The Method of Natural Theology
I have met many theologians who are skeptical of or even hostile to what is commonly called natural theology–in short, the discipline that seeks what knowledge of God might be known apart from special revelation.
An objection to natural theology would run something like this: since the God of the gospel is a Trinity of Persons, and since no natural theologian claims this as a deliverance of his arguments, the god revealed through natural theology is not the God of the gospel and hence not God at all.
This criticism is completely off base. It argues from from principles that the natural theologian, ex hypothesi, does not accept. Natural theology proceeds by reason alone, aided by the best that the sciences and metaphysics have to offer.Special revelation has no jurisdiction over natural theology, and where scripture does refer to it, natural theology is quite obviously affirmed (Romans 1:19-21), contra Barth.
As Aquinas pointed out, there can be several ways of approaching the same conclusion. Arguing that God is good is easy when your interlocutors are Jews or Muslims or Christians: refer them to the scripture you share. Arguing the same to atheists is more difficult: you must use the only authority you share, reason. If best reason points to a being who is the creator and sustainer of the universe, then fooey to the Barthians.
Natural Theology…
Words of response from both myself and Luther on the issue of Natural Theology…
Trackback by Sarcasmagorical - the blog of Brant E. DeBow — March 24, 2006 @ 6:01 pm
I agree. And the critique is completely off base for more reasons than you mention. First, some natural theologians *do* in fact claim a Triune God as the conclusion of their arguments (eg, Swinburne’s argument for the Trinity). Second, it’s hard to see why the definite description reached by the natural theologian need exactly match that arrived at by the theologian proper; surely the same entity can be referred to by more than one means?
Comment by wrathius — March 27, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
Claiming that God can be known outside of special revelation is like saying you can know your wife by means other than love. In whatever sense such a claim may be “true” it isn’t worth knowing.
Where Scripture mentions natural theology it is opposed. For example, when Nicodemus approaches Jesus (with the bold confidence of coming at night) he says he “knows” Jesus has come from God as a teacher because of “these signs that you do”.
But Jesus responds: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Presumably Nicodemus bases his trust in Jesus on the signs and wonders generally revealed to whoever happened to see them. His thinking was: “If people see the kingdom of God (and the power and miracles of God), people will naturally want to be born again.” This is the best science, reason, and metaphysics have to offer. But there’s no chance of this happening in Jesus’ eyes. He desires to see trust in the face of a lack of evidence.
Nicodemus puts emphasis on the exterior world of apologetics, but Jesus (as He did continually) put His emphasis on what’s going on inside. This is why it is said: “Everyone who seeks to proclaim Christ by defending him betrays him with a kiss.”
Paul’s point in Romans 1 is that as prominently as God reveals himself in nature, it will not be seen in any meaningful way because it gets suppressed by our wickedness. If you want to live righteously you will see God’s invisible attributes, but if you do not you won’t see it. And that’s why we don’t see it.
Comment by makelovehappen — March 30, 2006 @ 1:01 am
makelovehappen,
I think your exegesis of the Nicodemus story is poor. First, there is no reason to fault Nicodemus’ conclusion that Jesus was from God based on His signs; he just didn’t have the whole picture, and Jesus gave that to him. Second, Jesus’ signs can’t be equated with natural theology, since they are themselves part of the special revelation of God in Christ.
Your Romans exegesis is not as poor, but I think still wrong. According to Paul, the reason why all humans are condemned is because they can know God’s attributes through nature, but rebel anyway. If God’s attributes couldn’t be known, humans wouldn’t be culpable for their sins.
Finally, your opening simile assumes that the natural theologian is not motivated by love. I don’t make that assumption, and many natural theologians through history, Christians and non-Christians alike, haven’t made that assumption, either.
Comment by Peregrine Ward — March 30, 2006 @ 10:23 am
An excerpt:
‘…You see, I close my eyes and think: if everyone else believes, then why do I feel all this? And now people say that it all stems in the first place from a fear of nature’s frightening manifestations and that none of it is based in reality. But wait, I think: all my life I’ve believed that I shall die, and that suddenly there will be nothing there, only “burdock growing on a grave”, as I read in the work of a certain writer. That is dreadful! How, how am I to restore my faith? Though actually, I only had it when I was a little girl, it was something automatic, something I didn’t even need to think about… How, how can it be proven? I have come now to abase myself before you and ask you for this. I mean, if I let this opportunity pass me by, then no one will give me an answer for the rest of my life. How can it be proven, how can one be convinced it is true? Oh, it’s too unfortunate! I stand and look around me and see that no one could care less, or practically no one, no one worries about this any more, and I’m the only person who cannot endure it. It is murderous, murderous!’
‘Without doubt, it is murderous. But here it is not possible to prove anything; it is, however, possible to be convinced.’
‘How? By what means?’
‘By the experience of active love. Try to love your fellow human beings actively and untiringly. In the degree to which you succeed in that love, you will also be convinced of God’s existence, and of your soul’s immortality. And if you attain complete self-renunciation in your love for your fellow creatures, then you will unfailingly come to believe, and no form of doubt will ever be able to visit your soul. That has been tested, that is precisely true.’
-The Brothers Karamazov
Comment by makelovehappen — April 12, 2006 @ 11:40 am
Natural Theology – Followup from Lewis…
More on the issue of Natural Theology. This time some key quotes from C.S. Lewis….
Trackback by Sarcasmagorical - the blog of Brant E. DeBow — May 29, 2006 @ 4:11 am