1. Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. Revised edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
2. Craig, William Lane. The Kalām Cosmological
Argument. London: Macmillan, 1979.
3. Feinberg, John S. The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004.
4. Nowacki, Mark. The Kalam Cosmological Argument for God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007.
5. Feser, Edward. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2017.
6. Spitzer, Robert J. New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy.
7. Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism.
2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2016.
doi:10.1093/0198240708.001.0001
8. O'Connor, Timothy. Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency. Malden, MA. Blackwell, 2008.
9. Erasmus, Jacob. The Kalām Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment. Cham: Springer, 2018.
10. Davies, Brian. The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil. London ; New York: Continuum, 2006.
24 comments:
Romans1:19,20"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Psalms14:1NIV"The fool a says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good."
I note with interest that the bible does not go to any great lengths to present an argument for the existence of JEHOVAH, in contrast with say,the arguments made for Christ's messiahship or resurrection. The few verses that do address the matter seem to suggest that unbelief is due more to a moral deficiency than a mental one. Indeed there is a suggestion that most men are moral atheists even most who profess a belief in some kind of God.
@servant:
I agree that the Bible does not contain reasoned arguments for God's existence although the oldest instances we have of such argumentation are from Plato (born in the 5th century BCE) and Aristotle (384-322 BCE). So, the first-century Christians knew about these arguments but did not include this kind of argumentation in the holy text.
There are likely many reasons for why Holy Writ does not contain complicated and discursive reasonings to prove God's existence. One reason is probably the sociocultural context of ancient Israel, and another is the prevailing culture of the ancient world. Furthermore, most people are not moved by these kind of arguments and the common person usually does not even understand them. I know that two arguments set forth by Robert Maydole (ontological and cosmological versions) require some type of training with formal logic/modal logic. However, the Bible was made to appeal to all people, not just to the intelligentsia/cognoscenti.
I agree with you that moral atheism stops many people from believing or acting on their presumed belief in God. Even ancient Israel had this problem. Nevertheless, since the European Enlightenment, we have entered into the so-called "Age of Unbelief."
It's understandable that "natural theology" isn't everyone's cup of tea, but could there not be some value in reaching out to those who require empirical or "rational" proof for things?
I guess another way we can look at the matter is that God gave us emotions, feelings, and he granted us reason. This faculty/power can be a tool like any other divine gift: we reason with people like Paul did, but we can appeal to creation to make a case for a creator. Compare Psalm 19:1-2; Hebrews 3:4.
"there is nothing new under sun." While many have become disillusioned with organised religion most (by a factor of four according to some counts) claim some belief in the divine as distinct from hardline atheism,the problem as always remains that it is difficult to tell believers and unbelievers apart. Full disclosure I used to subscribe to a species of nontheism my self(agnosticism to be precise) a "gift" from my Father,so I'm not without sympathy/empathy toward nontheists.
And I am of course in full agreement with our beloved brother Paul Romans1:14NKJV"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise."
But a lack of empirical evidence is not the issue.
Just too add two favorites of my own:
David Bentley Hart: The Experience of God
Stephen RL Clark: God, Religion and Reality.
I've been persuaded that one should start one's theology with natural theology, even before going to biblical interpretation or Christological interpretation. This is because, especially in the post-enlightenment period, one has to justify God discourse, and define it, i.e. why are we talking about God, and what do we mean by God. Only once you have that can you then turn to the Bible as scripture (scripture assumes that there is a God that inspires it, but for that claim to be intelligable one has to accept the possibility/probability of God and know what one means by that term).
To me, this is almost always going to be an analysis of the creation/creator relation, and some sort of reasoning from the former to the latter. How one does this will also involve some metaphysical framework, and will thus determine what one means by "God."
Once that's done it can make sense to point to some phenomenon in the world as the revelation of that God. Then when you have revelation this will temper and shape the interpretation of the God made possible through natural theology.
In other words, Karl Barth was dead wrong :P.
btw, other than the passages you cited, I do think there is some implicit natural theology in Acts 17:28 (which seems to me to be a kind of grounding claim) and especially in the doctrine of creation, and especially creation ex nihilo (which I believe is actually taught in the bible, despite what some biblical scholars often say, I simply don't know how else one could interpret revelation 4:11).
Once you have that you basically have the framework of natural theology, it's just up to you to play out the arguments/implications.
Roman: I want to offer a couple of thoughts on your comments later today.
Servant, thanks for sharing that point about nontheism and your background. There are some religions that scholars categorize as nontheistic like Buddhism (at least, some forms) and Jainism (I believe).
At the end you say that a lack of empirical evidence is not the issue. I guess it depends on how we define empirical evidence, but what I meant is that some people refuse to believe in a non-visible deity. They say we can't measure, weigh, see or detect God since he is not a sensory object. Hard-line physicalists or empiricists thus insist that belief in the Judaeo-Christian God is not an option for them. These persons can obviously change and have done so, but that is what I mean by empirical evidence being an impediment for some. In any case, that is what they say.
