Thread by @AlsoACarpenter

If I'm reading this correctly, Shenvi cannot show that they are incorrect, but is arguing that the method used to arrive at the truths they explicate is dangerous? A "universal acid"?

Is this not a simple slippery slope fallacy? 1/
cbmw.org/2021/11/21/soc…

2/ Critique and rejection of some ideas and interpretations, based on analysis of their contingent historical provenance, NECESSARILY leads to critique and rejection of everything Shenvi believes to be born of untainted theology?

3/ And if this is so, isn't his own critique substituting something like 20th century "worldview" analysis for theology? Something that quite easily could be used as a "universal acid" as well?

I mean, showing that power dynamics have much to do with the historical development

4/ of some theological ideas is only illicit if they, as a matter of fact, don't.

And seeing that socially imposed "identities" intersect and are mutually constructive is only illicit if they, as a matter of fact, don't.

5/ And all of these are only theologically wrong if you can actually provide some evidence that they contradict orthodox theology.

All that is left is a slippery slope fallacy and some intellectual cootie-ism wrapped up in "worldview" language (developed by non-Christian 19th c

6/6 philosophers and then incorporated into 20th c apologetics and subsequently wielded by whomever to defend whatever ideology they want).

P.S.: It would be pretty easy to argue that the non-Christian philosophers who developed "worldview" ideology developed it from a non-Christian "worldview" of which said ideology was a component. I mean, if we like the intellectual cootie-ism game.