I think there’s something to be said for the basic thesis, although it seems quite vague. The idea that religions with a cosmopolitan component necessarily emphasize elements about their religion that are more tolerant. That said I think Cowen raises a lot of problems in that Wright appears to focus primarily on the Judeo-Christian tradition whereas I think his thesis needs a much broader cross-section of religions. So there are some definitely problems, but it’s interesting to think about.

If you haven’t listened to the Cowan exchange do. (Although Cowan sounds like Joe Friday doing economics and philosophy) I found the question about how Wright’s theory deals with Unitarianism and related liberal Protestant movements quite interesting.

Does this link work for you? http://www.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2009/06/24/evolution_of_god/index.html

Clark, I’d be interested in your thoughts on this. I haven’t read the book, but it sounds fascinating (and provocative).

Clark:“I think Heidegger argues persuasively that this sort of knowledge is only possible against a background of already engaged in practices. Further that this present-at-hand knowledge is possible only against the breakdown of such practices.”

This is true, as far as human experience goes– but can we generalize from there to some kind of divine epistemology/phenomenology? Are there theological reasons that keep you from appealing to alterity, saying something like “Of course, all bets are off when it comes to Mr. Big, because divine knowledge is of a completely different order than human knowledge”?

I definitely agree that classic omniscience and omnipotence are non-sensical propositions. But then again, I’m the token atheist, so I’d have to say that.

The way I see it, however, Heidigger’s claim pertaining to theoretic knowledge applies to divine society just as well as it does to the one here, and for the same reasons.