"Terry M. Gray" wrote:
............................
> How about if we turn this discussion toward the more apologetic and
> theological bent (where perhaps more people can participate intelligently)
> and ask whether a natuiral theology is Biblical and what role natural
> theology should play in our apologetics.
Independent natural theology (i.e., that which is developed without reference
to revelation) is 1) biblically marginal, and 2) dangerous.
1) There are biblical passages which suggest some validity for such a
natural theology - e.g., Ps.19:1-6 & Acts 14:15-18. Even Karl Barth admitted
this. But as he said - & I agree - this is something quite different from
validation of natural theology as a proper introduction to specifically Christian
theology. The note of natural theology in these passages is relativized in one
way or another. In Ps.19 it is attached to staements about torah which is
"perfect" &c. Acts 14 presents natural theology as a kind of emergency
apologetic tactic.
Romans 1:18-32 is _not_ a validation of natural theology. Paul speaks
about evidence which _should_ lead to a knowledge of God from creation, but he
says that the sinful condition of humanity is shown precisely by the fact that
people misinterpret this evidence and construct idols. N.B. - the problem as
Paul describes it is _not_ that people are atheists but that they mislead
themselves with their natural theologies! & when Paul is finished speaking about
the problem of sin he doesn't try to develop a correct natural theology but
speaks about what God has done in Christ (3:21-31).
2) Even if some theoretical validity is granted to independent natural
theology as a preparation for the gospel, it is a very dangerous enterprise.
a. All too often people have thought that a natural knowledge of God is
sufficient, and that revelation is ultimately unnecessary. That's the whole
Enlightenment project of natural religion & finds plenty of adherents in modern
science-religion discussions. (E.g., Paul Davies' "Science offers a surer path
to God than religion.”)
b. The philosophical presuppositions which go into natural theology get
carried over into theology based upon revelation and compromise it. Christian
theology has been bedevilled by the assumptions that God cannot suffer, be
involved with death, or experience any kind of change, and that God is perfectly
"simple". These make the fundamental Christian beliefs in divine Incarnation and
the Trinity into puzzles to be solved rather than answers to fundamental
problems.
I have been speaking to this point about _independent_ natural theology -
i.e., one which is based on a supposed natural knowledge of God which is
independent of revelation. It is quite another matter to start from revelation
and then look at the natural world in light of that revaltion (i.e., Christ) in
order better to understand God's activity in the world. That is a quite
legitimate and IMO even necessary enterprise. This corresponds to what Barbour &
others call a "theology of nature".
& this is perhaps what Lucy in a parallel post means when she says "if
one accepts God as the creator of all things, then one can accept natural
processes (gravity, evolution, starvation, birth, death, and so on) as having
God's "seal of approval." The word "if" is key. We have to accept God as
creator on the basis of revelation - we don't get it from science.
But we can go beyond simply recognizing that God is active in natural
processes, & can learn - or at least have reinforced - something about the divine
character. E.g., the fact that we can understand the world so well at one level
without reference to God strongly suggests that God is not the kind of deity who
insists on "leaving his fingerprints all over the evidence". This reinforces
what we're told in, e.g., Is.45:15 & Phil.2:5-11.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 21 2001 - 17:07:03 EDT