“不是三个神,而是一个神”——为什么简化论不能服务于我们的神学话语

Finley Issac Lawson
{"title":"“不是三个神,而是一个神”——为什么简化论不能服务于我们的神学话语","authors":"Finley Issac Lawson","doi":"10.30958/AJHA.6-1-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The triune nature of God is one of the most complex doctrines of Christianity, and its complexity is further compounded when one considers the incarnation. However, many of the difficulties and paradoxes associated with our idea of the divine arise from our adherence to reductionist ontology. I will argue that in order to move our theological discourse forward, in respect to divine and human nature, a holistic interpretation of our profession of faith is necessary. The challenge of a holistic interpretation is that it questions our ability to make any statement about the genuine, ontological individuation of persons (both divine and human), and in doing so raises the issue of whether we are, ontologically, bound to descend in to a form of pan(en)theism. In order to address the “inevitable” slide in to pan(en)theism I will examine the impact of two forms of holistic interpretation, Boolean and Non-Boolean, on our concept of personhood. Whilst a Boolean interpretation allows for a greater understanding of the relational nature of the Trinity, it is the Non-Boolean interpretation which has greater ontological significance. A Non-Boolean ontology, grounded in our scientific understanding of the nature of the world, shows our quest for individuation rests not in ontological fact but in epistemic need, and that it is our limited epistemology that drives our need to divide that which is ontologically indivisible. Whilst this ontological shift may be necessary, it raises questions about how divine-human relations are to be understood, and I conclude by examining some possible solutions.","PeriodicalId":325459,"journal":{"name":"ATHENS JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES & ARTS","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"Not Three Gods, but One\\\" – Why Reductionism Does Not Serve Our Theological Discourse\",\"authors\":\"Finley Issac Lawson\",\"doi\":\"10.30958/AJHA.6-1-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The triune nature of God is one of the most complex doctrines of Christianity, and its complexity is further compounded when one considers the incarnation. However, many of the difficulties and paradoxes associated with our idea of the divine arise from our adherence to reductionist ontology. I will argue that in order to move our theological discourse forward, in respect to divine and human nature, a holistic interpretation of our profession of faith is necessary. The challenge of a holistic interpretation is that it questions our ability to make any statement about the genuine, ontological individuation of persons (both divine and human), and in doing so raises the issue of whether we are, ontologically, bound to descend in to a form of pan(en)theism. In order to address the “inevitable” slide in to pan(en)theism I will examine the impact of two forms of holistic interpretation, Boolean and Non-Boolean, on our concept of personhood. Whilst a Boolean interpretation allows for a greater understanding of the relational nature of the Trinity, it is the Non-Boolean interpretation which has greater ontological significance. A Non-Boolean ontology, grounded in our scientific understanding of the nature of the world, shows our quest for individuation rests not in ontological fact but in epistemic need, and that it is our limited epistemology that drives our need to divide that which is ontologically indivisible. Whilst this ontological shift may be necessary, it raises questions about how divine-human relations are to be understood, and I conclude by examining some possible solutions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":325459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ATHENS JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES & ARTS\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ATHENS JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES & ARTS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30958/AJHA.6-1-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ATHENS JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES & ARTS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30958/AJHA.6-1-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

神的三位一体是基督教最复杂的教义之一,当我们考虑到道成肉身时,它的复杂性就更加复杂了。然而,与我们的神性观念相关的许多困难和悖论都来自于我们对还原论本体论的坚持。我认为,为了推动我们的神学论述向前发展,就神性和人性而言,对我们的信仰职业有必要进行全面的解释。整体解释的挑战在于,它质疑我们对人(包括神和人)的真实的、本体论的个性化做出任何陈述的能力,这样做提出了我们是否在本体论上必然会下降到一种泛有神论的形式的问题。为了解决“不可避免”滑向泛有神论的问题,我将考察两种形式的整体解释,布尔和非布尔,对我们人格概念的影响。虽然布尔解释可以更好地理解三位一体的关系本质,但非布尔解释具有更大的本体论意义。基于我们对世界本质的科学理解的非布尔本体论表明,我们对个性化的追求不是基于本体论事实,而是基于认识需要,而且正是我们有限的认识论驱使我们需要划分本体论上不可分割的东西。虽然这种本体论的转变可能是必要的,但它提出了关于如何理解神与人的关系的问题,我通过检查一些可能的解决方案来结束。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"Not Three Gods, but One" – Why Reductionism Does Not Serve Our Theological Discourse
The triune nature of God is one of the most complex doctrines of Christianity, and its complexity is further compounded when one considers the incarnation. However, many of the difficulties and paradoxes associated with our idea of the divine arise from our adherence to reductionist ontology. I will argue that in order to move our theological discourse forward, in respect to divine and human nature, a holistic interpretation of our profession of faith is necessary. The challenge of a holistic interpretation is that it questions our ability to make any statement about the genuine, ontological individuation of persons (both divine and human), and in doing so raises the issue of whether we are, ontologically, bound to descend in to a form of pan(en)theism. In order to address the “inevitable” slide in to pan(en)theism I will examine the impact of two forms of holistic interpretation, Boolean and Non-Boolean, on our concept of personhood. Whilst a Boolean interpretation allows for a greater understanding of the relational nature of the Trinity, it is the Non-Boolean interpretation which has greater ontological significance. A Non-Boolean ontology, grounded in our scientific understanding of the nature of the world, shows our quest for individuation rests not in ontological fact but in epistemic need, and that it is our limited epistemology that drives our need to divide that which is ontologically indivisible. Whilst this ontological shift may be necessary, it raises questions about how divine-human relations are to be understood, and I conclude by examining some possible solutions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the Emotional Impact of Environmental Artworks Using Q Methodology Research on Arts and Humanities: A Selected Survey and Works Presented at ATINER’s Annual Humanities and Arts Conferences Current Insights into the Evolution of Cameroon English: The Contribution of the ‘Anglophone Problem’ Some Remarks on the Five Criteria of Democracy Gorgo: Sparta’s Woman of Autonomy, Authority, and Agency
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1