Ignore word files; separate summary into different chapters; discussion paragraph

5 files changed, 95 insertions, 61 deletions

diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 3976e5a..882fe40 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -27,3 +27,5 @@
 *.synctex.gz
 _minted-*/
 
+*.doc*
+
diff --git a/discussion-20150910.tex b/discussion-20150910.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5e80ab2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/discussion-20150910.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+\documentclass[10pt,a4paper]{article}
+
+\usepackage[margin=2cm]{geometry}
+\usepackage[english]{babel}
+\usepackage{multicol}
+
+\renewcommand{\thesection}{Chapter \arabic{section}}
+\newenvironment{chapter}[1]{\section{#1}\begin{multicols}{2}}{\end{multicols}}
+
+\title{Discussion paragraph\\\large{Rethinking Fundamental Theology, chap. 1-2}}
+\author{Camil Staps}
+\date{September 10, 2015}
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\maketitle
+
+\input{sum-chap-1.tex}
+\input{sum-chap-2.tex}
+
+\section*{Discussion}
+\begin{multicols}{2}
+    The question of whether there is some truth in (Christian) faith has largely been discussed as a collective question. That is, the answer would apply to the whole of humanity -- and that makes sense, since Christianity makes that claim itself (Acts 11:18). Although Kierkegaard and others are mentioned in chapter two of O'Collins, in contemporary discussions the collective faith is central. And that makes sense, because the outside world is perceived by everyone more or less the same (and can be measured), whereas the inner world of everyone is different. Yet, as explained above, many believers retreat to inner experiences to provide a foundation for their faith. 
+    
+    \begin{itemize}
+        \item Is there any way inner experiences could meaningfully be incorporated into a public dialogue? This would mean deviating from Popper's falsifiability, so if someone were to propose this, he can expect massive criticism from the scientific community. Can such a position be reasonably defended?
+        \item If they cannot provide any evidence for either side in the God debate, is it rational to rely on \emph{those} experience to build one's faith? Wouldn't any solid ground itself to be shared with other intelligent agents?
+    \end{itemize}
+\end{multicols}
+
+\end{document}
+
diff --git a/sum-chap-1.tex b/sum-chap-1.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7b99c2c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/sum-chap-1.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+\begin{chapter}{History, Terms, Identity and Themes}
+    From the eighteenth century (during the Enlightenment) onwards, protestant authors use terms as `foundations', `fundamental doctrine' and `fundamental theology', as something developing from apologetical literature. It is more than a `defense against science'. 
+    
+    As apologetics, fundamental theology aims to respond to objections raised by critics about matters central to the Christian faith. However, there are differences:
+    
+    \begin{itemize}
+        \item Apologetics merely shows (for example) that belief is not incompatible with science, while fundamental theology aims to broaden our understanding of that belief.
+        \item Apologetics are mainly meant as a response to non-believers, while fundamental theology also has believers as an audience.
+        \item Apologetics tends to get polemic, while fundamental theology should be expository.
+    \end{itemize}
+    
+    There are also differences with other (sometimes largely) connected fields:
+    
+    \begin{description}
+        \item[The philosophy of religion] is the study of faith and theology. Fundamental theology, as philosophical theology, entails personally sharing faith and seeking to understand it.
+        \item[Philosophical theology] tends to be speculative rather than empirical: fundamental theology deals mainly with facts.
+        \item[Dogmatic or systematic theology] is focused on Scripture and tradition, with some differences concerning ethics and the use of philosophical principles between the two. Fundamental theology is like these, but with a clear appeal to critical rationality.