But even these hardline physicalists acknowledge the existence of unseen or even invisible realities e.g the multiverse. There is no metaphysical claim (which is what nontheism is) that does not involve the invisible in some way. I mentioned my Father even though he deemed traditional ideas about a personal creator nonsensical he had no problem entertaining theories like directed panspermia or the possibilty that religious ideas may have originated from early humans' encounters with advanced spacefaring or time traveling civilisations, in keeping with Arthur C Clarke's dictum that any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from divinity to the primitive observer.
The thing is that nontheists arrive at their acceptance of these unobserved/unobservable realities using very similar lines of reasoning to those used by theists in arriving at our conclusions about the existence of a personal creator.
The real problem is that issue has become highly politicized unfortunately. Once politics enters the door logic and common sense go out the window.
Roman: I've got the one you mentioned by DBH; the book I have by Stephen Clark is The Evidence of God. So I guess the other one needs to be p0ut on my Wishlist :-)
And I understand what you're saying but I think that will depend on one's social circumstances, place of upbringing, sociocultural circumstances, etc. In other words, has a person been raised in the "Bible Belt" or in western Europe or in the "deep south" of the USA? Also, what type of education does he/she have? Most people will likely never read natural theology or Karl Barth, even if they're American college students :-)
I just talked with a man in field service the other day, who said he only reads the KJV and nothing else. To the man's credit, he did acknowledge that it was not the original Bible. But that is the kind of thing I have in mind is that people have different axiomatic starting-points.
Here's another consideration, what about someone like Kierkegaard who is all faith and no reason, at least, in theory?
On the other hand, I like the points you make about Acts 17:28; Rev. 4:11 and essentially agree with you about creatio ex nihilo. Not that I don't like what you said about natural theology and revelation, I just wonder if we have to qualify it somewhat. Thanks.
@servant: you're right that the strict/hard-line physicalists likely are inconsistent. I've seen that also with those who advocate string theory and undetectable dimensions. However, they might reply that whereas the multiverse is supposedly amenable to scientific investigation, God is not. Put another way, the wind is unseen but it's detectable with instruments.
What you say about your father reminds me of Carl Sagan's endless desire to find alien life in the cosmos despite his denial or skepticism about God and angels. Again, I concur with the point about metaphysical claims.
Your latter remarks about politicization and reason are right on target. Couldn't agree more.
Actually by definition the multiverse is not subject to direct investigation. That's why even some reductive physicalists have been issuing jeremiads against the idea. Here's the thing the human brain is hardwired for worship. So the question is not whether you will choose a God or not but whether the God you choose will prove worthy of your loyalty/devotion .
Many do concede that the multiverse is not scientific, but some want their atheism and a multiverse and they want the multiverse to be amenable to the scientific method. As one scientist observed, "we can't allow a divine foot within the door of science." As you know, reductive physicalists want to exclude divine beings, miracles, and anything that resembles a spiritual entity. Yet some think the multiverse is quasi-scientific or maybe scientific enough. But yes, others just reject it straightaway.
I too believe that the human brain is hardwired for worship: that is something that sets us apart from the animals.
John Calvin had one thing right when he insisted that humans have a sense of the divine within them.
Let me first address Kirkegaard, I recently actually read fear and trembling so it's fresh on my mind. I'm not at all impressed by his approach, and I think his view of faith is just wrong. His analysis of Abraham is interesting and one can understand the anxiety he's pointing too, but ultimately faith cannot be separated from reason. This is why I like the analogy of a romantic relationship (used often in the bible), it's always based on an encounter and a relationship which gives someone reason to believe that the beloved will be faithful, it's not grounded in reason, but reason is what makes faith possible. Even if just implicit, one trusts based on what one knows.
That being said, of course one doesn't need to do theology to have a strong faith, most do not, so of course one doesn't have to do natural theology to be a Christian with a strong and mature faith. Most brothers and sisters have no interest in academic theology, and that's fine, of course.
However, if one is to engage in doing theology, i.e. systematic and constructive theology, I don't think one can engage in such a project while ignoring natural theology and metaphysics. So I think one has to distinguish between faith, and the life of faith, and systematic theology (but I still disagree with Kirkegaard, even the life of faith involves reason).
Another thing with Kirkegaard, if Abraham really believed that God was evil, and commanded him to do something evil, (i.e. not that God's ways are higher and that in the end Abraham would see God's righteousness, but that God's morality transcended our lived morality such that he could command something evil) I don't see his faithfulness as virtuous, in other words, an evil God is not worthy of worship, a God whose ways cannot fully be comprehended yes, but this is not the same as laying aside moral imperitives, it's trusting a higher knowledge.
