Re: [asa] Natural theology

John,

The point is that no one is willing to receive this truth. That the
Calvinist (and Lutheran and others) "total depravity". That's the
human condition.

I have no problems with a Christ-centered, revelation dependent
"natural theology". I'm not really sure I would call that a natural
theology any more, but rather a thinking about creation in the
context of redemptive revelation. It is true that pre-fall this was
different, but then humans knew God and were in right relationship
with him.

TG

On Nov 1, 2007, at 4:28 PM, John Walley wrote:

> Terry,
>
> Thanks for this clarification. I am aware of the following verses
> in Romans
> and depraved man's tendency toward idolatry but I contend that this
> context
> proves my original point. Idolatry is the result of willfully
> rejecting
> natural revelation but it does not establish that natural
> revelation is
> insufficient to prevent this conclusion if they were willing to
> receive the
> truth.
>
> I think it is a mistake to say "the result of trying to develop such a
> knowledge from observation of the world alone is inevitable
> idolatry". I
> don't think this is true and I don't think this is what the passage in
> Romans is saying, even in context.
>
> You yourself agree that God is revealed in Creation. This establishes
> Natural Revelation then. How man then responds to it is an entirely
> separate
> issue.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-
> owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Terry M. Gray
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:09 AM
> To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: [asa] Natural theology
>
> John, Mike,
>
> The idea of idolatry that George is talking about comes out in the
> next few verses (21-25) of Romans 1. The sinful human heart takes the
> revelation of God in nature and worships and serves created things.
> This is, indeed, the whole context of Romans 1:20-3:20. God is truly
> revealed in creation, but the human response to that revelation,
> apart from faith in Christ, is idolatry. "There is no one righteous,
> not even one." Thus, a "natural theology" apart from Christ and
> scripture will reflect that sinful condition. To make Romans 1:20 a
> proof-text for a revelation independent natural theology is to take
> it out of context.
>
> TG
>
> On Oct 30, 2007, at 11:49 PM, mlucid@aol.com wrote:
>
>> It was I who brought up Romans 1:20 in the thread and I have to go
>> with John
>> on this one, George. I see Romans 1:20 as saying that God is
>> reflected in his creation
>> (What has been made).
>>
>> -Mike (Friend of ASA)
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
>> To: 'George Murphy' <gmurphy@raex.com>; asa@calvin.edu
>> Sent: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:01 pm
>> Subject: RE: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens - Surrending the debate
>> epistemologically by subjecting revealed knowledge to science
>>
>> George,
>>
>> Sorry for the delay in the response but I wanted to get back to you
>> on this. I remember your email on 23 October but then as now I am
>> not sure I am in agreement with you on the interpretation of Rom
>> 1:20. That is an interesting perspective but I don't see that as
>> being consistent with the rest of scripture.
>>
>> There are many other scriptures that seem to imply this same
>> "idolatry" of natural theology. For instance, "The fool has said in
>> his heart there is no God", "The heavens declare the Glory of God"
>> and God reveals His wrath against those "who suppress the truth in
>> unrighteousness" etc., etc.. To me, these all make clear that God's
>> perspective on the default conclusion of natural revelation is that
>> it leads to Him. I don't know where you get this idolatry twist.
>>
>> This I would consider valid knowledge and truth and therefore
>> impertinent to surrender that in any debate with atheists. I will
>> concede that this is knowledge from a spiritual source ultimately
>> but as the above scriptures indicate, all the evidence leads to it
>> and the only way to avoid this conclusion is to willfully reject it
>> and live in denial of it. But however, keep in mind that the source
>> of truth or knowledge in no way disqualifies it from being so. For
>> instance, a good example from the ID literature is the discovery of
>> the benzene ring which was the result of a dream.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-
>> owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 4:15 PM
>> To: John Walley; asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: Re: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens - Surrending the debate
>> epistemologically by subjecting revealed knowledge to science
>>
>> John -
>>
>> In a post of 23 October I pointed out some of the problems with the
>> type of appeal to Rom.1:20 that you keep trying to make. In the
>> real world in which all people are sinful, one can speak of
>> "knowledge" of God from creation only in an extremely limited sense
>> since the result of trying to develop such a knowledge from
>> observation of the world alone is inevitable idolatry. That is
>> Paul's whole point in that passage & it's a serious mistake to try
>> to make it into an argument for natural revelation.
>>
>> & in fact "the project of natural theology" to which Groothuis
