A few weeks ago we were studying Romans 1 and 2 and concluded that atheism is
not a intellectual decision but a moral one because of the non-excusability
principle in Romans.
Salu2
Eduardo
> Re: >Re: Science and Theology
>
> Keith Walker (Keith_R_Walker@compuserve.com)
> Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:00:53 -0500
>
> Message text written by George Murphy
> >What is
> >problematic is, as I put it earlier, the idea of an _independent_
> >natural theology - the idea that we can learn about God simply from
> >observation of the world & our reason independently of God's historical
> >revelation to Israel which culminates in Jesus. The argument from
> >design, as it is usually presented, falls into that category.
>
> May it be that some things can be learned about God simply by observation
> of the world? If I may make use of the Watchmaker analogy, once I
> aknowledge that a maker exists I may infer simply by looking at the watch
> that the maker has a certain knowledge of mechanics, an interest in
> time-keeping, etc.. But there would be many other things which could not
> be inferred. To know them I would have to meet the Watchmaker and he would
> have to reveal them to me.
>
> What is debated is whether the existence of the Watchmaker can properly be
> inferred from simple observation of the watch.
>
> I think that Rom 1 is indeed relevant. The line of argument through into
> to chapter 2 seems to aim at removing from all people any excuse for their
> rejection of God, and at establishing the universal sinfulness of the race.
> That includes those (Gentiles) who were not privileged to have received
> God's historical revelation to Israel. Paul's point in the longer run is
> to develop the argument that Gentiles too can be saved, as Christ is the
> counterpart to Adam (Rom 5-6).
>
> But on what basis can they be held accountable for their rejection of one
> who had not been revealed to them? Despite that they have not been the
> recipients of that revelation which came through the Jewish people, they
> are held accountable in view of what has been plainly visible to all people
> in all places.
>
> Whilst the text does not starkly insist that God's existence is properly
> inferrable from the world around, it does say that certain qualities are
> discernible. And it would need explaining how qualities could be inferred
> to a being whose existence cannot be.
>
> This is not independent natural theology because it asserts that a
> sufficient knowledge of God can only come through special revelation, but
> it accords some true and decisive content to general revelation
> nonetheless.
>
> Keith Walker