Suchergebnisse

"This book offers a rationale for a new 'ramified natural theology' that is in dialogue with both science and historical-critical study of the Bible. Traditionally, knowledge of God has been seen to come from two sources, nature and revelation. However, a rigid separation between these sources cannot be maintained, since what purports to be revelation cannot be accepted without qualification: rational argument is needed to infer both the existence of God from nature and the particular truth claims of the Christian faith from the Bible. Hence the distinction between 'bare natural theology' and 'ramified natural theology.' The book begins with bare natural theology as background to its main focus on ramified natural theology. Bayesian confirmation theory is utilised to evaluate competing hypotheses in both cases, in a similar manner to that by which competing hypotheses in science can be evaluated on the basis of empirical data. In this way a case is built up for the rationality of a Christian theist worldview. Addressing issues of science, theology and revelation in a new framework, this book will be of keen interest to scholars working in Religion and Science, Natural Theology, Philosophy of Religion, Biblical Studies, Systematic Theology, and Science and Culture"--

This paper aims to counter the recent opinion that there is a peculiar epistemology in the reformed Church which made it negative to natural theology. First it is shown that there was an early and unanimous adoption of natural theology as the culmination of physics and the beginning of metaphysics by sixteenth and seventeenth century philosophers of good standing in the reformed Church. Second it is argued that natural theology cannot be based on revelation, should not assume a peculiar analysis of knowledge and must not pass over demonstration.

This article tells the story of Christian natural theology from the late 18th century to our own time by locating the key moments and thinkers, who have shaped how natural theology has been practiced in the past and how it is now being re-assessed and developed. I will summarize certain key elements that unite all forms of natural theology and assess briefly two basic criticisms of natural theology.

This article examines Martin Luther's view of Natural theology and natural knowledge of God. Luther research has often taken a negative stance towards a possibility of Natural theology in Luther's thought. I argue, that one actually finds from Luther's texts a limited area of the natural knowledge of God. This knowledge pertains to the existence of God as necessary and as Creator, but not to what God is concretely. Luther appears to think that the natural knowledge of God is limited because of the relation between God and the Universe only one side is known by natural capacities. Scholastic Theology built on Aristotelianism errs, according to Luther, when it uses created reality as the paradigm for thinking about God. Direct experiential knowledge of the divinity, given by faith, is required to comprehend the divine being. Luther's criticism of Natural theology, however, does not appear to rise from a general rejection of metaphysics, but from that Luther follows certain ideas of Medieval Augustinian Platonism, such as a stark ontological differentiation between finite and infinite things, as well as the idea of divine uniting contradictions. Thus the conflict between faith and reason on Luther seems to be explicable at least in part as a conflict between two different ontological systems, which follow different paradigms of rationality.

One not infrequently hears rumors that the robust practice of natural theology reeks of epistemic pride. Paul Moser's is a paradigm of such contempt. In this paper we defend the robust practice of natural theology from the charge of epistemic pride. In taking an essentially Thomistic approach, we argue that the evidence of natural theology should be understood as a species of God's general self-revelation. Thus, an honest assessment of that evidence need not be prideful, but can be an act of epistemic humility, receiving what God has offered, answering God's call. Lastly, we provide criticisms of Moser's alternative approach, advancing a variety of philosophical and theological problems against his conception of personifying evidence.

In four volumes. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Military Service Inst.

In the present paper I address two significant and prevalent errors concerning opposition to natural theology within the Reformed theological tradition. First, contrary to Alvin Plantinga, I argue that the idea of properly basic theistic belief has not motivated or otherwise grounded opposition to natural theology within the Reformed tradition. There is, in fact, a Reformed endorsement of natural theology grounded in the notion that theistic belief can be properly basic. Secondly, I argue that late nineteenth- and twentieth-century Reformed criticisms of natural theology do not constitute an objection to natural theology as such but rather an objection to natural theology construed in a particular way. I explore the nature of this objection and its compatibility with an alternative understanding of natural theology.

In this paper, I analyze the two versions of Leo Strauss' argument of natural theology, presented respectively in Reason and Revelation (1948, 2007) and The Mutual Influence of Theology and Philosophy (1954, 1979). In both cases, Strauss confronts this argument with major difficulties. On the one hand, with the mysterious character of an all-wise God; on the other hand, with the flawed response of modern science, represented by Spinoza's attempt to obtain the system of nature, or the completed account of the whole, which would rule out the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent and unfathomable God. I will try to argue how natural theology may solve this major difficulties, namely by referring to the idea of justice as suggested in Strauss' An Untitled Lecture on Plato's Euthyphron.