correct me if I'm wrong, but the the idea of post secularism is that, The secular world is coming to and/or is at it's end. Evidence to support this idea would be seen in tyhe revival of multiple religous groups such as Islam and "New Age".
It is an interesting concept, but i haven't personally felt any affects of it. Which personally leads me to doubt it out of lack of experience.
Well a major element of Post-Secular studies is the fact there is growing academic interest in religion and growing questioning of the Secularization thesis. This was shown last April when Yale hosted the conference Exploring the Post-Secular.
It's a growing field, and yet one that hasn't received alot of wider attention - especially compared to that of the "New Atheism"(note: it's not really that new, it's a rehash of old arguments). The only well known figures often associated with this field are J
I wouldn't expect this to be covered in an intro aplogetics class. Many Christians(along with others) are just not really aware of this development. Shame really.
I have found that a basic grasp of various philosophical movements or trends to be very helpful in navigating the times I happen to live in. I basically do not trust the swirling current of contemporary thought unless it is rooted in something much more solid and connected to concepts that are time-tested and sound. The saying, "if you want to be innovative in theology, you have to go backwards" makes a lot of sense to me. The present is always a bit murky, so I tend to triangulate the present together with important touchstones in the past. In my experience, this produces a clarity that transcends the present moment, yet speaks to it powerfully. It allows us to move forward in our own times with a direction and focus less susceptible to illusion.
It may seem that way from what I said, but I am actually referring to (in the world of theology) going back to sources...these may have been interpreted various ways across time. The sources themselves offer fresh perspective that can be (and have been) used to re-examine the present. It would be like using a certain calibrated (tested) lens (a type of perspective) to examine something more clearly. In the end a new, innovative approach may be seen, but it is based on a continuum of what is known and trust-worthy....a sort of enlightened hindsight. My comment is directed at the importance of grasping certain trends of thought/experience for finding our best way through the present.If you look backwards, then you're only going to get old, well fleshed out refutations thrown back at you. It's a weakly dominated strategy. At best you'll just build your arguments back to the contemporary.
Is "post secularism" another attempt to re-brand 'creationism' and 'intelligent (hah) design'?
If so, it won't be around for long since If you look at the attempts to get gobbldigook taught in US schools since the 1920's, they have tastelessly switched from one stance to the next in vain attempt to give their cause credibility. At first they had the power to get Darwin banned totally, then that was made impossible so they switched to demanding 'equal time' in schools. This also didn't work well so they then claimed that Darwinism is a 'religion' and so therefore also shouldn't be taught, that didn't work, so they re-branded themselves as creationists, and the most recent insult to human ability is the term intelligent design, to which I assume they are reffering to the intelligent way God created flawless man with useless appendixes and quite happily watched the extinction of many of his perfect creations because they couldn't survive or compete.
Yes, and the great thing about science is it disproves and prooves, develops and improves. "Theistic evolution" (yet another alias) is unchanging. If it were to change it wouldn't have any evidence on which to base it's change though so it's futile to even bandy it around as an alternative to Darwinism imo.Although it may interest you to know that many of the early religious criticisms of Darwin were actually based on scientific theories of the time.
Yes that's certainly wonderful and necessary in terms of empirical study. However in concerning issues of ultimate truth, it's a poor substitute for philosophy or even religion - which deals with eternal truths.Yes, and the great thing about science is it disproves and prooves, develops and improves.
Do you even know anything about Theistic Evolution?"Theistic evolution" (yet another alias) is unchanging. If it were to change it wouldn't have any evidence on which to base it's change though so it's futile to even bandy it around as an alternative to Darwinism imo.