Lost ground: Jim Hanson’s “neo-ontotheology” in dialogue with Merold Westphal

Lost ground: Jim Hanson’s “neo-ontotheology” in dialogue with Merold Westphal

In his article, “Ontos and Theos: A Case for Neo-Ontotheology,” Jim Hanson argues for a re-examination of onto-theology and its importance to theology. This article responds critically to his understanding of what onto-theology is and is not through exploring the concept of onto-theology and giving...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Theology today (Ephrata, Pa.) Pa.), 2015-10, Vol.72 (3), p.326-335
1. Verfasser: Sands, Justin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
God
Metaphysics
Postmodernism
Theology
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 335
container_issue 3
container_start_page 326
container_title Theology today (Ephrata, Pa.)
container_volume 72
creator Sands, Justin
description In his article, “Ontos and Theos: A Case for Neo-Ontotheology,” Jim Hanson argues for a re-examination of onto-theology and its importance to theology. This article responds critically to his understanding of what onto-theology is and is not through exploring the concept of onto-theology and giving a case study of postmodern thought’s overcoming of this metaphysical problem. The goal of this exercise is to show that, while Jim Hanson is correct that we need some form of understanding God, his case for neo-onto-theology does not eschew any of the problems/critiques that postmodern scholarship has against a metaphysics staked in the ground of onto-theology.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0040573615601467
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1729382253</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0040573615601467</sage_id><sourcerecordid>3856110981</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c262t-b542bc0bdc96f3dab27c6d592a3bdbf9642dcb79bc1e1f6088e93299cbabe23b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKAzEYhYMoWKt7lwHX0VwmycSdFLVKxYWKyyG3aadMJzWZQbrrawj6cn0Sp9SFCK5-fs53zoEDwCnB54RIeYFxhrlkgnCBSSbkHhhQnGWIci72wWAro61-CI5SmmNMSJ7TAXiahNTCaQxd4y7hfbWAY92k0GzWHwlu1p-NDyg0bWhnPtRhutqsv2DVQFfp_us8fK_aGXzwMdQOvvrULme6PgYHpa6TP_m5Q_Byc_08GqPJ4-3d6GqCLBW0RYZn1FhsnFWiZE4bKq1wXFHNjDOlEhl11khlLPGkFDjPvWJUKWu08ZQZNgRnu9xlDG9dX17MQxebvrIgkiqWU8pZT-EdZWNIKfqyWMZqoeOqILjYTlf8na63oJ0l6an_Ffof_w20snE5</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1729382253</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Lost ground: Jim Hanson’s “neo-ontotheology” in dialogue with Merold Westphal</title><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Sands, Justin</creator><creatorcontrib>Sands, Justin</creatorcontrib><description>In his article, “Ontos and Theos: A Case for Neo-Ontotheology,” Jim Hanson argues for a re-examination of onto-theology and its importance to theology. This article responds critically to his understanding of what onto-theology is and is not through exploring the concept of onto-theology and giving a case study of postmodern thought’s overcoming of this metaphysical problem. The goal of this exercise is to show that, while Jim Hanson is correct that we need some form of understanding God, his case for neo-onto-theology does not eschew any of the problems/critiques that postmodern scholarship has against a metaphysics staked in the ground of onto-theology.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0040-5736</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-2556</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0040573615601467</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>God ; Metaphysics ; Postmodernism ; Theology</subject><ispartof>Theology today (Ephrata, Pa.), 2015-10, Vol.72 (3), p.326-335</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2015</rights><rights>Copyright Theology Today Oct 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0040573615601467$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0040573615601467$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sands, Justin</creatorcontrib><title>Lost ground: Jim Hanson’s “neo-ontotheology” in dialogue with Merold Westphal</title><title>Theology today (Ephrata, Pa.)