Talk:Theological veto

Philosophy: Religion Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion

Seems odd to me that this article doesn't mention Islam at all, because partial limited versions of this prevailed at different periods of Muslim history (e.g. the defeat of the Mu`tazilites, the rise of Occasionalism, the influence of al-Ghazali, etc.). -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's about theism in general. The article doesn't mention Christianity in particular either. If we get into particular theist religions we should at least try to be equal opportunity about it. Greg Bard (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, there's an obvious reference to the Scopes "monkey" trial (1925), and most of the linked terms in the second sentence of the first paragraph are specifically Christian (sometimes specifically Protestant). It's a little strange that the article seems to effectively focus on Protestant fundamentalism over the last 85 years only, when the topic of the article has probably played a greater role in Islamic-influenced civilization over the last centuries than Christian-influenced civilization... AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not seeing it at all. The linked concepts are present in varying forms Christianity, including Catholicism (even if the actual articles linked only portray the Protestant version of the particular concept). If you perceive that the article is focused on some particular brand of theism, I would suggest politely that it could be a persecution complex that has become very very common lately. Certainly any instances of theological veto in Islam would be welcome, but I think several of the same concepts apply in that case also. Perhaps those articles need content on Islam too? Happy Holidays. Greg Bard (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there are concepts in various religions that have similarities. But I am concerned by the attempt to collect them all and stick the phrase "theological veto" to them. Does this phrase as it is actually used really apply to all of them? Is this phrase even notable in the first place? At the moment there's really only one article linked, the Ferre citation. Plus a one-off quotation from 1925. Trying to come up with our own examples from Islam or anywhere else so we can stick the phrase to it, I think just makes things worse.

And sure, I may well have a persecution complex, but as they say, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. --God made the integers (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of context

The first several book citations of this associate it strongly with Karl Barth. I think we need a lot of expansion along those lines. Mangoe (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not fundamentalism

We have a problem here already in that if the Ferre citation is any good (which I can't tell because there's no page number), it's unlikely that a general reference on philosophy of religion would make such POV statements if it were of any merit. But be that as it may, the issue of a theological veto is not limited to fundamentalists. I'm pretty sure that Catholic and Orthodox theology would admit of such a limitation on reason as well. Mangoe (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion in a category doesn't imply exclusion in others, so I don't see what the problem is. I'll look into the page number issue soon. It is certainly not the case that the theological veto is "not fundamentalism." Greg Bard (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]