Questionnaire feedback two

Conwy, Wales (photo from thekingpin68)

1. I presently have 106 questionnaires in and thanks to all participants! I would like to have closer to 200 in and so anyone interested please feel to contact me.

2. A continual comment I am receiving is that the questions do not have context. I mentioned the following in the previous article:

Some church attendees have mentioned that questions can be answered in a variety of ways. A reason for this is that without the academic context of the theoretical work to review it is not always simple to know what is meant by the survey questions. On the other hand the questions are basic enough to provide a theological understanding to provide legitimate results.

I realized when putting the questionnaire together that only my advisor and I would understand to any great degree the full context of some of the questions. This cannot be avoided as only my advisor and I will be thoroughly familiar with all my theoretical work. I am not an expert on empirical and social research methods, but within the questionnaire I am using closed questions with a Likert scale. By closed questions these are ones that are provided with a set of fixed alternatives from which to choose. Bryman (2004: 145). Open questions in contrast would allow persons to respond in any way they choose. Bryman (2004: 145). I am required to use closed questions within this format and need to use the Likert scale. The Likert scale was named after Renis Likert and is a multiple-indicator or item measure of a set of attitudes relating to a particular area or topic. Bryman (2004: 68). The goal of the Likert scale is to measure the intensity of feelings about the area or topic in question. Bryman (2004: 68). Usually each respondent is asked to indicate his/her level of agreement or disagreement with statements or items and the format is often the five point scale. Bryman (2004: 68). The scale ranges from agree strongly to disagree strongly and also provides an option such as not certain. Bryman (2004: 68). It is important that the items are statements and not questions. Bryman (2004: 68).

3. When these problem of evil questions are completed and the results examined I shall have produced empirical theology which is under the broad umbrella of practical theology. Professor Leslie J. Francis and the Practical Theology Team of the University of Wales, Bangor, writes that an element of practical theology is the use of empirical data. In this sense, empirical theology is a way of doing practical theology. Francis (2005: 1). Don Browning writes within ‘Practical Theology and Political Theology’ from Theology Today that practical theology should be a public enterprise that consists of theological reflection on church ministry in the world and should also deal with the theology of professional ministerial activity within the church. Browning (1985)(2005). The empirical results are to supplement philosophical ones found by researching and writing the theoretical work.

4. The questionnaire respondent therefore has an excellent opportunity to help produce a type of theology, even without being a theologian. I have Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anabaptist and non-denominational Christians participating and it is an interesting opportunity to take part in a unique project.

5. As noted in the previous article, in order to provide some context before filling out the questionnaire one can read the short article linked below in which I reviewed five of the main texts I used for the theoretical work. One could also scan other writings on this blog concerning the problem of evil, free will and determinism.

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2007/01/five-influential-books-on-problem-of.html

Thanks.

Russ

BROWNING DON S. (1985)(2005) ‘Practical Theology and Political Theology’, Theology Today, Volume 42, Number 1, Article 2, Princeton, Princeton Theological Seminary.
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1985/v42-1-article2.htm.

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, University Press.

FRANCIS, LESLIE J. and Practical Theology Team (2005) ‘Practical and Empirical Theology’, University of Wales, Bangor website, University of Wales, Bangor.
http://www.bangor.ac.uk/rs/pt/ptunit/definition.php.

Questionnaire feedback

Reykjavik, Iceland (photo from trekearth.com)

Update: A person has placed my satire and theology blog on a list of atheist blogs. Someone don't know me very well, do they?

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/03/this-is-classic.html

Greetings,

The start of another work week and I wish to share a little of the feedback I have received concerning the problem of evil questionnaires I am issuing. I have received 74 surveys back so far and the overall feedback has been positive. I would like between 100-200 completed questionnaires in my possession eventually.

1. Several church attendees have mentioned to me that the questionnaire helped them think about important issues related to evil but was not too long or difficult to complete. They also appreciated the anonymous nature of the survey as no name is required. The questionnaires can be returned by mail with no return address. A previous advisor at Wales informed me that perhaps no one, especially in North America has taken complex theodicy questions and put them in a questionnaire form at a PhD level, although I have done it at a MPhil level previously. I am not an expert at empirical theology and so the positive feedback is encouraging.

2. Some church attendees have mentioned that questions can be answered in a variety of ways. A reason for this is that without the academic context of the theoretical work to review it is not always simple to know what is meant by the survey questions. On the other hand the questions are basic enough to provide a theological understanding to provide legitimate results.

3. A person mentioned that the questionnaire seemed biased. I admit that my written work like all written work comes with bias. I ask the Lord for guidance with my work and depend on the Bible for understanding where applicable. It must be stated that the questions on the questionnaire are not biased in a strong way towards any particular world-view because they are taken from the writings of five different writers. These exemplars are Augustine, Plantinga, Feinberg, Hick, and Gebara. The actual problem of evil questions are therefore representative of five different perspectives and are not simply put together by myself or a committee. Within the questionnaire there are other standard type survey questions concerning the nature of God and sociological questions which my previous advisor helped me place in the questionnaire. If certain concepts related to the problem of evil are missing from the questionnaire it is likely because the ideas were not covered by the writers I reviewed. The survey questions represent views from the theological left and right and in between. The previous blog article below is a review of some main texts I used from the five writers and will provide a brief and basic description of viewpoints expressed by these writers.

