: Göttingen, Germany : : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,, [2023]; ©2023
• Year of Publication: 2023
• Edition: 1st ed.
• Language: English
• Series: Religion, Theologie und Naturwissenschaft. .
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (416 pages)

Table of Contents

• Intro
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Acknowledgements
• Table of Contents
• Part One: Introduction and Background for the Book
• Chapter One: Introduction
• 1.1 Background for the Book
• 1.2 The Research Problem
• 1.2.1 Terminology
• 1.3 Material
• 1.4 Method
• 1.4.1 Outline
• 1.5 Aim and Relevance of the Book
• Chapter Two: A Selected Overview of The Historical Background
• 2.1 Introduction
• 2.2 Debates in the 20th Century
• 2.2.1 The Barth-Scholz Debate
• 2.2.2 The German Debate in the 60s through the 80s
• 2.2.3 Lund versus Uppsala
• 2.2.4 Chicago vs. Yale
• 2.3 Conclusion
• Part Two: A Scalar Understanding of Systematic Theology
• Chapter Three: A Definition of Scientific Systematic Theology
• 3.1 Introduction
• 3.2 Level One (Systematic Theology 1)
• 3.3 Level Two (Systematic Theology 2)
• 3.4 Level Three (Systematic Theology 3)
• 3.4.1 Niels Henrik Gregersen's Understanding of Systematic Theology 3
• 3.4.2 Systematic Theology 3 as Normative Ontology
• 3.4.3 Why Systematic Theology 3 May be Scientific and Systematic Theology 1 and 2 Only Derivatively So
• 3.4.4 The Sources of Systematic Theology 3
• 3.4.4.1 Thought Experiments as a Source for Systematic Theology 3
• 3.4.4.2 The Natural Sciences
• 3.4.4.3 The Bible and Tradition
• 3.4.5 On the Possibility of a Synchronic Constitution of Systematic Theology
• 3.4.5.1 Lorenz Puntel's Structural-Systematic Approach to a Theory of Being and God
• 3.4.6 The Concept of "Truth Candidate"
• 3.4.7 A Short Introduction to Rescher's Coherence Theory of Truth
• 3.4.8 How to Compare Ontologies. A Puntelian Approach
• 3.4.9 Conclusion
• Part Three: Objections to Systematic Theology as Scientific
• Introduction
• Chapter Four: Objection 1-Testability
• 4.1 Introduction
• 4.2 Premise 1
• 4.2.1 Definition of Testability.
• 4.2.2 Testing Single Propositions: Confirmation Theory
• 4.2.2.1 The Defence of Testing Single Propositions
• 4.2.2.2 The Critique of Testing Single Propositions
• 4.2.3 Excursus: Inferences - The Steps from Tests to Conclusions
• 4.2.3.1 Induction
• 4.2.3.2 Inference to the Best Explanation
• 4.2.3.3 Conclusion to Excursus About Inferences
• 4.2.4 Testing Whole Theories: Coherence Theory
• 4.2.5 Conclusion on Premise 1
• 4.3 Premise 2
• 4.3.1 Introduction
• 4.3.2 Examination of Coherence I
• 4.3.3 Wolfhart Pannenberg
• 4.3.4 Alister McGrath
• 4.3.5 Nancey Murphy
• 4.3.5.1 Christianity's Crises
• 4.3.5.2 Naturalism's Solution
• 4.3.5.3 Naturalism's Crises
• 4.3.5.4 Christianity's Solution
• 4.3.6 Examination of Coherence II
• 4.3.7 Conclusion on Premise 2
• 4.4 Conclusion
• Chapter Five: Objection 2-Falsifiability
• 5.1 Introduction
• 5.2 Premise 1
• 5.2.1 What is Falsification?
• 5.2.2 Karl Popper
• 5.2.3 Thomas Kuhn
• 5.2.4 Imre Lakatos
• 5.2.5 Paul Feyerabend
• 5.2.6 Larry Laudan
• 5.2.7 Falsification at Work 1: The Hypothetico-Deductive Method
• 5.2.7.1 The Deductive-Nomological Model
• 5.2.7.2 The Hypothetico-Deductive Method
• 5.2.8 Falsification at Work 2: Comparing Degrees of Coherence
• 5.2.8.1 Falsification as Comparison of Degrees of Coherence between Ontologies
• 5.2.8.2 Systematization
• 5.2.8.3 Theoretical Framework
• 5.2.8.4 Scientific Theories must be Falsifiable but not Actually Falsified
• 5.2.9 Conclusion on Premise 1
• 5.3 Premise 2
• 5.3.1 Examples of Uses of Falsification
• 5.3.2 The Concept of Eschatological Verification
• 5.3.3 Excursus: Falsification at the Level of Systematic Theology 2
• 5.3.4 Recent Attempts at Rendering Ontologies Comparable
• 5.3.5 Conclusion on Premise 2
• 5.4 Conclusion
• Chapter Six: Objection 3-Intersubjectivity
• 6.1 Introduction
• 6.2 Premise 1.
