Asle Eikrem | Norwegian School of Theology (original) (raw)
Uploads
Books by Asle Eikrem
![Research paper thumbnail of Hvem? Hvor mange? En migrasjonsetikk for Norge [Who? How Many? An Ethics of Migration for Norway]](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/107330401/thumbnails/1.jpg)
](Hvem? Hvor mange? En Migrasjonsetikk for Norge. , 2023
Dette verket omfattes av bestemmelsene i Lov om opphavsretten til åndsverk m.v. av 1961. Verket u... more Dette verket omfattes av bestemmelsene i Lov om opphavsretten til åndsverk m.v. av 1961. Verket utgis Open Access under betingelsene i Creative Commons-lisensen CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Denne lisensen lar andre kopiere, distribuere og spre verket i hvilket som helst medium eller format, under forutsetning av at det oppgis korrekt kreditering og lenke til lisens. Dette kan gjøres på enhver rimelig måte, men uten at det kan forstås slik at lisensgiver bifaller deg eller din bruk av verket. Materialet kan ikke benyttes til kommersielle formål. Dersom du remixer, bearbeider eller bygger på materialet, kan du ikke distribuere det endrede materialet.
Sacrificial love is a prevailing topic throughout the Christian tradition, and is often thought t... more Sacrificial love is a prevailing topic throughout the Christian tradition, and is often thought to bring us closest not only to the historic actions of God in the form of Jesus, but to the very heart of God. As such it is understandably perceived as integral to most Christian visions of moral life.
In dialogue with a range of post-enlightenment critiques of Christian theologies regarding sacrificial love, Asle Eikrem presents an unconventional systematic approach to this multi-layered and complex theological topic. From Hegel to prominent 20th century theologians, from feminist theologies to post-modern philosophers, this volume engages in a critical conversation with a host of different voices on all the classical topics in theology (creation, trinity, incarnation, atonement, sin, faith, sacraments, and eschatology), also providing a moral and socio-historical vision for Christian living. The result is a unique appraisal of the significance that the life and death of Jesus holds for the world today.
Papers by Asle Eikrem
Mats Wahlberg argues that evolutionary theodicies fail to show how an evolutionary process was ne... more Mats Wahlberg argues that evolutionary theodicies fail to show how an evolutionary process was necessary in order to reach the goal(s) God is said to have had when creating our world. The authors of this article argue that Wahl-berg's critique fails if one takes into consideration the distinction between type-and token-values. The question that guides Wahlberg's discussion is whether or not unique type-values require an evolution in order to be instantiated or not. He does not, however, discuss whether unique token-values require evolution. This article will address this question, and argue that the theodicies he claims to fail does not do so for the reasons put forward by Wahlberg if interpreted as focusing on token-unique values. The authors will also argue that theodicies other than those evaluated by Wahlberg succeed in identifying type-unique values that can only be brought about through evolution. Zusammenfassung: Mats Wahlberg argumentiert, dass evolutionäre Theodizeen nicht zeigen, wie ein evolutionärer Prozess notwendig war, um das Ziel zu erreichen, das Gott bei der Erschaffung unserer Welt gehabt hat. Die Autoren dieses Artikels argumentieren, dass Wahlbergs Kritik nicht haltbar ist, wenn man die Unterscheidung zwischen Typ-und Token-Werten berücksichtigt. Die er-kenntnisleitende Frage für Wahlbergs Diskussion ist, ob eindeutige Typ-Werte eine Evolution erfordern oder nicht, um somit instanziiert zu werden oder nicht. Er diskutiert jedoch nicht, ob einzigartige Token-Werte eine Evolution erfordern. Dieser Artikel befasst sich mit dieser Frage und argumentiert, dass die von Wahlberg angeführten Theodizeen nicht aus den von ihm vorgelegten Gründen aussagelos sind, wenn sie auf die Darstellung von einzigartigen Token-Werten hin interpretiert werden. Die Autoren argumentieren auch dafür, dass andere als
A: M philosophers of religion follow Heidegger in his tendency to identify metaphysical discourse... more A: M philosophers of religion follow Heidegger in his tendency to identify metaphysical discourse on God with onto-theological discourse on God. is tendency is regrettable. Onto-theological discourse is problematic because it is based on a problematic metaphysics, not because of its metaphysical character per se. In this essay I will, by recourse to the theoretical framework developed by German philosopher Lorenz Puntel, attempt to show that there is indeed a coherent way to understand God metaphysically that does not succumb to the metaphysics of onto-theology. In my view both onto-theological, as well as non-metaphysical, notions of God remain philosophically underdetermined.