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2007/01/five-influential-books-on-problem-of.html

4. A person informed me that a Methodist congregation did not assist me with the questionnaires because Methodists were private people. I answered back that I had received twenty surveys from Methodists that same week! There was no response to my comment.

5. Some questionnaires supposedly went missing, but have since returned.;)

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/03/stolen-questionnaires.html

Thank You.

Russ:)

Near Death Experiences

Poze Islanda, Iceland (photo from trekearth.com)

Greetings,

The link below is from a discussion I commented in from a blog of someone well studied in the Reformed philosophy and free will. I am not sure I was completely understood and blog comments cannot be revised like blog articles as they are done with less preparation. Yes, I reserve the right to revise these blog articles!

http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2007/02/oliphint-on-free-will.html

For the sake of clarity the following is a portion of what I wrote concerning my free will theory in my Edwards article on this blog:

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/08/jonathan-edwards-and-libertarian-free.html

Human nature and consciousness does not choose to be as it is, but was created by God, and has been corrupt since the fall of humanity. From consciousness and self-awareness, human beings would develop motives and desires, and eventually make limited free will choices. The primary cause of human acts is determined by God who creates the human nature, and influences human choices. The secondary cause of human acts is the individuals that act according to nature, consciousness, motives, desires, and a limited free will influenced by God.

It may be correctly pointed out that what God determines and causes must necessarily (logically must occur) take place. However, I do not think that God coerces or forces individuals to commit actions. Some Calvinists suggest that human beings are not free in any respect, but have liberty to follow their motives and desires. A problem with the use of the term liberty, although I am in agreement with the basic theological concept, is that it is often academically defined as autonomy and/or freedom of choice, therefore confusing the issue for some not familiar with Reformed theology. With my use of the terms compatibilistic free will or limited free will I hope to provide a concept of human freedom that is clearly understood to be different than libertarian free will.

Also concerning the above link it was mentioned by someone else that all schools of thought affirm the ability of one to choose within their human nature. That appears to be generally but not absolutely correct, and as noted I do affirm that persons make choices within their nature as a secondary cause while God is the primary cause. God does not coerce or force persons within the process, but uses all choices for the greater good. Simon Blackburn notes concerning libertarianism that some that hold to the concept are derided for desiring to protect the fantasy of an agent situated outside of the realm of nature altogether. Blackburn (1996: 218).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Libertarianism', in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 218. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

The links below feature a radio debate on Near Death Experiences between resurrection scholar Dr. Garry Habermas and Keith Augustine, Executive Director, Internet Infidels. I have not studied Near Death Experiences so I provide these links for information purposes and do not endorse a position on the issue. However, the topic is interesting for those interested in spiritual matters and the hosts mention a bizarre case of a former atheist who claims to have become a Christian through a Near Death Experience.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/ttmm_nde_pt1.mp3

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/ttmm_nde_pt2.mp3

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/ttmm_nde_pt3.mp3

Additional: An article on pacifism from a well known Christian blog and my comment.

http://trinitariandon.blogspot.com/2007/03/selfishness-of-pacifism.html

My comment, although it would be better for context to read his short article as well.

Hello Donald,

I scanned your article and think it is helpful. For my BA I attended a Mennonite institution which taught non-resistance. I am not opposed to the use of force by the state to maintain law and order against internal or external forces. One Mennonite professor stated that to be non-resistant meant avoiding war but also included the willingness to give one's life to save another if necessary. This is admirable but a reason that the state needs to at times use force to maintain law and order is to prohibit the death of persons. This sometimes requires the use of force and not just the sacrifice of one holding to non-resistance for another, since the sacrifice may only cause an additional death.

Russ:)

Practical Theology

Dunkley, BC

From my current research for my practical and empirical theology work, here are some ideas. Stephen Pattison writes that the word theology seems to frighten people. Pattison (2000)(2007: 137). Millard J. Erickson defines theology as the study or science of God. Erickson (1994: 21). My basic definition is that theology is the philosophy of God, as in the human study of God. Pattison goes on to state that many understand theology as being profound but irrelevant work written by elderly and authoritative men. Pattison (2000)(2007: 137). Most persons are unable to compete in the academic theological arena and this prohibits theological reflection. Pattison (2000)(2007: 137). He suggests that one solution to this problem is to free theology from academic bondage and look at it instead from the perspective of contemporary inquiry. Pattison (2000)(2007: 137). He notes that that there are different theologies with varying features and methods. Pattison (2000)(2007: 138). Pattison indicates that perhaps there is no one best way to do theology. Pattison (2000)(2007: 138).

Some no-exhaustive points:

1. I agree with Pattison that theology has different features and methods. However, although there may not be one best way to do theology, some ways would be better than others. From a Biblical, conservative, Christian perspective there are some essential aspects of theology.

