Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGreggs, Tom*
dc.date.accessioned2009-12-17T17:09:59Z
dc.date.available2009-12-17T17:09:59Z
dc.date.issued2008-11-26
dc.identifier.citationUnpublished paper given to Centre for Religion and the Biosciences at the University of Chesteren
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10034/88178
dc.descriptionThis paper is not available through ChesterRep.en
dc.description.abstractIn a novel approach, Dr Greggs asserted that far from a foe to be combated, Dawkins’ thought was of significant benefit to theology in order to help theology recognise its true and proper object – the study of God. Comparing the use of Dawkins to the benefits theology found from engaging with Feuerbach, the lecture pointed to the need for Christian theology to carefully differentiate differing forms of knowledge, and for theology to understand its genuine role. Dr Greggs then went on to consider how theology must not (like Dawkins) confuse God with religion, and how Dawkins’ work mirrors much of 20th and 21st century theology in wishing to get rid of the deus ex machina or the ‘god of the gaps’. Where Greggs discovered a problem with Dawkins’ account, however, was with regards to its anti-pluralist intolerance, and the potential (a)theopolitical dimensions to his thinking.”
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.urlhttp://cke.chester.ac.uk/crb/lectures.htmlen
dc.subjectRichard Dawkinsen
dc.subjecttheologyen
dc.titleCan there be theology after Darwin? The Dawkins delusionen
dc.typePresentationen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Chesteren
html.description.abstractIn a novel approach, Dr Greggs asserted that far from a foe to be combated, Dawkins’ thought was of significant benefit to theology in order to help theology recognise its true and proper object – the study of God. Comparing the use of Dawkins to the benefits theology found from engaging with Feuerbach, the lecture pointed to the need for Christian theology to carefully differentiate differing forms of knowledge, and for theology to understand its genuine role. Dr Greggs then went on to consider how theology must not (like Dawkins) confuse God with religion, and how Dawkins’ work mirrors much of 20th and 21st century theology in wishing to get rid of the deus ex machina or the ‘god of the gaps’. Where Greggs discovered a problem with Dawkins’ account, however, was with regards to its anti-pluralist intolerance, and the potential (a)theopolitical dimensions to his thinking.”


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record