Religious Studies recently published a very interesting and well-argued article by Samuel Shearn ... more Religious Studies recently published a very interesting and well-argued article by Samuel Shearn on moral critique of theodicies. In part one he argues that ambitious theodicies trivialize horrendous suffering in an unacceptable way by reinterpreting evils in a way sufferers do not accept. Against Shearn, the authors of this article will argue that sufferer acceptance should not be used as criterion for moral acceptability of what theodicies say about horrendous evils. Also, since theodicy is a done in the public square, Shearn does not find it relevant to distinguish between contexts in which it is morally improper to communicate theodicies and those in which it is not. We disagree, and present some arguments as to why making such distinctions is morally relevant. In part two Shearn argues that theodicy is self-defeating if it aims to comfort sufferers of horrendous evils. We will critically reexamine the examples used to support his conclusion, and suggest that theodicies do have a comforting function. Finally, Shearn describes the difference between theodicy, and anti-theodicy as an aesthetic impasse, rather than a moral issue. Against this, we find good reasons to affirm its predominant moral character.
The issue of context plays a peculiar role in present-day religious studies. When arguing context... more The issue of context plays a peculiar role in present-day religious studies. When arguing contextually on issues of religion we find ourselves in a somewhat paradoxical situation. On the one hand, we are told that religious practices must be interpreted locally if they are to be sufficiently understood. The question of the local and multiform character of the lifesustaining and meaning-giving structures of religious life has become especially important. Thus considered, the amount of contexts relating to the interpretation of religion seems almost infinite. On the other hand, the increasing experience of belonging to what in common parlance has come to be called a "global village" has left us with the need to keep the whole in view when trying to understand local problems in religion. Moreover, from this perspective the world may be seen as one single context where transformations in one substructure have consequences for the structure as a whole. The world seems both larger and smaller at the same time. It is thus not surprising that the concept of context should play innumerable roles in present day discourses in theology and philosophy of religion. For this reason I find a contemplative and critical re-thinking of the issue of contextuality especially worthwhile.
Asle Eikrem, f. 1978. Førsteamanuensis i systematisk teologi og religionsfilosofi ved MF.
Book Reviews by Asle Eikrem
