|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Ramified Natural Theology
|
Tea
Shipmate
# 16619
|
Posted
What are your thoughts on "ramified natural theology"?
The term was coined, I think, about ten years ago by Richard Swinburne and refers to those sets of arguments that aim to demonstrate by the use of reason and publicly accessible evidence not merely the existence of God, but also the truth of such doctrines as the divinity and resurrection of Jesus.
I came across the term when I just happened to glance through this issue of Philosophia Christi. I must be honest and confess that I did not have time to sit down and read any of the articles in full.
One of the "ramified natural theologians" writing in this issue is Lydia McGrew who, on the strength of writings such as this, deserves to be called a bigoted nutcase.
Lydia McGrew might be an unrepresentative outlier, but all the same I cannot help wondering if one of the motivations for "ramified natural theology" is islamophobia.
Posts: 66 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
The last two paragraphs of the OP seem to serve no purpose other than to try to besmirch natural theology with "guilt by association" with an obvious nutcase.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
Lydia McGrew might be an unrepresentative outlier, but all the same I cannot help wondering if one of the motivations for "ramified natural theology" is islamophobia.
Can you draw out for us why you think that would necessarily be so? As I don't see any direct connection.
All sorts of people with otherwise strange ideas also believe in various subsets of more reasonable ideas.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The last two paragraphs of the OP seem to serve no purpose other than to try to besmirch natural theology with "guilt by association" with an obvious nutcase.
...while confessing that he hadn't read any of the articles in full...
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Candide
Apprentice
# 15755
|
Posted
The article by Philip Stewart on that site argued that the use for such an approach was twofold:
1. "To strenghten the individual who already believes, and reassure him or her that having specifically Christian faith is neither irrational or ludicrous".
2. "...an apologetic...to posit that it has convincing and explanatory power for the conversion of the non-believer, and has thus a place in evangelistic endeavours".
These academics are the offspring of some strains of Enlightenment thought, where even religion was to be judged through the lens of rationality, devoid of faith that could not be reached through thought alone. The belief in the inherent power of the sciences, of reason, is one which is prevalent today as well, (albeit perhaps with a somewhat less optimistic view of the future).
As such, the existence of such an approach can be interpreted as a sign of the weakness of Christianity's position in society. According to Philip Stewart, one of the uses for ramified natural theology is to convince the believer that his faith isn't ludicrous. When you've reached that point, then the spirit of the time is so opposed to Christianity (or revealed theism of any sort), that it says quite a lot about contemporary society.
A bridge between the zeitgeist and Christian thought is a need amongst a great many people. And attempts at crossing that divide will only grow in number, until either a successful compromise is made, or societal values shift once again.
Posts: 36 | From: Norway | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
As the great Barth wizard said to all those natural theology wizardy wannabes, 'You shall not pass.'
Natural theology always looks attractive if you are looking at from the perspective of 'being' a Christian, but I suspect it doesn't quite wash if you're looking in.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
What did the great Barth think about Romans 1:20?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
0:0
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The score.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tea
Shipmate
# 16619
|
Posted
Originally posted by Chris Stiles:
quote:
quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by Tea:
Lydia McGrew might be an unrepresentative outlier, but all the same I cannot help wondering if one of the motivations for "ramified natural theology" is islamophobia.
________________________________________
Can you draw out for us why you think that would necessarily be so? As I don't see any direct connection.
All sorts of people with otherwise strange ideas also believe in various subsets of more reasonable ideas.
My thinking was running along these lines: since Christian ramified natural theologians hope to demonstrate by reason and evidence the irrationality of disbelief in distinctively Christian doctrines, and since Lydia McGrew, a ramified natural theologian, makes no secret of her hatred of Islam, it seems reasonable to conjecture that one - not the only - motivation for her ramified natural theology claims might be the desire to show that a group of religious believers that she particularly dislikes are intellectually depraved.
It also seems reasonable to wonder if she is alone in espousing ramified natural theology while despising Islam.
