[asa] Natural Revelation in Context WAS ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

Apparently this didn't get out last evening.

John et al -

Several things on your post below. 1st, it's important to realize that Westfall was a 20th century historian & was writing as such, not as a theologian. Thus his statement about natural religion being foundational is not about what he believed should be the case but just about what the tradition of 17th century British scientists said it should be.

2d, don't conflate "natural revelation" with "natural religion." The 1st is what God does (if he indeed does that) & the 2d about a human response to it.

3d, about "proper balance," I have to be a bit more expansive. I've found it haelpful to distinguish 4 possible ways of understanding the relationship between a putative natural theology & distinctively Christian theology. (Religion & theology aren't the same but close enough for now.)

    The classic view: Natural theology can serve as an introduction to distinctively Christian theology.

    The Enlightenment view: Natural theology is all we need.

    The Barthian view: There is no legitimate natural theology.

    The dependent view: A valid natural theology can be developed only in the context of distinctively Christian theology.

The classic view is the one Westfall speaks of in which natural religion was supposed to be foundational. The problem that he points out - & one which extends well beyond the 17th century - is that in practice this tends gradually to turn into the Enlightenment view. I.e., the role of special revelation & distinctively Christian claims, tends to shrink & disappear. You can see this quite clearly in Lessing's "Education of the Human Race," where (special) revelation is seen as a kind of "primer" for humanity in its infancy, but which educated & mature humanity can dispense with.

& its easy to see why, with the progress of science, this would happen. The more we become impressed with the wonders of nature, its order, beauty &c & see those as revelations of the creator, the harder it is to think of the history of some mediocre tribes in ancient Palestine & a dead Jew hanging on a cross as anything religion really needs. You can see exactly that kind of response in writers of the Enlightenment & you can find it today. (Paul Davies is a good example.) Plus, natural religion claims to be something that all people can accept & thus to be able to overcome all the religious divisions that have plagued the world.

Thus it's true that if you're going to hold the classic view, especially in a scientific world, the proper balance is, as you say, needed. But it's very hard to maintain that balance in the long run. It's unstable & always tending to degenerate into the Enlightenment view. & thus even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the classic view, it's very dangerous.

In reality, I think the dependent view is far superior. & here what's at issue is not "balance" but the order in which we first consider God's historical revelation in Christ & the natural world. The 1st must come 1st. I've said more in my article "Reading God's Two Books" at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF3-06Murphy.pdf .

It's misleading to say that Dawkins "acknowledges natural revelation." He thinks that the existence of God can be determined by scientific methods - & in that is in agreement with at least the implications of the ID movement. In fact, ID has given him & other atheists a great weapon to belabor religion with.

On your other post apropos Flew & Ross. It's important to distinguish 2 different claims:

    A. Evidence for God in nature can play a positive role in leading a person to Christ.

    B. Romans 1:20 ff teaches that evidence for God in nature can play a positive role in leading a person to Christ.

B is simply false, as I've already shown. Paul's argument in Romans sees any natural evidence for God as having a purely negative role - "So they are without excuse." You would do better to emphasize Ps.19:1-16, though there are problems with that argument too.

As to A, I have never denied that what I've called the classic view can be used apologetically & has indeed played some role in some people coming to Christ. That doesn't mean that arguments using this approach really hold up logically: Anyone who's ever graded student solutions of a set of physics or math problems knows that several mistaken steps can result in the correct answer. & if you examine Ross's statements about how only Genesis gives a correct account of the creation of the universe you'll see that he's pursuing the sort of concordist interpretation that you have already said is faulty. We can be glad that the Holy Spirit condescends to make use of our faulty arguments to bring people to faith but that doesn't mean that those arguments are to be recommended.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: John Walley
  To: 'George Murphy' ; 'Dick Fischer' ; 'ASA'
  Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 8:24 AM
  Subject: [asa] Natural Revelation in Context WAS ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

  George,

  Ok, this is finally a response that I feel like I can offer some meaningful rebuttal too. All of the others have been quite frankly over my head which I will freely concede.

  Three things struck me about your Westfall quote below:

  1) He doesn't contest that natural religion (revelation) is the foundation and in fact laments the fact that they have neglected this. This sounds to me more like a simple issue of proper balance and a both scenario instead of an either/or like I pointed out to Allan using his example of the Family Circus cartoon. If you are willing to concede that then you and I are in complete agreement. I would be happy to sign up for a theology that reveals the cosmos in light of the cross and natural revelation.

  2) The comment that the absorption in natural religion undermines Christianity needs some context. While I can understand that in his day as being valid because it takes from the supernatural of Christianity which are equally important if not moreso, today's context offers very different dynamics. As we have discussed Dawkins acknowledges natural revelation but instead of concluding natural religion instead of supernatural religion he concludes no religion. So while theism may compete with supernaturalism in how we see God manifested in creation, they still coexist harmoniously, and this is better than allowing natural revelation to be denied altogether to justify atheism, which is what Dawkins does.

  3) This concept of theism undermining Christianity is exactly what Cornelius Hunter says with his concept of Theistic Naturalism and now I see where he gets that from. I find it ironic that you both agree on that and he concludes ID while you conclude the cross. But like I say above, I think the correct solution may be the proper balance of both, not one at the expense of the other. I think the context makes all the difference and whereas in Westfall's day theism swung the pendulum too far away from supernaturalism which was perceived as a negative, today it serves to swing the pendulum back towards theism and away from atheism which is a good thing in today's context.

  Thanks

  John

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 17 07:51:24 2007