PQ RSTUV TWX YZ Y[\]^_`ẐaaSY_ YaZbacZ d^Xe fg\Y] X YcYcY[ Y_ ] XcYah iX X YẐaaSY_ jklYa S\YmY[cYa... more PQ RSTUV TWX YZ Y[\]^_`ẐaaSY_ YaZbacZ d^Xe fg\Y] X YcYcY[ Y_ ] XcYah iX X YẐaaSY_ jklYa S\YmY[cYaaYnaccY_SY[_X YZRmVS\] X dYaẐaaSY_Y[cY_cYaZ d^XX YcYRZ Z_ ] X VRoS\R[ c^a Z d^X\]h R[ Z _ nh R[ SRX cY_mYX X RmcYaaYnacYaRocYaaYẐaaSY_ YapqY_ _ YY[cYR\Y[ R[ caYcY Z rs[ Z mnXtiaa^[P aaY[ c^Xu vwxyh R[ Z sdY[nzYZ \^[ Y]Z ] azRd{|}~}| ||} |} kP aaY[ c^XS^[_ RSR\Ycd] X cY[h R[Z ] aY[ Yh X YdZ RaY[[ iac_c] Z Z YZ rs[ Z mn X YaY^aZ[ Z\Ra^X _ S^Ẑ[ Z_ YRX Ro] Z dYX [ YRmbacYau raYim^_ RX Ro] yRowR[ Yaia_ YX Z h ] X RZ Rh ] Z dYẐaaSY_ Z _ YR[ ] kYZ iX __ Y_Y[YaZ Z _ Ym^_ ] Z d _ YRX Ro] Z dh R[ Z _ nYX Z Y^\S\R[ c^aqYa SYX X ] oYnacz] c[[_ ] XnZ d^rYcY_Z RmY[Ẑa_u c\Z k\] [ dYX ] oSY_ Yay VRoS\R[ c^acYaz] c[[ _ ] X^_\]ĥd_ ] Z d }} aRYZ RmẐa_ k PZ ] _ _h R[ Z sdrnnzYZ \^[ YzRdYaZd Y[ aYZ rs[ Z mnXrnYaZ Z _ Ym^_ ] Z dmn_ Y_[P aaY[ c^X i_ o^aoZ riad_]^aZ[ Z\Ra^X _ S^Ẑ[ Zd[ ] Z _ RX Ro] kYZ YaZ Rmh R[ Z \^[ YZ VY[^_mYaaYZ dY[ ] ddYY[ d YaaY[ẐaaSY_\YcZ r[ ndX ] oRo_adYmYZ Z ] on`Z _ ] oYRrrj_ ] XticVmYa^_\n[Y[ d Ya aYX Z Y^\ẐaaSY_S^[Z ] ao[ iaaX YooYacYh R[ i_ Z Y_ a] ao]^_tic`Z _ ] oY[aYcj_ ] XmYaaYZ dY[ ticZ YX \S^[Z d^r_rnYamn_ YZ Rmo s[cY_miX ] onY[ d YaaYtickPticZZ YX \i_ h RX cYX Z Y] [ ] Z _ iZms_ Y[\]YaticZ RmRmZ X i_ _ Y[^X _ kvn[mYaaYZ dY[c^Y[ d YaaY[ẐaaSY_ VY[ d YaaY[ cY_Z YoZ RmRmZ X i_ _ Y_^\ticVcY_\] XZ ]Z RmYacYX _dY[]ticZẐaaSY_ k\R[ c^adRmmY[ Z nbacYa] aa]z] X cY_ p R[cY_h s[ Z _ YbacYaX YcẐoY[^cY[ YaZZ d^rYX Z Y^\\Y[ cYao YaaRm[ ] Z _ iZ kRmcYX _ dY[]ticZZ d^rY[ S^acX ] aoY[bacYadRaZ _ ] _ iY[ YacYh R[^X _\]Y[ d YaaY[Z Rm\] [ dYX ] ou c\Z k Ẑa_ y kR[cY_^ac[ Yt YaaRmZ d^rY[ S^acX ] aoYazX ] [bacYazRYacY]mYaaYZ dY_rnYa mn_ YZ Rmo s[cY_miX ] oh R[cY_nY[ d YaaYZ d^rY[ \Y[ dY_ ZẐaaSY_ VoRcSY_RoZ d saaSY_ k qY_ _ Y] aaYz[ Y[^_h R[ i_ Z Y_ a] aoYaYh R[Y[ d YaaYX Z Y^\ẐaaSY_Y[_ ] XZ _ YcY] ddYz^[ YSRZcY mYaaYZ dY[Z Rm_ ] X Ss[ Y[cYad[ ] Z _ aYd] [ dYVmYa^_cYm^a] h YZ _ Y[ Y[Z YoSRZY_ S\Y[ _mYaaYZ dY
Drafts by Asle Eikrem
When asked to deliver this short talk, here at Bjärka Säby, I was asked, perhaps even subtly inst... more When asked to deliver this short talk, here at Bjärka Säby, I was asked, perhaps even subtly instructed, to give my approach the shape of an "embedded theology". I interpreted this request as concerned with determining a specific methodological starting point, namely to theologically reflect upon God-talk as it comes to expression in "everyday" religious practices. 1 But this might, of course, be done in different ways: one could ask the question of what religious people are doing when they say this or that, and answer by specifying what kinds of actions are carried out (praying, complaining, asking, stating, etc.), or one could ask what religious people are saying when doing this or that, i.e. to inquire into the logic of "the said" as such? My approach today will be guided by this latter question.