+        \item[Natural theology] approach the relationship between human beings and God, reflecting on (the intellect and will of) human beings and the universe as a whole. Fundamental theology remains an exercise of `faith seeking understanding', whereas natural theology looks only throught the `natural' powers of thought.
+    \end{description}
+    
+    In essence, fundamental theology deals with foundational or basic issues. Its scope is not entirely clear: should we include the study of divine existence, for example, as well? Are they not at the basis of other foundational issues as the question of the historical revelation of God?
+\end{chapter}
+
diff --git a/sum-chap-2.tex b/sum-chap-2.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fcc55a1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/sum-chap-2.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+\begin{chapter}{Faith in a Personal God}
+    Before diving into the Christian faith, we must discuss whether that faith is \emph{rational} and \emph{reasonable}, and not \emph{socially} or \emph{morally destructive}.
+
+    \subsubsection*{What do believers say about God's essential attributes?}
+    Aquinas: God is \emph{eternal}, \emph{totally spiritual}, \emph{truly and fully personal}, \emph{omnipotent}, \emph{benevolent}, \emph{omniscient}. Others talk about God's transcendence and immanence (`beyond' and `within').
+
+    These attributes give new questions, like how an eternal and non-material God can create a space-time universe, what God's omniscience means for our free will, or how God's benevolence relates to the existence of evil (see below).
+
+    \subsubsection*{Special divine activity}
+    A deist's view would be that there is one, ongoing act: that of creation, which set in motion causality. This implies that no specific divine action lies behind later events (as prophets, writing of Scripture, the life of Jesus Christ).
+
+    If we deny this and accept \emph{more} divine actions, we must accept some sort of divine causality. But, because God is unique as an uncreated creator, His causality too may be unique.
+
+    It can be difficult to talk about causality however, because Scripture talks mostly about \emph{effects} rather than causes, while the \emph{causes} could have given more insight into God's nature. However, effects often say something about their cause, and thus we may seek God in, for example, creation. Also, we may assume causes in a context of finality (the coming of the Messiah or the Final Judgement), which may help to discern them more easily.
+
+    An immanent God implies a continuous activity, and hence the terminology of divine `interventions' is troublesome.
+
+    \subsubsection*{The existence of God}
+    Arguments for God's existence usually come from believers. Augustine tried to prove His existence by definition. Aquinas wrote about `Five Ways' to God: seeing Him as the `Unmoved Mover', the `Uncaused Cause', the `Necessary Cause', the `First Unlimited Cause` or the `divine Designer'.
+
+    The latter way seems challenged by Darwinism, where evolution takes the place of this Designer. However, recent discoveries have shown the chance of a `Darwinistic' world coming into existence to be too small to be scientifically considered. Also, there is the question whether evolution can account for all biological developments, if we also look at -- for example -- the development of intelligence or consciousness.
+
+    Following Kierkegaard, Buber, Marcel and Levinas some people seek God in the inner country of prayer and the heart, where the experience God in an utterly intimate sense, which is \emph{also} an approach to the question of God's existence.
+
+    \subsubsection*{Approaches to the God-question}
+    We can roughly distinguish three approaches:
+
+    \begin{description}
+        \item[Knowledge] What evidence can be put forward to support faith? Does religious experience have evidential value?
+        \item[Faith] How do prayer and worship bear witness to the experience of God and prompt it?
+        \item[Action] What does faith lead believers to do, or leave undone, in the world?
+    \end{description}
+
+\end{chapter}
+
diff --git a/summary.tex b/summary.tex
index a98a0ce..458ac6a 100644
--- a/summary.tex
+++ b/summary.tex
@@ -2,78 +2,20 @@
 
