Pharyngula Wiki
Register
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:
 
Dr. Maarten Boudry is an [[atheist]] and he wanted to find out how well two conferences of theologians can understand the difference between what's sensible and what is meaningless. Below is an example of Boudry's scribbling.
 
Dr. Maarten Boudry is an [[atheist]] and he wanted to find out how well two conferences of theologians can understand the difference between what's sensible and what is meaningless. Below is an example of Boudry's scribbling.
 
{{cquote| By narrowly focusing on the disorderly state of present-being, or the “incoherence of a primordial multiplicity”, as John Haught put it, Darwinian materialists lose sense of the ultimate order unfolding in the not-yet-being. Contrary to what Dawkins asserts, if we reframe our sense of locatedness of existence within a the space of radical contingency of spiritual destiny, then absolute order reemerges as an ontological possibility |||<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/09/28/philosopher-pulls-a-sokal-on-theology-conferences/ Philosopher Pulls a Sokal on Theology Conferences] So we can all enjoy it [[PZ]] hosted a section of Boudry's masterpiece on [[Pharyngula]]. </ref>}}
 
{{cquote| By narrowly focusing on the disorderly state of present-being, or the “incoherence of a primordial multiplicity”, as John Haught put it, Darwinian materialists lose sense of the ultimate order unfolding in the not-yet-being. Contrary to what Dawkins asserts, if we reframe our sense of locatedness of existence within a the space of radical contingency of spiritual destiny, then absolute order reemerges as an ontological possibility |||<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/09/28/philosopher-pulls-a-sokal-on-theology-conferences/ Philosopher Pulls a Sokal on Theology Conferences] So we can all enjoy it [[PZ]] hosted a section of Boudry's masterpiece on [[Pharyngula]]. </ref>}}
Does that make any sense to you? Maarten Boudry doesn’t think it makes any sense and as the author he should know.
+
Does that make any sense to you? Maarten Boudry doesn’t think it makes any sense and as the author he should know. Anyway sophisticated theologians listened to the word salad (And it isn't even healthy [[Cookbook|like a real salad or other culinary masterpiece]]). The theologians tried to look intelligent and assumed it must make sense somehow or other.
 
Anyway sophisticated theologians listened to the word salad (And it isn't even healthy [[Cookbook|like a real salad or other culinary masterpiece]]). The theologians tried to look intelligent and assumed it must make sense somehow or other.
 
   
 
Theological work that's published without peer review can be anything. Could similar material appear in a peer reviewed theology journal?
 
Theological work that's published without peer review can be anything. Could similar material appear in a peer reviewed theology journal?

Revision as of 09:03, 15 October 2012

Sophisticated theologians have spent years at universities or theological colleges and are steeped in hard to understand nonsense truths about God! Sophisticated theologians write complex material with many impressive long words, some even include Latin, New Testament Greek or Hebrew in their texts. To the rest of us theology may look superficially like meaningless drivel but that just shows how uneducated we are. Or does it?

The Boudry test

Dr. Maarten Boudry is an atheist and he wanted to find out how well two conferences of theologians can understand the difference between what's sensible and what is meaningless. Below is an example of Boudry's scribbling.

By narrowly focusing on the disorderly state of present-being, or the “incoherence of a primordial multiplicity”, as John Haught put it, Darwinian materialists lose sense of the ultimate order unfolding in the not-yet-being. Contrary to what Dawkins asserts, if we reframe our sense of locatedness of existence within a the space of radical contingency of spiritual destiny, then absolute order reemerges as an ontological possibility

[1]

Does that make any sense to you? Maarten Boudry doesn’t think it makes any sense and as the author he should know. Anyway sophisticated theologians listened to the word salad (And it isn't even healthy like a real salad or other culinary masterpiece). The theologians tried to look intelligent and assumed it must make sense somehow or other.

Theological work that's published without peer review can be anything. Could similar material appear in a peer reviewed theology journal?

Perhaps there is a challenge there – maybe some devious atheists should write some “Sophisticated Theology™” papers and submit them to the suitable journals.

—Ken Perrott [2]

We don't know yet what peer reviewed journals will publish, time will tell.

Conclusion

To impact theologians you don't need to make sense. All you need is to use imposing words, write spiritual nonsense and criticise materialists.

This shows once again the appeal of religious gibberish to the educated believer, and demonstrates that conference organizers either don’t read what they publish, or do read it and think that if it’s opaque then it must be profound.

[3]

Atheist outsiders can no more than guess how much of regular theology is baloney dressed up in impressive words like what Maarten Boudry wrote. After all in the opinion of David Pollock

The wonderful thing is that in the conference programme the genuine abstracts are just as ludicrous as the spoof!

[4]

Will theology ever recover from the Boudry test?

Are theologians sophisticated?

Just consider, undergraduate Christian students look up to those profs and lecturers. Undergraduate Christian students imagine those profs and lecturers are most intelligent, wise and godly people. What will happen if those naive undergraduates ever find out the truth?

Some academics insist there's no real distinction between sophisticated theology and ordinary theology, there's just theology. Those academics could well be right! All theology looks unsophisticated.

See also

References

  1. Philosopher Pulls a Sokal on Theology Conferences So we can all enjoy it PZ hosted a section of Boudry's masterpiece on Pharyngula.
  2. The paradoxes of theological gullibility
  3. A Sokal-style hoax by an anti-religious philosopher A friend of PZ, Coyne also hosted sections of the hilarious Boudry screed in his website.
  4. Atheist philosopher pulls Sokal-style hoax on theology conference