2. Theology needs to be Biblical taking its primary source of information from the Old and New Testaments. Erickson (1994: 21). Scripture in the original languages and translated to other languages needs to be evaluated in context paying attention to grammar and the type of literary methods used.

3. Theology is systematic and consistent. Theology must be created using all of the Bible in context. Scripture should be understood in entirety and not in isolation. Erickson (1994: 21).

4. Theology should be contemporary without distorting the original Biblical message. Erickson (1994: 21). I am all for making theology relevant as long as the modern theological reflection accurately understands ancient theological concepts in modern terms. If ancient theological concepts are altered to fit modern philosophy the theology becomes untrue to the original text. According to Harold Lindsell the orthodox Christian concept is that God inspired persons through the Holy Spirit to accurately present God’s word. Lindsell (1976: 30). Biblical theology should not therefore be revised due to modern philosophical pressures.

5. Theology should be practical. It should relate to living as well as belief. Erickson (1994: 21). Although I agree with Pattison that many persons do have a negative perception of theology, I think that theology should always be practical and is practical if properly understood. Every theological point within the Christian faith has practical theological ramifications. If I accept for example the idea that Christ atoned for my sins on the cross and was resurrected as believers shall be, then I can live a practical life as one forgiven of my sins. Although I still face a physical death sentence, I will one day experience a body free from suffering and pain. I can live my life knowing that I fail morally but that God has dealt with my sins through forgiveness and grace. If I reject the atoning work of Christ and the resurrection for a naturalistic view for example, I may practically live as though this life is all there is and since there is no God I am accountable to, I can live a moral life by my own means. I may understand that I am imperfect and have done wrong, but view my imperfection and wrong actions as simply part of human evolutionary development.

6. I think that perhaps children in elementary and secondary school should be taught basic philosophy and logic. This would include the discussion of religions and atheism. I reason that it is as important for persons to learn basic concepts about reasoning philosophically at a young age as it is learning reading, mathematics, science, and language(s). If this was done in Western society theology would not be as intimidating to many as Pattison suggests. Fortunately persons with basic intelligence can always learn more about philosophy and theology.

ERICKSON, MILLARD. (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

LINDSELL, HAROLD. (1976) The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

PATTISON STEPHEN. (2000)(2007) ‘Some Straw for Bricks: A Basic Introduction to Theological Reflection' in Woodward, James and Stephen Pattison (eds.) The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

Religious dialogue

Aberdeen, Scotland

A comment on Rick Beaudin's helpful article.

http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2007/03/witnessing-tips-part1.html

Hi Rick,

A helpful article. It is good to be familiar with documents of other religions in particular when they use Biblical concepts and yet contradict Biblical theology. A general and continual increase in overall, philosophical, theological, and Biblical knowledge is also helpful in any religious dialogue. Another point comes to mind. In 2002 in Manhattan a very educated philosophical friend and I were approached by a Hare Krishna and a debate ensued. I thought my friend and I had made our points and we had reached a place with the Hare Krishna where we needed to agree to disagree, but my friend was forcing the issue trying to win the argument and this upset the Hare Krishna who became defensive. To me there is a point at times in evangelism where once we have defended the gospel message and are facing an obstacle in a person, we should back off and allow God to work with the person we are debating as the Lord sees fit. Basically, personally speaking I need to not try to win arguments as much I need to ask God to help me to witness most effectively.

In addition to the comments I made on Rick's site, I am not stating that my friend was definitely wrong, as perhaps what he did was beneficial, but at times I think that an over aggressive approach is not helpful. It could be that my friend influenced the Hare Krishna to reconsider his position against the gospel, or perhaps he hardened in his mind against it. I am all for Christian apologetics and learning about and debating issues, but ultimately each person must come to their own philosophy and I believe that God influences persons as he wills. I deduce that human beings have a limited free will and God deals with persons and some come to accept the gospel message, but my job as a Christian is primarily to present the message accurately as opposed to trying to win arguments aggressively. I am glad that I live in a democratic Western country where we have a degree of religious freedom and persons are allowed to disagree on philosophical and religious issues agreeably.

Certain texts and types of texts I have found useful for religious dialogue:

-The Bible
-Biblical commentaries
-Theology text books
-Text books on world religions
-As mentioned, texts from various religions
-Philosophy texts with articles from secular and religious perspectives

The following texts have been helpful in my PhD work as well.

BURR JOHN, R AND MILTON GOLDINGER (1976) (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

Topics include:

-Hard determinism
-Soft determinism
-Libertarianism
-Does God exist?
-The problem of evil
-Mind and Body

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

Topics include:

-Determinism, freedom and moral responsibility
-Scepticism and the problem of induction
-Body, mind and death
-The existence of God
-A priori knowledge
-Meaning

PETERSON, MICHAEL, WILLIAM HASKER, BRUCE REICHENBACH, and DAVID BASINGER (1996) (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Topics include:

-The Divine attributes
-Theistic arguments
-The problem of evil
-Life after death
-Religion and science
-Philosophy and theological doctrines

An interesting article on the Jesus Family story:

http://weekendfisher.blogspot.com/2007/02/annual-anti-easter-pageant-2007-edition.html

Russ:)