</title><description>In his article, “Ontos and Theos: A Case for Neo-Ontotheology,” Jim Hanson argues for a re-examination of onto-theology and its importance to theology. This article responds critically to his understanding of what onto-theology is and is not through exploring the concept of onto-theology and giving a case study of postmodern thought’s overcoming of this metaphysical problem. The goal of this exercise is to show that, while Jim Hanson is correct that we need some form of understanding God, his case for neo-onto-theology does not eschew any of the problems/critiques that postmodern scholarship has against a metaphysics staked in the ground of onto-theology.</description><subject>God</subject><subject>Metaphysics</subject><subject>Postmodernism</subject><subject>Theology</subject><issn>0040-5736</issn><issn>2044-2556</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kMtKAzEYhYMoWKt7lwHX0VwmycSdFLVKxYWKyyG3aadMJzWZQbrrawj6cn0Sp9SFCK5-fs53zoEDwCnB54RIeYFxhrlkgnCBSSbkHhhQnGWIci72wWAro61-CI5SmmNMSJ7TAXiahNTCaQxd4y7hfbWAY92k0GzWHwlu1p-NDyg0bWhnPtRhutqsv2DVQFfp_us8fK_aGXzwMdQOvvrULme6PgYHpa6TP_m5Q_Byc_08GqPJ4-3d6GqCLBW0RYZn1FhsnFWiZE4bKq1wXFHNjDOlEhl11khlLPGkFDjPvWJUKWu08ZQZNgRnu9xlDG9dX17MQxebvrIgkiqWU8pZT-EdZWNIKfqyWMZqoeOqILjYTlf8na63oJ0l6an_Ffof_w20snE5</recordid><startdate>201510</startdate><enddate>201510</enddate><creator>Sands, Justin</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Theology Today</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201510</creationdate><title>Lost ground: Jim Hanson’s “neo-ontotheology” in dialogue with Merold Westphal</title><author>Sands, Justin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c262t-b542bc0bdc96f3dab27c6d592a3bdbf9642dcb79bc1e1f6088e93299cbabe23b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>God</topic><topic>Metaphysics</topic><topic>Postmodernism</topic><topic>Theology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sands, Justin</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Theology today (Ephrata, Pa.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sands, Justin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Lost ground: Jim Hanson’s “neo-ontotheology” in dialogue with Merold Westphal</atitle><jtitle>Theology today (Ephrata, Pa.)</jtitle><date>2015-10</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>72</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>326</spage><epage>335</epage><pages>326-335</pages><issn>0040-5736</issn><eissn>2044-2556</eissn><abstract>In his article, “Ontos and Theos: A Case for Neo-Ontotheology,” Jim Hanson argues for a re-examination of onto-theology and its importance to theology. This article responds critically to his understanding of what onto-theology is and is not through exploring the concept of onto-theology and giving a case study of postmodern thought’s overcoming of this metaphysical problem. The goal of this exercise is to show that, while Jim Hanson is correct that we need some form of understanding God, his case for neo-onto-theology does not eschew any of the problems/critiques that postmodern scholarship has against a metaphysics staked in the ground of onto-theology.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0040573615601467</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0040-5736
ispartof Theology today (Ephrata, Pa.), 2015-10, Vol.72 (3), p.326-335
issn 0040-5736
2044-2556
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1729382253
source SAGE Complete
subjects God
Metaphysics
Postmodernism
Theology
title Lost ground: Jim Hanson’s “neo-ontotheology” in dialogue with Merold Westphal
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T08%3A51%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Lost%20ground:%20Jim%20Hanson%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9Cneo-ontotheology%E2%80%9D%20in%20dialogue%20with%20Merold%20Westphal&rft.jtitle=Theology%20today%20(Ephrata,%20Pa.)&rft.au=Sands,%20Justin&rft.date=2015-10&rft.volume=72&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=326&rft.epage=335&rft.pages=326-335&rft.issn=0040-5736&rft.eissn=2044-2556&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0040573615601467&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3856110981%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1729382253&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0040573615601467&rfr_iscdi=true