Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:40:30.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response to Michael Rea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2015

Kevin W. Hector*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago Divinity School, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USAkhector@uchicago.edu

Extract

For several years now, Michael Rea has been working to foster a fruitful discussion between theologians and analytic philosophers, and his article review nicely exemplifies those efforts. Rea recognises that he and I agree on several key points, the most important of which is that ‘cataphatic theology can be done without idolatry or violence’. He wonders, though, whether Theology without Metaphysics succeeds in providing a model for such theology, since he thinks it is liable to several objections. By addressing them, I hope to demonstrate that my model is indeed viable, though I would be surprised if this were sufficient to persuade Professor Rea to adopt it. As I see it, more than one model, including Professor Rea’s, may do justice to the relevant phenomena; here I want to argue, against Rea's criticisms, that mine does too.

Type
Response
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)