Hvem? Hvor mange? En Migrasjonsetikk for Norge. , 2023
Dette verket omfattes av bestemmelsene i Lov om opphavsretten til åndsverk m.v. av 1961. Verket u... more Dette verket omfattes av bestemmelsene i Lov om opphavsretten til åndsverk m.v. av 1961. Verket utgis Open Access under betingelsene i Creative Commons-lisensen CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Denne lisensen lar andre kopiere, distribuere og spre verket i hvilket som helst medium eller format, under forutsetning av at det oppgis korrekt kreditering og lenke til lisens. Dette kan gjøres på enhver rimelig måte, men uten at det kan forstås slik at lisensgiver bifaller deg eller din bruk av verket. Materialet kan ikke benyttes til kommersielle formål. Dersom du remixer, bearbeider eller bygger på materialet, kan du ikke distribuere det endrede materialet.
Sacrificial love is a prevailing topic throughout the Christian tradition, and is often thought t... more Sacrificial love is a prevailing topic throughout the Christian tradition, and is often thought to bring us closest not only to the historic actions of God in the form of Jesus, but to the very heart of God. As such it is understandably perceived as integral to most Christian visions of moral life.
In dialogue with a range of post-enlightenment critiques of Christian theologies regarding sacrificial love, Asle Eikrem presents an unconventional systematic approach to this multi-layered and complex theological topic. From Hegel to prominent 20th century theologians, from feminist theologies to post-modern philosophers, this volume engages in a critical conversation with a host of different voices on all the classical topics in theology (creation, trinity, incarnation, atonement, sin, faith, sacraments, and eschatology), also providing a moral and socio-historical vision for Christian living. The result is a unique appraisal of the significance that the life and death of Jesus holds for the world today.
Mats Wahlberg argues that evolutionary theodicies fail to show how an evolutionary process was ne... more Mats Wahlberg argues that evolutionary theodicies fail to show how an evolutionary process was necessary in order to reach the goal(s) God is said to have had when creating our world. The authors of this article argue that Wahl-berg's critique fails if one takes into consideration the distinction between type-and token-values. The question that guides Wahlberg's discussion is whether or not unique type-values require an evolution in order to be instantiated or not. He does not, however, discuss whether unique token-values require evolution. This article will address this question, and argue that the theodicies he claims to fail does not do so for the reasons put forward by Wahlberg if interpreted as focusing on token-unique values. The authors will also argue that theodicies other than those evaluated by Wahlberg succeed in identifying type-unique values that can only be brought about through evolution. Zusammenfassung: Mats Wahlberg argumentiert, dass evolutionäre Theodizeen nicht zeigen, wie ein evolutionärer Prozess notwendig war, um das Ziel zu erreichen, das Gott bei der Erschaffung unserer Welt gehabt hat. Die Autoren dieses Artikels argumentieren, dass Wahlbergs Kritik nicht haltbar ist, wenn man die Unterscheidung zwischen Typ-und Token-Werten berücksichtigt. Die er-kenntnisleitende Frage für Wahlbergs Diskussion ist, ob eindeutige Typ-Werte eine Evolution erfordern oder nicht, um somit instanziiert zu werden oder nicht. Er diskutiert jedoch nicht, ob einzigartige Token-Werte eine Evolution erfordern. Dieser Artikel befasst sich mit dieser Frage und argumentiert, dass die von Wahlberg angeführten Theodizeen nicht aus den von ihm vorgelegten Gründen aussagelos sind, wenn sie auf die Darstellung von einzigartigen Token-Werten hin interpretiert werden. Die Autoren argumentieren auch dafür, dass andere als
A: M philosophers of religion follow Heidegger in his tendency to identify metaphysical discourse... more A: M philosophers of religion follow Heidegger in his tendency to identify metaphysical discourse on God with onto-theological discourse on God. is tendency is regrettable. Onto-theological discourse is problematic because it is based on a problematic metaphysics, not because of its metaphysical character per se. In this essay I will, by recourse to the theoretical framework developed by German philosopher Lorenz Puntel, attempt to show that there is indeed a coherent way to understand God metaphysically that does not succumb to the metaphysics of onto-theology. In my view both onto-theological, as well as non-metaphysical, notions of God remain philosophically underdetermined.
