Sunday, May 26, 2013

Should Christians Engage in Natural Theology?


Hayward Lectures 2012, Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University Nova Scotia.

Lecture 1:

Should Christians engage in Natural Theology?

 And if so, how do we go about it?

God has always called some to defend him: Ancient World. Atheists (rejection of local Gods), superstitious- Miracles, subverters due to social stances. Justin Martyr.

1 Peter 3:15- Give reason- faith is reasonable.

New Atheists: Four Horsemen- Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris.
  • -          Distinguishing Factor: Religion is not just wrong but it is dangerous.
  • -          None of them have much experience, knowledge or awareness of philosophy of religion.
  • -          Some atheists are embarrassed by them.

Dawkins has a novel argument: Designer must be more complex.
  • -          But: Divine simplicity.
  • -          There is no real reason to believe this premise.

Brash confidence:
  • -          They want to write best sellers.
  • -          Religion is not just wrong but Ethically and socially harmful.
  • -          Questioning the idea of religious tolerance.
  • -          Reversal of previous thoughts. Previously, people thought LACK of religious belief was so bad that we should be wary of it. Could be harmful. Now, have we gone full circle?
  • -          Baptists stood up for religious freedom in this environment.

So, how should we respond?
  • -          Theologians and Biblical Scholars should point out the flows in how they read the Bible in wooden ways.
  • -          Plantinga, John Polkinghorne, Collins etc (Recommended) have shown the science and religion are compatible.
  • -          Christian doctrine of sin shows that ethical failures of Christians shouldn’t be surprising.
  • -          But New Atheist analysis of ethical actions of Christians is one sided. They exaggerate wrongs but don’t give credit where it is due.
  • -          Justice, rights and wrongs: Wolsterstorff. Doctrine of human rights stems from Biblical faith and nowadays there is no adequetae replacement for Biblical vision.
  • -          Jeffrey Burton Russell: Clearing the air, exposing the myths about Christianity.
  • -          Stark: The Victory of Reason. May go too far in answering. Starks analysis may be unbalanced towards the other side! But, makes a convincing historical case- science etc stem from faith, not from some secular ideas. 
  • -          Good to point out their weaknesses in social analysis/ethics etc. However, at a basic intellectual level we must show why a reasonable person can believe in Christianity. Failure to clearly articulate this simply plays into the New Atheists’s hands. 
  • -          First sin of religious believers in their eyes is not to follow reason.
  • -          A central idea of Christianity (and some other faiths) is: God exists.
  • -          Response from Christians has been Natural Theology. Eg: Mere Christianity.
  • -          Philosophers have done Natural Theology. However, it is not prominent in theology. Some view it with suspicion.
  • -          This has given NA’s some ground. They see religious belief as Zero grounds, all faith which means no evidence. Eg: Dawkins at Cambridge.
  • -          “Defined themselves into epistemological safe ground”. No public voice makes it appear that no serious case can be made. “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof” (Hitchens).
  • -          NA’s are evidentialist in their epistemology.

How to respond?

  • -          Attack their epistemology. Eg: Reformed epistemology. Sensus divinitas NOT belief by evidence. That kind of belief in God can be ”Properly basic”. It is a foundational belief. No argument or evidence? That’s ok.
  • -          I am sympathetic towards it .Plantinga/Wolsterstorff. It’s simple contentions are correct. But, it shouldn’t be our whole response. To argue that religious belief can be grounded without arguments or evidence is not the same as arguing that there are no good arguments or evidence.
  • -          There is both propositional and non propositional evidence.
  • -          Views of RE’s can be re stated.
  • -          However in simple terms it looks like confirmation of NA claims. Ie: There is no evidence (if we say “religious belief can be grounded without).
  • -          2 stage apologetics- One: Reasons why faith in God can be rational THEN two- reasons why revelation rational.
  • -          Why NT not prominent amongst protestant theologians?
  • -          Perhaps enlightenment views have debilitated NT.
  • -          Other reasons: Widespread suspicion that it undermines centrality of revalation.
  • -          But NT is revelation too. But, “Special” revelation from General revelation. Karl Barth. I am sympathetic to some of his reasons against NT.
  • -          “Transcendence” and above us. We will end up creating God in our own image.
  • -          Paul Moser has criticised. NT leads to thin theism. Abstract metaphysical claims. IF there’s a God, he isn’t interested in us knowing propositions, rather he is personal and wants us to know him. Spectator Evidence doesn’t cut the mustard of personal transformation.
  • -          (TDE Note: Craig response to evil borrows heavily from this).
  • -          We submit to God’s terms not vice versa.

Anti Naturalism
  • -          We can accet all of these claims and STILL see value in NT response to New Atheism.
  • -          Value can be in “Anti naturalism”.
  • -          Imagine not religious believer, what shou;d they think? Is the most reasonable view of our universe, naturalism? “Nature is all there is”? Should reasonabke non believers be atheists? No. There are problems with naturalism. There are difficulties. We reconceive NT as a defense of anti naturalism. Point to aspects of our natural world that point beyond nature. Natural Signs. Points towards a profound mystery. NT articulates questions that a reasonable person ought to ask. Even if N theologians cant adequetyl answer them, NT will point us in the direction of being open to the kinds of Answers that Barth and Moser would like.
  • -          I deny that naturalism is the most reasonable view of reality that one can take, even if they aren’t a believer.
  • -          Epistemic situation of someone who is confronting the reasonableness of naturalism vs rivals.
  • -          Where does burden of proof lie? What kind of evidence would we expect there to be if God exists and wants a relationship with us?