Of course, as I think Chris suggests, there is no logical connection between the two sets of beliefs; the claims of Christian ramified natural theology do not logically entail the kind of islamophobic statements that McGrew makes. Instead, I’m just wondering - not claiming as proven – about a possible psychological connection.
I would also guess that as far as motivations for advancing the claims of ramified natural theology are concerned, the considerations that Candide noted above matter much more.
Nevertheless, I suspect that it would be a mistake to think of ramified natural theology as just a straightforward extension of natural theology. The two seem to differ in sociohistorical context and meaning. Arguments about natural theology are at their core intellectual exchanges, debates in salons and seminar rooms, recorded in books and on bulletin boards. There have however, been no countries or governments that describe themselves as “theist”, no wars carried out to assert the primacy of a First Cause or necessarily Existent Being, nor can we link arguments about theodicy with interethnic hostility. How different the picture looks when we consider claims and arguments made with regard to specific religions, with their own cultures, governments, histories, and ethnic affiliations! One thinks of Jews forced into disputations with Christians, crusades, jihads, and all their accompanying polemic…
Posts: 66 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tea
Arguments about natural theology are at their core intellectual exchanges, debates in salons and seminar rooms, recorded in books and on bulletin boards. There have however, been no countries or governments that describe themselves as “theist”, no wars carried out to assert the primacy of a First Cause or necessarily Existent Being, nor can we link arguments about theodicy with interethnic hostility. How different the picture looks when we consider claims and arguments made with regard to specific religions, with their own cultures, governments, histories, and ethnic affiliations! One thinks of Jews forced into disputations with Christians, crusades, jihads, and all their accompanying polemic…
So now the act of presenting arguments to defend and support the claims of the Christian faith is a hate crime, is it?
You really couldn't be more wrong if you tried. We defend Christianity with arguments, so as not to attempt to defend it by oppressive means, such as psychological pressure and manipulation, emotional blackmail, social imposition or outright persecution. Reason, which respects a person's free will, is the great antidote to oppression.
[ 30. May 2014, 21:45: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Reason IS oppression.
It doesn't work, it polarizes, even when it DOES work to the extent that a person says 'I see what you mean', they NEVER change their mind.
The ONLY thing that works at ALL, is identifying with someone.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not...
Reason IS oppression.
Well I never!!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
Nevertheless, I suspect that it would be a mistake to think of ramified natural theology as just a straightforward extension of natural theology. The two seem to differ in sociohistorical context and meaning. Arguments about natural theology are at their core intellectual exchanges, debates in salons and seminar rooms, recorded in books and on bulletin boards. There have however, been no countries or governments that describe themselves as “theist”, no wars carried out to assert the primacy of a First Cause or necessarily Existent Being, nor can we link arguments about theodicy with interethnic hostility.
Robespierre's Cult of the Supreme Being comes close.
quote:
How different the picture looks when we consider claims and arguments made with regard to specific religions, with their own cultures, governments, histories, and ethnic affiliations! One thinks of Jews forced into disputations with Christians, crusades, jihads, and all their accompanying polemic…
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Arguing rationally for the divinity of Christ necessarily leads to violence? Or that you shouldn't argue rationally for the Nicene Creed because people have tried to enforce the Nicene Creed by violence? Both of these seem like non sequuntur to me.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's a start. Let us know when you get beyond that.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by EE:
quote:
What did the great Barth think about Romans 1:20?
Well first of all, a slightly better translation of the verse reveals part of its real meaning here
It makes even more sense when you read it context here
, which is precisely the block of verses that Barth clumps for comment in his 'Epistle To The Romans' tome. It is about the revelation of Christ (the Word), and there is no other revelation of God to be known outside Christ (if you have a true understanding of the Trinity of course). It's a fairly strong theological argument on the part of Barth. Had me tied up for many years in theological wranglings.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tea
Shipmate
# 16619
|
Posted
In response to EtymologicalEvangelical and Ricardus, I would suggest that we think about “rational arguments” in their social and historical context.
Arguments don’t take place in a social vacuum; saying is a kind of doing, and part of what we do when we speak or write is to act in society. We should bear in mind that these acts can have both intended and unintended consequences and meanings, and that these acts themselves can be understood in part as the consequences of other acts, events, processes, and structures.