This is why I would argue that a person who rejected a Calvinistic God (who predestined people to burn in hell for his glory, and who relished in their damnation) even if he burnt forever in hell, may very well be justified in doing so.
"A God who would use his power to create men foreknown by him suffer eternally would be neither wise ,just nor loving,his standard would be lower than that of many(most?) Men" to paraphrase our beloved brother Russel.
But what I consider even worse is the perpetuation of eternal corruption/sin, because make no mistake,it is in the gratuitous promulgation of eternal sin/Corruption that Calvinism implicates JEHOVAH.
As for Father Abraham's faith in JEHOVAH'S virtue.
Genesis18:25NIV"25Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”"
Two points to note 1.Abraham had complete faith in his friend's moral compass,as long as the Lord JEHOVAH had any say in the matter the righteous and the wicked would not meet the same end 2.the man who knew him best did not know JEHOVAH to be a an aloof potentate who could not be reasoned with or from whom clarification could not be sought.
Genesis22:5NIV"He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then WE will COME BACK to you.”"
There was no doubt in Abraham's mind that he served a righteous God one with whom Justice would not merely be done but would appear to be done.
Roman, I wish I could go into detail with my reply, but I'm going to attempt brevity due to current responsibilities.
Like a number of books, I read Fear and Trembling in the early 2000s: it's still one of my favorite books and I think Kierkegaard gives one of the most arresting and penetrating analyses of Abraham and Isaac. Robert Adams does a good job with the narrative too.
I agree that faith cannot be separated from reason; fideism simply does not work, and it's open to spiritual abuse, among other problems. Most importantly, as you point out, it's not biblical.
Theologians are always asking what is theology? What methodology should be used? Whatever the answer to these questions, I concur that one cannot ignore natural theology or metaphysics if he/she wants to do systematic theology.
Roman, additionally, you mention another Kierkegaardian view that won't work. That's the teleological suspension of the ethical. His life stages are interesting (the aesthetic, ethical, and religious life) but while it's a clever move to use the teleological suspension as an explanation for Abraham's decision, it's another manifestation of Kierkegaard's fideism. Neither Aquinas nor Scotus would accept that move nor would John Locke who gives a good critique of fideism, in my estimation.
On a related note, I once spent some time reading and writing a paper about Kierkegaard's work, Concluding Unscientific Postscript. He is a difficult writer to analyze; not everything that he writes can be taken at face value and he loved to offer different perspectives as well as use various pseudonyms. In the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, he is taking a swing at Hegel.
@servant, what a contrast: the deity of John Calvin versus the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There is no comparison. Gen. 18:25 is one of my favorite verses. It illustrates the powerful faith that Abraham had in his friend and God, Jehovah.
One more thing I'd add (something very different), the Gods of Swineburne and Feser are two rather different Gods, one's natural theology will end up determining, and being determined by one's larger theology. Edward Feser, as I understand him, is a strict Thomist, Swinburne is a "personalist" open theist, they might infact be opposite ends of the theology proper spectrum.
So I wonder if some of Swineburne's arguments would actually rule out a Feser type God and vise versa? I know some of Thomas's arguments would rule out an open-relational type God.
Good observation, Roman. Edward Feser is Roman Catholic and his conception of God is Thomistic-Aristotelian; Swinburne is Orthodox, but he's got his own unique ideas mixed in there too.
IMO, their conceptions of God are very different, but whether they cancel one another out is another question. Thomas Aquinas argues that creatures do not stand in a real relationship to God, and he believes that God is strongly immutable. Feser says that "Cambridge changes" may be imputed to God, but while creatures might be related to God, God is not really related to creatures on the Thomistic view.
The "Holy grail" of theology proper and natural theology, in my opinion, is a synthesis of the rigor of classical theism, and the power of the deductive argumentation with open/relational theism (given that it fits the biblical data and is the only way to deal with theodicy). I get the feeling Dialectical idealism may be the philosophical method that can accomplish this, but we'll see.
Here lately, I've read two pieces that critique (one quite heavily), open theism. Alexander Pruss discusses one problem that he has with open theism, but a review of John Sanders' "The God Who Risks" offers severe criticism of the work, even if some criticisms miss the target.
Regardless of who's right, there's a long way to go (I think) before open theism even gets a seat at the table. I once heard particle physicist Stephen Barr argue that QM seems to militate against open theism. He's Roman Catholic.
Unfortunately, I kind of agree with you. Open theism has a long way to go before it is even close to the metaphysical rigor of classical theism.
Ed Fesers 5 proofs is a brilliant piece of natural theology, almost conclusive on the above of theism; that kind of philosophical and logical rigor is a real strength of classical theism and its approach to natural theology.
On the other hand, here's an interesting piece that you might like:
https://reknew.org/2020/01/the-logical-hexagon-made-simple/
Maybe you've read this too.
Post a Comment