Talk:Analytic theology

Amazing stuff
What I find amazing is that this is actually a thing. People waste their time analyzing every little word in the Bible and picking apart every nuance as it means something. Reading this you realize it doesn't.--Weasel tango (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Not Exactly
Weasel tango Although you may have intended to criticize Analytic Theology, your description matches a different discipline altogether; namely "Biblical Studies." Though well intentioned your comment is quite off the mark. Evidence for this lies in fact that certain scholars who work in Biblical studies have criticized Analytic Theology specifically for not paying enough attention to the text of the Bible or its narrative structure. In other words, they are worried that AT fails to do what you claim it does. Scholars who are not fans of AT count the opposite of your comment as their opinion of AT. A more apt description of theologians would be (if I may re-word your sentence) to describe them as those who spend their time "analyzing every little word in this or that theology text (e.g. Aquinas's Summa or Irenaeus Against Heresies) as [if] they mean something." Like theologians in general, analytic theologians too focus more attention on theological texts than Scripture (although they do both). What differentiates theologians in the AT camp from theologians more generally (as the article makes clear) is how they supplement their efforts with the methods and resources of philosophical theology. Other theologians, Liberation theologians or historical theologians, for example, do not write in the same style.

While I can understand your "amazement," what you refer to as "analyzing every little word" isn't unique to theology or Biblical Studies. It is in fact the nature of the wider field of humanities and has been since the Renaissance. The classic and obscure works of literature, philosophy, theology, and world religions are subjected to intense scrutiny and commentary in university departments world over. Critics make up some of the most intense commentators of the bunch! Why not join in? --Jmg5041 (talk) 06 December 2018 (UTC)

State of the article; Criticism and motivations sections and their deletion
The state of this article lives up to the multiple issues template at the start of the article. It really does read like it was a personal manuscript someone decided to create into a WP article. Having research that could benefit the breadth of WP is great, and I am glad that an attempt was made to create an article addressing this topic. However, there are some significant issues with this article that I want to discuss a bit more in-depth.


 * This article is critically lacking sources. In my limited experience as a WP editor, an article of about 10,000 bytes needs about 20-25 sources to be considered well-sourced. This article (about 35,000 bytes) has about that number of sources, and some of them are shortened versions of previously-cited sources. In the time I took to edit this article, I did not verify that the sources that are here say what they say. Future editors should verify the sources that are there as well as adding new ones.
 * This article lacks some substantial qualities that would make it more readable. What I mean by this is that this article in some places reads in a way that is very confusing and isn't grounded. Having read the article in its previous state, I can't exactly give you an accurate idea of what AT actually is. I can tell you that it isn't exactly philosophical theology, philosophy of religion, systematic theology, etc., but it doesn't necessarily address what it is. The article does include a section about defining it, but that doesn't replace illustrating the characteristics or qualities that make up what AT is on the ground/in the field. There's a lot of philosophical banter in this article that could benefit from a bit of explanation in layman's terms to help general readers who are not versed in these terms (like myself). Saying that analytic theology is "analytic" doesn't cut it for me. Explain what that means explicitly and clearly.
 * This article lacks a sense of impact. Because of the lack of substantial qualities, it is hard to grasp why this topic matters to anyone who is not a theologian. Are there Christian pastors, preachers, etc. using these analytic qualities to teach parishioners their theologies? Are other religions -- like Judaism (since Israel is mentioned in parts of the article) -- beginning to adopt analytic approaches to their theology? Finding answers to questions like these using reliable, verifiable, second- and third-party sources would give this article more impact for non-theologians.

To address why I removed the Criticisms and Motivations sections:

I deleted the Criticisms section because it was completely unsourced. If you choose to restore this section, then it's going to need some sources from critics themselves or third-party reviewers of the AT debate commenting on the criticisms. I definitely believe that there's enough criticism of AT for this section to be worthwhile for having in the article, but in the form it was it was not up to WP standards.

I deleted the Motivations section because it was also unsourced, and I didn't not see any value for this section for general readers. It seems like the section was primarily targeted to theologians who were curious about AT in terms of its usefulness, or to address theologians who were skeptical about its implementation. If you choose to restore this section, find some sources to demonstrate not only the motivations themselves among theologians, but also demonstrate why it would interest a general audience to know those motivations. As it was, I found no good reason to keep it in the article. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Response to some of the criticisms
I think I know who wrote this article. Even though it wasn't me, I think some of the criticisms are completely unfair and ridiculous. Especially because of the very fact that it appears the article was written by someone with a PhD and knowledgeable about the subject. With that being said, it does need more references. But you can't dismiss everything because there weren't "enough" citations for your liking (whatever that means!). 2601:840:8681:9690:0:0:0:B103 (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Jmg5041 wrote this according to the edit history and their user page. Let me point out that the material of the article itself isn't necessarily in question. I am sure that Jmg5041 is knowledgeable on the subject that they wrote about, but that doesn't exempt them from needing to cite sources. Even now, the article has quotations that are unattributed to any source (WP:ATT). There's no dismissal of the substance of the article in my criticisms, I deleted sections specifically because they went unsourced (WP:PROVEIT); without references the substance of the text is unverifiable and is subject to deletion. If you have access to source that can be added then please do, since I'm sure there's plenty of sources that can verify the text of this article that I don't have access to. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "If you have access to source that can be added then please do, since I'm sure there's plenty of sources that can verify the text of this article that I don't have access to."
 * I was going to apologize, until you came up with this little snarky line. I listed two sources in the bibliography that apply to many of the claims in the article. There's about 20 sources I found just by google searching. Time for you to get to work, unless you're a liar. But I suspect you're just a troll. Oh well, I guess I'll have to do the work for you.
 * For example, you previously said "As it was, I found no good reason to keep it in the article." Well, you're an undergraduate who doesn't know everything. Why would you expect to see a good reason for a subject you literally know nothing about? You might as well say, "My goodness, I don't see any good reason to think aliens exist in the cosmos. Therefore, they don't exist!". 2601:840:8681:9690:0:0:0:B103 (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was only inviting you to add sources if you had them (since, based on your editing history you seem interested in the subject). Maybe those sources you found on Google would be useful to this article, but we are all busy and don't have time to read through them and select which would be useful for verifying the unverified sections of this article (not to mention, in my original criticism I note that the sources already there need verification as well).
 * I find it very interesting that you are calling me a troll, considering that I already put a bunch of work into this article. I'm not you're lackey -- I didn't demand anything of you, so why are you telling me its "Time for you to get to work"? (WP:CIV)
 * And to address the "As it was, I found no good reason..." comment, I wrote why I found no good reason for it. I think it didn't work in the article because it seemed only targeted to a theologian audience and not a general audience that includes theologians (WP:RF). Maybe you disagree with that, and that's okay. But I don't appreciate you (1) assuming I know nothing about the subject in the first place and (2) using the fact I'm an undergraduate student to attack my capability as an editor. (WP:NPA)
 * I'm more than happy to be proactive about the things I deleted/altered with the article. If you think the sections I deleted should be restored, then that's great (but they need sources). --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)