• 6.2.1 What is Intersubjectivity?
• 6.2.1.1 Two Major Positions
• 6.2.1.2 What Does Intersubjectivity Presuppose?
• 6.2.2 What is the Best Understanding of the Criterion of Intersubjectivity in Research?
• 6.2.2.1 Methods, Presuppositions, Data, and Results must be Publicly Accessible
• 6.2.2.2 Methods, Data, and Results must be Independent from the Researcher
• 6.2.2.3 The Importance of Criticism for Intersubjectivity
• 6.2.3 What is Gained from Intersubjectivity?
• 6.2.4 Difficulties for a Clear Concept of Intersubjectivity
• 6.2.4.1 Cognitive Biases in Relation to Intersubjective Criticism
• 6.2.4.2 Interpretive Communities and Paradigmatic Thinking as Possible Problems for Intersubjective Criticism
• 6.2.4.3 The Epistemology of Testimony
• 6.2.4.4 Epistemology and Ontology are Related Holistically
• 6.2.5 Conclusion on Premise 1
• 6.3. Premise 2
• 6.3.1 Stating the Problem
• 6.3.2 Models for Intersubjectivity in Systematic Theology
• 6.3.2.1 Demarcated Intersubjectivity
• 6.3.2.2 Paradigmatic Intersubjectivity
• 6.3.2.3 Critical Intersubjectivity
• 6.3.3 Complexities in systematic theology in Relation to Intersubjectivity
• 6.3.4 Insecurities in systematic theology in Relation to Intersubjectivity
• 6.3.4.1. Ontology Deals with Comprehensiveness, Which Often Creates Insecurity
• 6.3.4.2 Accepted Insecurities in an Ontological Theory
• 6.3.5 Conclusion on Premise 2
• 6.4 Conclusion
• Chapter Seven: Objection 4-Normativity
• 7.1 Introduction
• 7.2 Premise 1
• 7.2.1 What is Normativity?
• 7.2.1.1 Short Working Definition of Normativity
• 7.2.1.2 Major Positions
• 7.2.1.3 The Inevitability of Normativity
• 7.2.2 What is Normativity Given the Presuppositions of this Book?
• 7.2.2.1 Normativity and Truth
• 7.2.2.2 Normativity and CUDOS
• 7.2.2.3 Normativity and Revision
• 7.2.3 Conclusion of Premise 1.
• 7.3 Premise 2
• 7.3.1 Stating the Problem of Strong Normativity in Three Claims
• 7.3.1.1 Strong Normativity Becomes a Problem when it Rests on Questionable Foundations
• 7.3.1.2 Strong Normativity Becomes a Problem When There is a Claim of Truth concerning Supernatural Entities
• 7.3.1.3 Strong Normativity Becomes a Problem When it is Based on Limited Data
• 7.3.2 Models of normativity for Systematic Theology
• 7.3.2.1 As in Religious Studies
• 7.3.2.2 Orthodoxy
• 7.3.2.3 No Normativity-All Theology Is Contextual
• 7.3.3 Strong Normativity in Relation to Coherence in Systematic Theology
• 7.3.4 Conclusion concerning Premise 2
• 7.4 Conclusion
• Chapter Eight: Objection 5-Distinct Discipline with Distinct Research
• 8.1 Introduction
• 8.2 Premise 1
• 8.2.1 What is Distinct Research?
• 8.2.2 Why is the Criterion of Distinct Research Important?
• 8.2.3 Conclusion on Premise 1
• 8.3 Premise 2
• 8.3.1 What is the General Problem?
• 8.3.2 Supposed Problems for systematic theology as Distinct Research
• 8.3.2.1 Systematic Theology Cannot Identify its Object of Study
• 8.3.2.2 Systematic Theology Cannot Identify its Methods Because of the First Problem
• 8.3.2.3 Systematic Theology Cannot Explain, Only Describe (Systematic Theology 1)
• 8.3.2.4 Systematic Theology Builds on a Weak Foundation of Evidence
• 8.3.3 What Are the Distinctive Marks of Systematic Theology 3?
• 8.3.3.1 Contra Religious Studies
• 8.3.3.2 Contra Philosophy
• 8.3.4 Conclusion on Premise 2
• 8.4 Conclusion
• Part Four: Conclusion
• Chapter Nine
• 9.1 Summary of the Findings
• 9.2 Conclusion
• 9.3 Theses of the Book
• Bibliography
• Index
• Index of Person
• Index of Subjects
• Body.