Re: [asa] Natural Revelation in Context

 I'd like to add one more perspective to the list.

-- Natural theology as enabled by religion --

Perhaps it is true that natural theology might be accessible from "what has been
made" alone to an astute aboriginal human.  But I see our relationship to God as
being predicated, evolutionarily speaking, by the need to be introduced to God by
our parents/culture or we will be left insufficient.  Like with language, a child who
is not conditioned by parents and culture to speak and listen by the age of 5 will
be unable to acquire language as we understand it no matter how much coaching
is applied. 

The same may be the case to varying degrees with religion.  Paradoxical issues
of prime importance (love thine enemies, turn the other cheek) may fall on barren
ground if not introduced to the child by a mutually enamored congregation of like
believers.  Such uninitiated might never be able to get beyond the largely primitive
egocentric (individual survival rather than group/species survival) rational/emotional
parings like "eye for an eye" or "don't get caught" perspective rather than the more
selfless truths as seen in the life of Christ. 

I think it's an emotional thing.  If your brain is not teased with the Spirit by a certain
point in your life, you literally don't get it.  After you are so blessed, however,
after you receive the Spirit, you are cognizant of God and like language, you
can even learn other religions if you want to. 

While I doubt this neurological analogy to language is either sufficient or complete
to describe the acquisition or recognition of the Spirit in our lives, I think it helps
open an avenue of thought that might someday be developed into sufficiency.

-Mike (Friend of ASA)

-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: ASA list <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 6:47 am
Subject: [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%c2 .

 

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
  

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 19 09:25:20 2007