Religious Studies recently published a very interesting and well-argued article by Samuel Shearn ... more Religious Studies recently published a very interesting and well-argued article by Samuel Shearn on moral critique of theodicies. In part one he argues that ambitious theodicies trivialize horrendous suffering in an unacceptable way by reinterpreting evils in a way sufferers do not accept. Against Shearn, the authors of this article will argue that sufferer acceptance should not be used as criterion for moral acceptability of what theodicies say about horrendous evils. Also, since theodicy is a done in the public square, Shearn does not find it relevant to distinguish between contexts in which it is morally improper to communicate theodicies and those in which it is not. We disagree, and present some arguments as to why making such distinctions is morally relevant. In part two Shearn argues that theodicy is self-defeating if it aims to comfort sufferers of horrendous evils. We will critically reexamine the examples used to support his conclusion, and suggest that theodicies do have a comforting function. Finally, Shearn describes the difference between theodicy, and anti-theodicy as an aesthetic impasse, rather than a moral issue. Against this, we find good reasons to affirm its predominant moral character.
The issue of context plays a peculiar role in present-day religious studies. When arguing context... more The issue of context plays a peculiar role in present-day religious studies. When arguing contextually on issues of religion we find ourselves in a somewhat paradoxical situation. On the one hand, we are told that religious practices must be interpreted locally if they are to be sufficiently understood. The question of the local and multiform character of the lifesustaining and meaning-giving structures of religious life has become especially important. Thus considered, the amount of contexts relating to the interpretation of religion seems almost infinite. On the other hand, the increasing experience of belonging to what in common parlance has come to be called a "global village" has left us with the need to keep the whole in view when trying to understand local problems in religion. Moreover, from this perspective the world may be seen as one single context where transformations in one substructure have consequences for the structure as a whole. The world seems both larger and smaller at the same time. It is thus not surprising that the concept of context should play innumerable roles in present day discourses in theology and philosophy of religion. For this reason I find a contemplative and critical re-thinking of the issue of contextuality especially worthwhile.
Asle Eikrem, f. 1978. Førsteamanuensis i systematisk teologi og religionsfilosofi ved MF.