 \usepackage[margin=2cm]{geometry}
 \usepackage[english]{babel}
+\usepackage{multicol}
 
 \renewcommand{\thesection}{Chapter \arabic{section}}
 \newenvironment{chapter}[1]{\section{#1}\begin{multicols}{2}}{\end{multicols}}
 
-\usepackage{multicol}
-
 \title{Rethinking Fundamental Theology\\\large{Summary of the book by Gerald O'Collins}}
 \author{Camil Staps}
 
 \begin{document}
 
-\parindent0pt
-
 \maketitle
 
-\begin{chapter}{History, Terms, Identity and Themes}
-    From the eighteenth century (during the Enlightenment) onwards, protestant authors use terms as `foundations', `fundamental doctrine' and `fundamental theology', as something developing from apologetical literature. It is more than a `defense against science'. 
-    
-    As apologetics, fundamental theology aims to respond to objections raised by critics about matters central to the Christian faith. However, there are differences:
-    
-    \begin{itemize}
-        \item Apologetics merely shows (for example) that belief is not incompatible with science, while fundamental theology aims to broaden our understanding of that belief.
-        \item Apologetics are mainly meant as a response to non-believers, while fundamental theology also has believers as an audience.
-        \item Apologetics tends to get polemic, while fundamental theology should be expository.
-    \end{itemize}
-    
-    There are also differences with other (sometimes largely) connected fields:
-    
-    \begin{description}
-        \item[The philosohpy of religion] is the study of faith and theology. Fundamental theology, as philosophical theology, entails personally sharing faith and seeking to understand it.
-        \item[Philosophical theology] tends to be speculative rather than empirical: fundamental theology deals mainly with facts.
-        \item[Dogmatic or systematic theology] is focused on Scripture and tradition, with some differences concerning ethics and the use of philosophical principles between the two. Fundamental theology is like these, but with a clear appeal to critical rationality.
-        \item[Natural theology] approach the relationship between human beings and God, reflecting on (the intellect and will of) human beings and the universe as a whole. Fundamental theology remains an exercise of `faith seeking understanding', whereas natural theology looks only throught the `natural' powers of thought.
-    \end{description}
-    
-    In essence, fundamental theology deals with foundational or basic issues. Its scope is not entirely clear: should we include the study of divine existence, for example, as well? Are they not at the basis of other foundational issues as the question of the historical revelation of God?
-\end{chapter}
-
-\begin{chapter}{Faith in a Personal God}
-    Before diving into the Christian faith, we must discuss whether that faith is \emph{rational} and \emph{reasonable}, and not \emph{socially} or \emph{morally destructive}.
-
-    \subsubsection*{What do believers say about God's essential attributes?}
-    Aquinas: God is \emph{eternal}, \emph{totally spiritual}, \emph{truly and fully personal}, \emph{omnipotent}, \emph{benevolent}, \emph{omniscient}. Others talk about God's transcendence and immanence (`beyond' and `within').
-
-    These attributes give new questions, like how an eternal and non-material God can create a space-time universe, what God's omniscience means for our free will, or how God's benevolence relates to the existence of evil (see below).
-
-    \subsubsection*{Special divine activity}
-    A deist's view would be that there is one, ongoing act: that of creation, which set in motion causality. This implies that no specific divine action lies behind later events (as prophets, writing of Scripture, the life of Jesus Christ).
-
-    If we deny this and accept \emph{more} divine actions, we must accept some sort of divine causality. But, because God is unique as an uncreated creator, His causality too may be unique.
-
-    It can be difficult to talk about causality however, because Scripture talks mostly about \emph{effects} rather than causes, while the \emph{causes} could have given more insight into God's nature. However, effects often say something about their cause, and thus we may seek God in, for example, creation. Also, we may assume causes in a context of finality (the coming of the Messiah or the Final Judgment), which may help to discern them more easily.
-
-    An immanent God implies a continuous activity, and hence the terminology of divine `interventions' is troublesome.
-
-    \subsubsection*{The existence of God}
-    Arguments for God's existence usually come from believers. Augustine tried to prove His existence by definition. Aquinas wrote about `Five Ways' to God: seeing Him as the `Unmoved Mover', the `Uncaused Cause', the `Necessary Cause', the `First Unlimited Cause` or the `divine Designer'.
-
-    The latter way seems challenged by Darwinism, where evolution takes the place of this Designer. However, recent discoveries have shown the chance of a `darwinistic' world coming into existence to be too small to be scientifically considered. Also, there is the question whether evolution can account for all biological developments, if we also look at -- for example -- the development of intelligence or consciousness.
-
-    Following Kierkegaard, Buber, Marcel and Levinas some people seek God in the inner country of prayer and the heart, where the experience God in an utterly intimate sense, which is \emph{also} an approach to the question of God's existence.
-
-    \subsubsection*{Approaches to the God-question}
-    We can roughly distinguish three approaches:
-
-    \begin{description}
-        \item[Knowledge] What evidence can be put forward to support faith? Does religious experience have evidential value?
-        \item[Faith] How do prayer and worship bear witness to the experience of God and prompt it?
-        \item[Action] What does faith lead believers to do, or leave undone, in the world?
-    \end{description}
-
-\end{chapter}
+\input{sum-chap-1.tex}
+\input{sum-chap-2.tex}
 
 \end{document}