Re: Call me a fideist

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Call me a fideist

>
> >
>> As some have said, I see design because I believe in a designer. I don't
>> believe in a designer because I see design.
>>
>> TG
>
> Terry
> I would agree very closely with your post in which you expressed my doubts
> about evidentialism, though i neither buy into presuppositionalism.
>
> Are you saying that you beleive in the argument TO design, rather in the
> argument FROM design. ID and Paley are clearly the latter.

The important distinction there is related to a more general one between an
independent natural theology and a natural theology developed in the light
of revelation. Barth's criticisms of the former were on target, but
Torrance was right that the latter positive dimension needs to be developed.
If the "God" we have in mind is the traditional deity of philosophical
theism, it's hard to see how that God could carry out design via a Darwinian
process. It's different if the God we have in mind is the one revealed in
the cross-resurrection event.

"Fideism," BTW, is a fairly elastic term. As it's commonly used in debates,
calling a person a fideist means "Your theology doesn't emphasize reason as
much as mine does" OTOH calling someone a rationalist means "Your theology
doesn't emphasize faith as much as mine does." Of course in reality both
are needed - fides quaerens intellectum. (& in more precise usage "fideism"
doesn't refer to reasoned faith but to an overemphasis on "religious
experience."

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Thu May 26 15:54:23 2005