Thoughts on Analytic Philosophy and Theology

This video is from a recent Q&A podcast in which I answer a question about my thoughts on analytic theology with my own bent toward scholastic theology.

[czgiomn]

Ludwig Wittgenstein once said of Bertrand Russell that his work should be divided into two piles, one with his writings on logic and mathematics and should be read by everyone, the other with everything else he ever wrote and should be thrown in the trash. I find this to be pretty much true of all analytic philosophy. 9 times out of 10, if a discipline begins with "philosophy of..." i assume it isn't of much value.

[internetenjoyer]

I think Analytic Philosophy, which is the tradition I'm most familiar with, does need to update some of it's categories when dealing with God ("well God is some x such that x has a unique property of being Godlike right guyyss???" (end/plantinga)), but I think with work the concepts of medieval and classical philosophy which we want to apply to God can be translated. Anlaytic philosophy has no tenets, it has no unified metaphysical assumptions, it doesn't even agree on which branch of mathematical logic is correct. It's really a social category rather than a disciplinary category; it's a social grouping of philosophers who care about certain intellectual values and who all broadly agree with each other about what a good argument for some claim looks like. For example, the early Analytics like Frege and Russell basically got, by the analytic acadamy's lights, nothing correct. And Aquinas might be working in completely different categories to some modern analytic metaphysician, but he reasons very similarly.

[armandvista]

Did Dr. Cooper say he’s going to defend divine impassibility or divine passibility in his book? I thought divine impassibility was part of the classical tradition?