Okay, it’s no secret; I am obviously engrossed in this issue right now, simply because I am reading Analytic Theology edited by Oliver Crisp and Michael Rea. I 
have lot’s of personal history with this tradition of thought (which my last post, and comments make clear). All I want to voice here is two more groups of thoughts on this issue, and then I’ll probably be done with this for awhile.
Another problem I have with Analytic Theology is that I often get the sense that without the Analytic Theologian we couldn’t be sure that God. It is this unstated thing that we ought to be reliant upon the Analytic Theologian to lead us into all truth (since they love knowledge as philosophers). This is an eery thing to me. I feel this angst as I read these folk; it seems to me, that they believe that if they can’t argue a coherent whole or prove that the Bible is Inspired Scripture or something—through their means—that the whole thing (Christianity) could evaporate into thin air. That they give and charge Christianity with its glory and life breath.
Another issue is that I get the sense that Analytic Theologians (and its probably not just them, and not all of them) seem to have a sense of power about them. That they can marshal the semantic and grammatical pieces of the knowledge-warranted-belief puzzle like no one else can. I get this sense that they think that the rest of us “theologians” [I’m just one in training] are at their mercy (or should be).
I am not anti-intellectual, or anti-thinking; I am anti-Analytic (for the most part) though. [That does not mean that I don’t respect many of these so-named Analytic Theologians; I do!]
I also understand that everything I’ve just said could be turned around by the Analytic Theologian at me, and my particular approach; that’s fine, just sayin’.
Good thing the Apostles didn’t use modal logic or we all might be lost. Good thing God/apostles used better tools than the analytic theologian. Which should make us all have pause when we give weight to * w β¨ Β¬P if and only if w \not\models P
* w β¨ (P \wedge Q) if and only if w β¨ P and w β¨ Q
* w β¨ \BoxP if and only if for every element v of G, if w R v then v β¨ P
* w β¨ \DiamondP if and only if for some element v of G, it holds that w R v and v β¨ P
over “For God so loved the world”
Kenny,
π I don’t really have anything against modal logic; I just really don’t appreciate Analytic Theology, like some do.
You mean we aren’t computers?