John W Burgeson wrote:
> George posted, in part:
>
> " Independent natural theology (i.e., that which is developed without
> reference to revelation) is 1) biblically marginal, and 2) dangerous....."
> That seems pretty obvious. Do you understand Whitehead/Griffin to have done
> this? From my studying of them so far I think Whitehead may be so accused,
> but not griffin. But I may be wrong.
I don't know that it's obvious, since developments and uses of such
natural theologies have been a thriving industry, especially since the 17th
century. But Whitehead doesn't make this error - his mistake, I think, is
farther down the line. Toward the end of _Process and Reality_ he says:
"The history of theistic philosophy exhibits various stages of
combination of these three diverse ways of entertaining the problem. There
is, however, in the Galilean origin of Christianity yet another suggestion
which does not fit very well with any of the three main strands of thought.
It does not emphasize the ruling Caesar, or the ruthless moralist, or the
unmoved mover. It dwells upon the tender elements in the world, which slowly
and in quietness operate by love; and it finds purpose in the present
immediacy of a kingdom not of this world. Love neither rules nor is it
unmoved; also it is a little oblivious as to morals. It does not look to the
future; for it finds its own reward in the immediate present."
And a little later he refers to God as "the great companion - the fellow
sufferer who understands."
The influence of the story of Jesus, and of a type of theology of the
cross, on the development of Whitehead's picture of God is, I think, fairly
clear from this. So he isn't pursuing a natural theology entirely independent
of revelation. & I think to some extent that's true of many process
theologians.
Where the problem comes, however, is in then seeing this picture of
God as a general truth, of which Jesus is one example - a very important
example perhaps but not a unique and indispensable revelation of God.
Eberhard Juengel states the basic problem of natural theology - which I think
is typified by Whitehead - as follows:
"What natural theology represents perversely as truth is the claim of
the most highly specific event of the Word of God to general validity. And
the perversion of this truth consists in the reversal of the claim to general
validity of this highly specific event to assertion of a generality to which
then the unique event is subsumed as a special case of a comprehensive
relation." (If this sounds clumsy it's because it's my translation & I
haven't tried to make it elegant English.)
I.e., theological statements ultimately have tio be referred back to
Christ crucified, not to some general truth about the suffering of God.
> George continues: "Even if some theoretical validity is granted to
> independent natural theology as a preparation for the gospel, it is a very
> dangerous enterprise."
>
> From my own conversion experiences, and from reading C.S. Lewis, it seems
> that something like "independent natural theology" was involved for both of
> us. Perhaps I'm misreading Lewis; I think I am not misreading my own
> experiences. Maybe this WAS "dangerous," I don't know.
It's hard to know how much influence Lewis' upbringing in the
Christian tradition may have had below the surface in the process of his
return to the faith. You can best speak to your own experience, though of
course none of us can really be certain what's been going on in his/her
subconscious. But granted, natural theology arguments can certainly "work" in
many cases, and need not pose a danger to any particular individual,
especially if he/she becomes part of a Christian community in which there is a
strong emphasis on Incarnation, Cross, & Resurrection. But when natural
theology becomes the dominant approach to Christianity in a society, the
effects can be pretty bad. The sad state of many of the churches of Europe in
the wake of the Enlightenment is an example.
> Much later, George writes: " We have to accept God as creator on the basis
> of revelation - we don't get it from science."
>
> That's true, of course. But the meaning of the very word "God" is
> problematic here. Somewhere I found this quotation:
> --------------------
> "God" is not God's name.
>
> It is OUR name for the mystery
> that looms within, and without,
> and beyond the limits of our vision.
> ----------------------
> I think it is not irrational to "get from science" the idea of a god that
> is simply an ultimate First Cause. I agree that one needs revelation to
> understand that He is personal though. I suspect that is what you meant.
Kind of. We can argue very plausibly (though we can't _prove_) from
our experience of the world that there is "a God". _Who_ that God is is
another matter. The temptation of natural theology is to try to start
figuring out who God is from general experience of the world & reason alone.
Then we get "the ruling Caesar, or the ruthless moralist, or the unmoved
mover" - or the Intelligent Designer!
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 22 2001 - 20:58:15 EDT