>> refers is simply the project of idolatry. An attempt to base the
>> claim that "there is a God" on observations of nature may be just
>> barely defensible, but any attempt to say who or what God (which is
>> what a "theology" will do) will always produce some false god.
>>
>> Again, it's a quite different matter to look at the natural world
>> in the light of God's historical revelation which is centered on
>> Christ & to try to develop a "natural theology" as part of
>> explicitly Christian theology. But that doesn't seem to be what
>> either Groothuis or you are talking about.
>>
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: John Walley
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 3:50 AM
>> Subject: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens - Surrending the debate
>> epistemologically by subjecting revealed knowledge to science
>>
>> Below is an excerpt of a blog posting of a review of a recent
>> debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens at King's
>> College by philosopher and professor Douglas Groothuis.
>>
>> I am curious to get any comments from the list on his observations
>> because he charges Dinesh with selling the farm "epistemologically
>> and apologetically" because he concedes faith beliefs are not valid
>> knowledge and knowledge can only be what is empirically proven.
>> This is very similar to the recent discussion on the philosophical
>> foundation from Rom. 20 of God having revealed real knowledge (and
>> not just faith) in his creation. And in fact from this scripture
>> that says that those that reject this knowledge are "without
>> excuse", it is clear God considers this revealed knowledge to be
>> valid and binding and manifest to all and not some subjective idea
>> that is subject to interpretation or the approval of science.
>>
>> I think Groothius may have articulated it here better than I but I
>> think we are in agreement that as soon as we surrender this
>> revealed "knowledge" as not being valid and instead replacing it
>> with only "science" then we have already lost the debate. And this
>> does appear to be the strategy of atheists and therefore the danger
>> in siding with them too strongly in their marginalizing the
>> arguments from ID.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> John
>>
>> http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2007/10/debate-
>> christianity-and-atheism.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Debate: Christianity and Atheism
>> Dinesh D'Souza (author of What's So Great About Christianity) and
>> Christopher Hitchens(author of God is Not Great) recently debated
>> at King's College. I will not give a point by point commentary, but
>> limit myself to three comments, the first of which is the most
>> important.
>>
>> 1. At 1.26 D'Souza completely sells the farm epistemologically and
>> apologetically--despite the many fine points he made throughout the
>> debate. He claims that his religious belief is not knowledge. He
>> does not know it to be true; he only believes it. In so doing, he
>> seems to restrict knowledge to what is empirically verifiable. But
>> there is no reason to do. We know many things apart from empirical
>> evidence (such as basic moral claims). Moreover, we can infer the
>> existence the supernatural from the natural (the project of natural
>> theology; seeIn Defense of Natural Theology, which I co-edited and
>> to which I contributed a chapter.)D'Souza goes on to say that while
>> he leaps toward God, Hitchens leaps toward atheism. I groaned
>> loudly to myself when I heard it (although my wife probably heard
>> me). Many in the crowd applauded.
>>
>> This is tragic. We must enter the public square making knowledge
>> claims, not mere faith claims that are allowable, just as allowable
>> as theism or some other worldview. We need to try to out argue the
>> opposition by marshalling the strongest possible arguments for
>> Christianity and against atheism. In fact, D'Souza gave some strong
>> arguments notadequately rebutted by Hitchens by the time he sold
>> the farm. There was no need to do so; and in so doing, he sets a
>> terrible example for Christian persuasion in the public realm
>> (despite the virtues he exhibited in the debate).
>>
>> 2. The form of the debate was poor. Neither speaker has enough time
>> for opening comments or for rebuttal. The supposed "cross
>> examination" devolved into haranguing at time, with the moderator
>> (Marvin O'laski) failing to intervene to keep order. Serious
>> debates should have strict rules.
>>
>> 3. Both speakers issued cheap shots by insulting the other speaker
>> in ways not required by their arguments. This may get applause, but
>> makes no logical point.
>>
>> Apparently, D'Souza has come to a more mature Christian conviction
>> recently. He is not known as a philosopher, but as a social critic
>> and political writer. I never detected an overt Christian worldview
>> in the several books I've read by him over the years. At that
>> crucial time of 1:26 this weakness showed. I have not yet finished
>> his book, however. Perhaps I'll say more then.
>>
>> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
>>
>
> ________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department
> Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, CO 80523
> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 2 12:45:02 2007