Burden of Proof
  • -          Flew’s the presumption of atheism.
  • -          They think of God as if he were one more thing in the universe. Eg “We all agree the universe contains dogs, cats, quarks, black holes”. Theist goes beyond this basic common ground. Like believing in the Loch Ness monster.
  • -          If this were the case YES believer would have a burden.
  • -          It’s about does the universe have a certain character or not? Is there a sustaining power behind it all?
  • -          Is there a purpose? Or does everything exist on it’s own? Is the universe one big brute fact among many brute facts??
  • -          Theist and naturalist don’t just disagree about God, they disagree about everything.
  • -          Atheist mistake: Confuse commitment to naturalism (metaphysical) with commitment to science. But, theists and atheists don’t disagree about scientific facts and data!
  • -          Question of naturalism: Is nature all there is?
  • -          Science investigates the natural world, but it is not fit to investigate whether there is more than the natural world.
  • -          Theist holds that scientific laws hold because of God’s creative activity. Atheist has no explanation. But, ultimately the question of whether there is more is a philosophical question. Like most philosophical question,s this can’t be strictly proven either way. If by prove we mean an argument that no reasonable person could doubt.
  • -          God’s existence cnnot be proven. But neither can naturalism. Proof in this sense is an ideal.
  • -          What is reasonable is asking which rival worldview makes the most sense?

Evidence
  • -          What kind of evidence should we expect to find, if God did exist.
  • -          If God is a hypothesis, we should ask what consequences would follow if that hypothesis was true.
  • -          Some kind of knowledge would be available and widely available. It would be bizarre if you had to have a phd in philosophy or understand quantum physics to have a knowledge of God. We’d expect it to be fairly pervasive and easy to find.
  • -          Christianty theology assumes a certain kind of r’ship: Freely, motivated by God’s goodness not coercion or fear. If God’s existence was too obvious, that would not make sense of this. It would have to be dismissable. Ambigious. Able to be explained away. Easily resistible.
  • -          Pascal Pensees quote. Signs seen by those who seek but not by those who deny.
  • -          WAP and ERP. Two Pascallian constraints on evidence for God’s existence.

To do NT, we must have three things right:
  • 1.       Anti naturalism, rather than positive, complete knowledge of God. It’s goal is to tell us that there’s something beyond the natural world.
  • 2.       Burden or proof must be right. No presumption of atheism. All rival worldviews are accountable to reason.
  • 3.       Right view of the kind of evidence that it is reasonable to seek.
  •  

Questions

Constantly changing evidence. Don’t wanna hitch our wagon to the latest scientific evidence. Eg: If we had to wait until modern physics was finalised to know whether there was a God. Eg: Fine Tuning argument which is based on relatively recent science. There may be value a nd something in these arguments but ultimately We would expect universal aspects of human experience. WAP principle. BUT Can still be “defeater” against WAP. So defeaters must be considered. Defeaters of signs must be considered. My view is that the signs are neither supported by nor threatened by scientific evidence.

NA a fad? Probably not. It has a cultural influence and impact. It’s stretched far. Atheists joining together.

Affecting families? Yes. Need to show not just intellectual but understand the attraction of their writing etc. Stuents with fundamentalist readings or no knowledge or bible can be easy pickings.

Calvinism- no need for apologetics? Do the Pascallian constraints lend themselves to this kind of thinking?

Evidence doesn’t have to be propositional. Signs can have an immediate impact. Sign becomes focus of reflection and we articulate them. That’s where the arguments come from. Don’t impact everybody but always retain appeal.

Common Sense Realism George Marsden. Are you opening yourself up to the dangers that this kind of thinking opened itself up to.





Quotable


Rarely are truer words spoken than these:

The most signal failure of the atheist project is not that it insists on analysing religion in narrowly scientific terms, or that it cherry picks history in support of its case. It is that with its evasions and its incuriosity, its sloppy arguments and its unwillingness to question its own assumptions, it debases the currency of rational inquiry that it so claims to champion.

In doing so, its exponents shoot themselves in the foot while backing the wrong horse. This might make for a diverting YouTube video, but as a basis for public debate it is as empty as the heavens above.

From Here "The Failure of the atheist project" by Angus Macdonald

Those who advocate the extension of marriage to same sex couples have been very strong on the value of equality but almost silent on the nature of marriage they want equal access to. Whereas those who defend marriage as it is currently defined seem unable to say exactly what its value and worth is and why the institution would suffer from extension to same sex couples. A meaningful discussion about the value and purpose of the institution of marriage itself has not taken place.

From Marriage Equality or The Destruction of Difference? by Scruton and Blond


These kinds of issues will inevitably remain vexed. Public opinion decides what is offensive, and public opinion is always changing. Some of today's acceptable comments are tomorrow's taboos and vice versa. So as standards change there will always be those who are out of step with the rest.


- Me, on people taking offense at the comments of others.