Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:27:02.747Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theology and Natural Theology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Brian A. Davies
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The general credibility of theology was once widely held by theologians to depend on a successful natural theology. Today things are different. There are certainly some contemporary advocates of natural theology—and a few of these are even theologians; but it is presently fashionable to reject natural theology in the name of theology itself. But are there cogent, theological reasons for dismissing natural theology? I shall suggest that the best known modern defences of an affirmative reply are unacceptable.

According to the natural theologian, ‘God exists’ is a respectable philosophical assertion which can be rationally sustained without recourse to the prior acceptance either of God’s existence or of any special revelation. Typically, he insists that ‘God exists’ is rational, provable, justifiable or demonstrable. Bearing these points in mind, what is the nature of the theological opposition to natural theology?

We can begin to answer this question by noting the view that the nature of theism renders irrelevant the notion of arguing or reasoning or making inferences about God. Some observe that this is the position of the Bible. Biblical writers, it is argued, “did not think of God as an inferred entity, but as an experienced reality”. Others explain that proofs must result in abstraction, “a pale shadow of the living God who is the putative object of biblical faith”. In this connection we might note some remarks of Alasdair MacIntyre. In Metaphysical Beliefs MacIntyre points to the enormous importance of faith where religious belief is concerned. He thus argues that natural theology, considered in its familiar guise as the presentation of supposedly demonstrative argument, is out of place in religion.

Type
Original Article
Information
New Blackfriars , Volume 58 , Issue 685 , June 1977 , pp. 256 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 John Hick, Arguments for the Existence of God, p. 102.

2 op. cit. p. 103.

3 London, 1957.

4 London, 1968.

5 Oxford University Press, 1933, 9.10.

6 Forward to Dogmatic in Outline, London, 1949, p.5Google Scholar.

7 ‘The Problem of Natural Theology in the Thought of Karl Barth’. Religious Studies 6 (1970), p. 123.

8 Credo, London, 1964, p. 17Google Scholar.

9 Torrance, p. 125.

10 ‘Belief and Will’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 28, 1954, p. 19.

11 See Penelhum, T., Problems of Religious Knowledge, London, 1971, pp. 149–155Google Scholar.

12 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Philosophical Investigations, Oxford. 1968. p.191Google Scholar.

13 God and Timelessness, London, 1970, p. 124Google Scholar.

14 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, On Certainty, Oxford, 1969Google Scholar, paras., 173, 177, 218.

15 Religious Experience and Truth, ed. Hooke, S., New York, 1961, p. 53Google Scholar.

16 Language, Logic and God, London, 1970, p. 133Google Scholar.

17 Christianity and Paradox, London, 1958, p. 66Google Scholar.

18 The Theology of Faith, Cork, 1968, p.18Google Scholar.

19 Church Dogmatics 11/1, Edinburgh, 1957, pp. 120–121Google Scholar.

20 The Knowledge of God, London, 1969, p. 57Google Scholar.

21 Dogmatics 11/1, pp. 122‐3. Cf. Dogmatics 1/2 (1956), pp. 305‐6.

22 Credo, p.12.

23 The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation, Upsalla, 1955Google Scholar.

24 op.cit., pp.58‐9.