Atheism for Lent

Merold Westphal suggests that the three great “masters of suspicion,” Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud, are actually theologians of original sin, if seen correctly.  I share the same conclusion.

http://www.atheismforlent.net/about/

I’m not as thrilled about “contemplative meditation” as this site is, but it seems reasonably well-organized.

Advertisement

A Heidegger study list

Heidegger is notoriously difficult, but once you decode him he is easy and there is a huge payoff.  The following is more or less what I did.

I did some study notes on Heidegger that some might find helpful.

a) Jamie Smith’s *Desiring the Kingdom,* despite all of Smith’s goofiness, does a good job explaining what Heidegger was about.
b) I read Heidegger’s *Basic Writings* first. The upshot is that you get a glimpse of his finest writing. The downside is you really don’t understand his project until you read Being and Time.
c) My intellectual mentor, Matthew Raphael Johnson, has a good lecture on Heidegger.
d) The world-class British orator Jonathan Bowden did an outstanding lecture on Heidegger. He places Heidegger as the counter-opposite of Satre

Merold Westphal has a good introductory lecture.  Here is a course he did.  The audio is awful, but you might be able to make something out of it.

Can Wilson even deal with Heidegger

So after I finished Heidegger’s Being and Time I went to the leading “Evangelical spokesman” to see what he said. Long story short, if you go to www.dougwils.com and type in “Heidegger” you will get three pages of “see how stupid they are” or “muh Nazis!”  What you won’t get in a sustained, mature interaction.  

The only time he remotely gets close to understanding Heidegger is when he is citing Leithart’s discussion of Westphal’s discussion of Heidegger.  And it’s clear that Wilson is out of his depth, which he kind of admits.

(Is he speaking in tongues in this post?)

Here he shows himself mentally incapable of dealing with a godly and renowned philosopher like Merold Westphal.  (Mind you, I have some differences with Westphal.  I think he too closely identifies ontotheology with metaphysics).