Rhian,
Barth was certainly uncompromising. It is sad to see that most of his friends fell away from him as the years went by. I think that his main contribution was to base theology almost exclusively on Christology in his theology of the Word. This was bound to distance natural theology. His opposition to natural theology was political, he objected to the Nazis' insistence on "Blood and soil" as being antithetical to any consideration of Christian witness.

I have not found Barth hard to love. Have you looked at "Fragments Grave and Gay"? It is of course impossible to read the dogmatics from beginning to end. Dipping into them, though is rewarding and illustrates his theological method. There are many Books about Barth's theology that can give you a clearer idea. I have in mind books by Bush and Goring.

I read a lot of theology but Barth is for me the watershed. He stands as a giant in the 20th century that cannot really be ignored.

BTW.
Some of my commentators complain that there is no evidence for what I write. They clearly compare my writing to writing in the natural sciences for which a kind of evidence is necessary. But discourse in the arts is quite seperate from the logic of natural science. Theology is not irrational, it just relies on a different kind of rationality. It is a typical case of these people living totally under the regime initiated by the Enlightenment to the exclusion of any other discipline. This represents a great impoverishment of thought for our time.

Peter, you can't simply claim that your arguments make sense, you have to SHOW they make sense. That's the point of putting them forward in the first place. To claim that your arguments don't need to make sense because they appeal to a 'different kind' of reason -- well, that way madness lies. Do you wonder that I am concerned for your sanity?

Show us that this 'different kind' of reason exists and can produce results, and that your methods give you access to it, and you will have a case. Otherwise you might as well apply to join this select group and be done with it:

http://brainz.org/13-craziest-crackpot-internet-sites/

Dear Jon,

Talking about insanity, isn't it insane and what possible sense does it make to base one's actions on a system of reasoning which itself predicts that those actions will produce no results?

Science tells us that whatever exists will one day disintegrate, that whatever is born will one day die, that whatever experiences we collect will one day be forgotten, both by ourselves and by all others.

So basing one's life on scientific evidence and reasoning is certainly mad, whereas using different systems of reasoning that do not predict an inevitable total-loss, at least provide a CHANCE of achieving lasting results.

Yuyutsu, are you saying that it's sensible to pretend our actions have some long-term results, in order to make ourselves feel better? Because that may be true; but for those of us with a firm grasp on reality, it's simply not possible to pretend in this way. Luckily we don't have to, because we are free to do things that pay off now, for ourselves, for our loved ones and for humanity in general. I have, with luck, another twenty-five years to live; and my energies are fully occupied with doing things that will make those twenty-five years as happy and productive as possible.

I have no time to waste on pointless thoughts about what I would do if some unimaginable part of me -- for which there is no evidence -- lived forever.

Dear Jon,

Well it seems that you do have time to waste on something that you know for certain that is futile.

Within an infinitesimal speck of eternity, your pleasures will be forgotten and both your loved ones and humanity in general, will all be gone.

Pretending that your actions have some long-term results, in order to make yourself feel better?

You are free to pursue this lifestyle, but don't call it is sane or rational, further discarding other options as insane or irrational.

Jon J,
By a different kind of rationality I mean a rationality that runs not on a=b, or z is the cause of y, but on analogy, metaphors, paradox, drama, poetry, song and legend. This is not unusual in the arts. All novels use this rationality, all literary criticism. Of course it is not "true" in the sense of the natural sciences but it is "true" according for our feel of ourselves and others and the world.
My protest is that epistemology has become captive by the scientific method. But the scientific method does not give us absolute truth. It is always a hypothesis and often does not give us any idea of mechanism. In other words we as a civilisation are becoming obsessed by what are called facts, mesmerised by the idea that we can know something without error or change. This is a kind of epistemological idolatry, a concern to possess right knowledge.

This leaves us in a very sterile world, a world that has been dominated by scientism. Your insistence on scientific rationality in all things would eliminate all of what we require to be human.

Logical positivism was a dead end. Descartes' promise that we would be able, using rationality, to have clear and distinct ideas turned out to be just plain wrong. His physics was fanciful.