<p>I sent this earlier today just to David - from my provider's website, which explains the crummy format. Here it is for others who may be interested.</p><p>George Murphy</p><p>> > > > > Keith said: I am not saying anything about the ability of human reason. I am simply stating that supernatural agents are not subject to SCIENTIFIC test and confirmation. </p><p>1st, talk about "supernatural agents" in general just confuses matters: The question of what cherubim & seraphim may do in the world isn't at issue. If we're going to talk about God, let's talk about God.& then do you really want to say that God is subject to scientific test & confirmation? Should we try to do scientific experiments on God? Yes or no?</p><p>>I don't mean this to sound as it will sound in writing, but this seems not useful and uninteresting to me. Ultimately, this sets up a tautology: "science is methodological naturalism, therefore, God is not a !
scientific concept." It tells us nothing of what we're capable of knowing as human beings.</p><p>No because we (or at least I, & I think Keith & a lot of others here) aren't saying that "what we're capable of knowing as human beings" is coterminous with science. MN is best understood as a definition of what we're going to call science. We agree to investigate the world & try to understand by invoking only natural agents & processes. We don't assert that we'll be able to explain everything in the world in this way. & if some do then they're talking metaphysical, not methodological, naturalism.& the limits of MN don't have to do just with religion. Poetry, art &c can enable us to know aspects of reality that science doesn't.</p><p>> It seems to me that this kind of tautological definition of Science is just as much driven by the American culture wars as the conflicting definitions pushed by the ID side. It has everything to!
do with what gets taught in school under the U.S. Constitution, and n
othing to do with the more interesting and meaningful question of whether humans can perceive God's activity through natural reason.</p><p>Yes, it has a lot to do with that. The distinction between science & other ways of knowing reality - & especially religion - is to a certain extent artificial. It's justified to the extent that the nation has decided that specific religious views are not to be promoted by public institutions. If not, not.</p><p>> It occurred to me that the broader debate can be framed as a a question about whether or not Barth was right. A strong version of the "hidden God" proposition seems derived from Barth's views about human inability to know God. The "theology of the cross" as applied to knowledge of God through creation is a strongly Barthian proposition, isn't it? What, then, about those of us who aren't such dyed-in-the-wool Barthians, particularly Catholics or protestants who think Rahner and his descendants !
(and his antecedents, including Aquinas) have important things to say about human reason, natural law, and the analogical knowledge of God? Is averyone who holds to strong TE position fundamentally Barthian? </p><p>(Excuse my inadvertent editing of your last sentence.)In answer to the last question, of course not! I am not a "dyed in the wool Barthian," but, Barth's critique of natural theology was, as far as it went, on target. However, some distinctions are needed. The theology of the cross is not identical with Barth's denial of a natural knowledge of God. Barth doesn't start from a theology of the cross in Luther's sense & Luther, OTOH, doesn't deny that human beings can know "naturally" that there is a God, though they can't so know who God is.</p><p>However, I think that a consistently applied theology of the cross does lead to a denial of the validity of a natural theology that is independent of revelation. Torrance's corrective to Bart!
h's position is needed: There can be a legitimate natural theology wi
thin the context of specifically Christian theology. What Barth was really denying was the legitimacy of a natural theology that claims to be independent of revelation, & that is also what Luther means in setting out the theology of the cross when he says, "that person does not deserve to be a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened." Comparison of the Latin text of that makes it clear that he's referring to Romans 1:20. & the point is Paul's - not (as people sometimes imagine) that natural theology is being endorsed in Romans 1 but that independent natural theology is idolatry. </p><p>George L. Murphy </p>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 20 20:51:10 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 20 2006 - 20:51:11 EST