Individuals and groups advance arguments in particular times and places with intended and actual audiences. These arguments may be advanced with the conscious or ostensible intention of convincing by reason and evidence a particular individual or group of the truth of certain propositions, but the actual audience, motives, and effects might be quite different.
An example will, I hope, clarify what I’m getting at here.
In the 1413-1414 Disputation of Tortosa, some Christians in Aragon declared that they wished to convince Jews in Aragon and Catalonia of the truth of certain Christian claims by reasoned argument and evidence drawn from Jewish sources. The motives of those promoting the disputation may have included a wish on the part of the Aragonese Benedict XIII and his supporters to strengthen the legitimacy of his claims to the papacy and an anxiety on the part of Aragonese conversos to demonstrate the sincerity of their Christian belief. Amongst possible consequences, we might note the demoralization of Jewish communities in Aragon and increased pressure on them to convert, as well as an aggravation of the Spanish Christian hostility to Jews that would culminate in expulsion eight decades later.
The Jewish Virtual Library account of the Disputation of Tortosa is here.
We could think in similar terms of arguments made by Christian missionaries in India between 1813 and 1857 regarding the supposed claims of Christianity and Islam, or of arguments in the antebellum USA about the proper understanding of Colossians 3:22 “Servants, obey in all things your masters…”
With regard to ramified natural theology, I merely claim that it is legitimate to think in similar terms of this new wave of arguments.
Please note what I am not claiming:
- I am not claiming that arguments cannot be assessed rationally.
- I am not claiming that all arguments are reducible to “social factors.”
- I am not making some postmodern (how musty that term is beginning to sound!) claim that rationality in argument is an illusion, and that we have nothing but 57 varieties of persuasion and coercion.
- I am not claiming that arguing for Christianity constitutes a hate crime.
I do claim, on the other hand, that the bright line of distinction that EtymologicalEvangelical draws between “reason” on the one hand, and coercion and persuasion on the other, is perhaps less easy to distinguish and characterize than EE suggests. Philosophers, social theorists, and historians have spilt a good deal of ink on what constitutes a rational argument and on what conditions must obtain for rational argument and deliberation to take place, and some of the barriers to rational communication may be less immediately apparent to us than those erected in the Tortosa disputation.
In short, I would invite both EtymologicalEvangelical and Ricardus to entertain the thought that, at certain times and places, “rational argument” can be part of a coercive or oppressive social process.
Having said all that, what I am really hoping to read are more posts by Christians - EE and Ricardus included - evaluating ramified natural theology.
Posts: 66 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tea
In short, I would invite both EtymologicalEvangelical and Ricardus to entertain the thought that, at certain times and places, “rational argument” can be part of a coercive or oppressive social process.
The answer to abuse is not non-use but right use.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I see what you mean ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
One of the "ramified natural theologians" writing in this issue is Lydia McGrew who, on the strength of writings such as this, deserves to be called a bigoted nutcase.
Here, from her website, is what is probably the basis of the reference to her in the magazine. She may be a nutcase on some subjects but what she has written about conditional probabilities is entirely clear and sensible.
You may not accept her arguments but they seem independent of Islamophobia.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Tea -
On the Jewish-Christian disputations, AIUI they were bad not because they were 'rational' but because they were a sham - if the Jewish participants had provided comprehensive arguments against the divinity of Christ, it's not as though the Christian kingdoms would have converted en masse.
On the wider question - I'm not sure if I disagree with you or not, which is why I said I thought your claim was a non sequitur rather than outright wrong.
I agree it is easier to justify censoring a proposition if you think it is demonstrably false. If I wanted to ban the claim that eating dandelions prevents cancer, it would be easy for me to put together a moral case for doing so. And if I thought the truth of Christianity was equally demonstrable, then enforcing Christian belief would be equally easy to justify.
At the same time, it can be argued that censorship is by definition opposite to reason - the only reason we can say "dandelions prevent cancer" is false is because we have allowed the claim to be published and thus subjected to public scrutiny.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