PQ RSTUV TWX YZ Y[\]^_`ẐaaSY_ YaZbacZ d^Xe fg\Y] X YcYcY[ Y_ ] XcYah iX X YẐaaSY_ jklYa S\YmY[cYa... more PQ RSTUV TWX YZ Y[\]^_`ẐaaSY_ YaZbacZ d^Xe fg\Y] X YcYcY[ Y_ ] XcYah iX X YẐaaSY_ jklYa S\YmY[cYaaYnaccY_SY[_X YZRmVS\] X dYaẐaaSY_Y[cY_cYaZ d^XX YcYRZ Z_ ] X VRoS\R[ c^a Z d^X\]h R[ Z _ nh R[ SRX cY_mYX X RmcYaaYnacYaRocYaaYẐaaSY_ YapqY_ _ YY[cYR\Y[ R[ caYcY Z rs[ Z mnXtiaa^[P aaY[ c^Xu vwxyh R[ Z sdY[nzYZ \^[ Y]Z ] azRd{|}~}| ||} |} kP aaY[ c^XS^[_ RSR\Ycd] X cY[h R[Z ] aY[ Yh X YdZ RaY[[ iac_c] Z Z YZ rs[ Z mn X YaY^aZ[ Z\Ra^X _ S^Ẑ[ Z_ YRX Ro] Z dYX [ YRmbacYau raYim^_ RX Ro] yRowR[ Yaia_ YX Z h ] X RZ Rh ] Z dYẐaaSY_ Z _ YR[ ] kYZ iX __ Y_Y[YaZ Z _ Ym^_ ] Z d _ YRX Ro] Z dh R[ Z _ nYX Z Y^\S\R[ c^aqYa SYX X ] oYnacz] c[[_ ] XnZ d^rYcY_Z RmY[Ẑa_u c\Z k\] [ dYX ] oSY_ Yay VRoS\R[ c^acYaz] c[[ _ ] X^_\]ĥd_ ] Z d }} aRYZ RmẐa_ k PZ ] _ _h R[ Z sdrnnzYZ \^[ YzRdYaZd Y[ aYZ rs[ Z mnXrnYaZ Z _ Ym^_ ] Z dmn_ Y_[P aaY[ c^X i_ o^aoZ riad_]^aZ[ Z\Ra^X _ S^Ẑ[ Zd[ ] Z _ RX Ro] kYZ YaZ Rmh R[ Z \^[ YZ VY[^_mYaaYZ dY[ ] ddYY[ d YaaY[ẐaaSY_\YcZ r[ ndX ] oRo_adYmYZ Z ] on`Z _ ] oYRrrj_ ] XticVmYa^_\n[Y[ d Ya aYX Z Y^\ẐaaSY_S^[Z ] ao[ iaaX YooYacYh R[ i_ Z Y_ a] ao]^_tic`Z _ ] oY[aYcj_ ] XmYaaYZ dY[ ticZ YX \S^[Z d^r_rnYamn_ YZ Rmo s[cY_miX ] onY[ d YaaYtickPticZZ YX \i_ h RX cYX Z Y] [ ] Z _ iZms_ Y[\]YaticZ RmRmZ X i_ _ Y[^X _ kvn[mYaaYZ dY[c^Y[ d YaaY[ẐaaSY_ VY[ d YaaY[ cY_Z YoZ RmRmZ X i_ _ Y_^\ticVcY_\] XZ ]Z RmYacYX _dY[]ticZẐaaSY_ k\R[ c^adRmmY[ Z nbacYa] aa]z] X cY_ p R[cY_h s[ Z _ YbacYaX YcẐoY[^cY[ YaZZ d^rYX Z Y^\\Y[ cYao YaaRm[ ] Z _ iZ kRmcYX _ dY[]ticZZ d^rY[ S^acX ] aoY[bacYadRaZ _ ] _ iY[ YacYh R[^X _\]Y[ d YaaY[Z Rm\] [ dYX ] ou c\Z k Ẑa_ y kR[cY_^ac[ Yt YaaRmZ d^rY[ S^acX ] aoYazX ] [bacYazRYacY]mYaaYZ dY_rnYa mn_ YZ Rmo s[cY_miX ] oh R[cY_nY[ d YaaYZ d^rY[ \Y[ dY_ ZẐaaSY_ VoRcSY_RoZ d saaSY_ k qY_ _ Y] aaYz[ Y[^_h R[ i_ Z Y_ a] aoYaYh R[Y[ d YaaYX Z Y^\ẐaaSY_Y[_ ] XZ _ YcY] ddYz^[ YSRZcY mYaaYZ dY[Z Rm_ ] X Ss[ Y[cYad[ ] Z _ aYd] [ dYVmYa^_cYm^a] h YZ _ Y[ Y[Z YoSRZY_ S\Y[ _mYaaYZ dY
When asked to deliver this short talk, here at Bjärka Säby, I was asked, perhaps even subtly inst... more When asked to deliver this short talk, here at Bjärka Säby, I was asked, perhaps even subtly instructed, to give my approach the shape of an "embedded theology". I interpreted this request as concerned with determining a specific methodological starting point, namely to theologically reflect upon God-talk as it comes to expression in "everyday" religious practices. 1 But this might, of course, be done in different ways: one could ask the question of what religious people are doing when they say this or that, and answer by specifying what kinds of actions are carried out (praying, complaining, asking, stating, etc.), or one could ask what religious people are saying when doing this or that, i.e. to inquire into the logic of "the said" as such? My approach today will be guided by this latter question.