tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1649176531197313252..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Reformed Objection to Natural TheologyRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72927720339970861592010-07-06T22:29:35.254-04:002010-07-06T22:29:35.254-04:00Mr. Paul Manata,
Have you read Dr. Robert Morey&#...Mr. Paul Manata,<br /><br />Have you read Dr. Robert Morey's book on Natural Theology? Its entitled:<br /><br />The Bible, Natural Theology and Natural Law: Conflict or Compromise? <br /><br />http://shop.faithdefenders.com/The_Bible_Natural_Theology_and_Natural_Law_p/books-colon-naturallawconflictorcomp.htm<br /><br />I have yet to read it but I have listened to his 8 part lecture on this subject which was excellent. Would be interesting to hear your thoughts.<br /><br />ChrisAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18063965853575799968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69522238571140222662010-07-01T15:14:50.164-04:002010-07-01T15:14:50.164-04:00Michael Sudduth emailed me this response to the co...Michael Sudduth emailed me this response to the comment I made Jeremy:<br /><br />----------<br /><br />I wrote: <i>"From what I gather, Plantinga was actually more negative towards natural theology towards the earlier statges of his career. Indeed, Sudduth's title is based off Plantinga's claim that there is a "Reformed objection to natural theology." At lbest, Plantinga could have been read as allowing natural theology but claiming that it is superfluous. This runs afoul of Sudduth's functional account, though. But as some criticisms came out and some subtlties in Plantinga's epistemology were discovered, I think he became more congenial towards the project.</i><br /><br /><br />Paul:<br /><br /><br />Yes, I think this is right. First, in God and other Minds (1967), Plantinga argued that the project of natural theology was unsuccessful. Plantinga later qualified this. He later admitted that he was working with an overly stringent conception of natural theology. That of course left the door open for exploring the prospects for good theistic arguments that were not rationally compelling. And, as Jeremy notes, this is precisely what Plantinga did, while also examining what such arguments might be good for. Secondly, though, the linking of the properly basic belief thesis with the "Reformed objection" to natural theology suggested to many that Plantinga at least saw natural theology as unnecessary and even inadequate as a basis for belief in God. Of course Plantinga *does* argue that theistic belief can be warranted without such arguments, subject perhaps to the kinds of qualifications I've made in my work. So the debate is really about how necessary natural theology is and for what exactly it is/is not necessary. Graham Oppy's paper "Natural Theology" provides a very good overview of the evolution of Plantinga's stance toward natural theology.<br /><br /><br />I've argued for many years now that there is no incompatibility between the properly basic belief thesis and natural theology. And this is precisely what I argue in detail in chapter 4 of my book.<br /><br /><br />MichaelMaul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16564647472106808432010-07-01T10:49:03.384-04:002010-07-01T10:49:03.384-04:00Hi Jeremy,
From what I gather, Plantinga was actu...Hi Jeremy,<br /><br />From what I gather, Plantinga was actually more negative towards natural theology towards the earlier statges of his career. Indeed, Sudduth's title is based off Plantinga's claim that there is a "Reformed objection to natural theology." At lbest, Plantinga could have been read as allowing natural theology but claiming that it is superfluous. This runs afoul of Sudduth's functional account, though. But as some criticisms came out and some subtlties in Plantinga's epistemology were discovered, I think he became more congenial towards the project.<br /><br />As for presuppositionalists, yes, that was a point I made under #5 of my closing thoughts. And, no doubt there are some presuppositionalists given to using the rhetoric you tar them with, but that's not true of all presuppositionalists. James Anderson and John Frame come to mind. It seems to me that transcendental arguments are unique arguments (in terms of scope) and are properly used when the minor premise of the transcendnetal argument relates to human thought or intelligible experience. This is why William Hasker, for example, could call the Argument from Reason a *transcendnetal* argument.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18815456484484675902010-07-01T09:09:07.232-04:002010-07-01T09:09:07.232-04:00I still can't figure out why anyone would have...I still can't figure out why anyone would have thought Plantinga was opposed to natural theology. He's <a href="http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/theisticarguments.html" rel="nofollow">spent quite a lot of energy actually doing natural theology</a>, as has Alston. Thinking that there are a couple dozen good arguments for the existence of God is incompatible with rejecting natural theology.<br /><br />As for presuppositionalist arguments, of course there are arguments. In fact, I would contend that presuppositionalists endorse all the traditional arguments. They just recast them under the illusion that they're transcendental arguments. But I've seen cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological arguments coming out of presuppositionalists. They just inconsistently claim that it's blasphemy to use such arguments when offered in a non-transcendental forms, as if asserting a premise as true rather than presuming we all think it somehow makes a difference as to whether your argument is blasphemous.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41602086372865728312010-06-29T17:07:04.888-04:002010-06-29T17:07:04.888-04:00Hi Ronnie,
Well, there are various ways, ways Sud...Hi Ronnie,<br /><br />Well, there are various ways, ways Sudduth covers in the book. Much of it depends on how you understand some of those terms. For example, some might grant that natural theology (A) can give us knowledge, but not natural theology (B), and it is the latter Sudduth is mainly trying to defend. Some might exegete those passages differently than you (indeed, regarding Romans 2, for instance, there is a popular exegetical strain that argues Paul is referring to Gentile converts). Some might want to argue that the knowledge is not diachronic, and so can be lost, etc. For discussions on this (except the point about Romans 2 since Sudduth isn't writing on NL), see the book for further elaboration on the points I hit on in the review.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49154570053552253852010-06-29T15:51:42.294-04:002010-06-29T15:51:42.294-04:00Most grant general revelation but some have denied...<i><br />Most grant general revelation but some have denied we can know anything about God *from* or *by* general revelation due to various epistemic post-lapsarian conditions.<br /><br />Sudduth helpfully distingushes between natural theology A and natural theology B, his book is a defense of the latter.<br /><br />Natural theology B is useful for the knowledge of God and his attributes, or for giving us warrant for a belief even if not enough warrant for knowledge can be given by natural arguments.<br /></i><br /><br />How does one deny natural theology is useful for *some* knowledge of God and His attributes with Romans 1:21-22 in mind?Ronniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999674884401144818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10626514291834255962010-06-28T16:01:39.180-04:002010-06-28T16:01:39.180-04:00David,
Natural theology broadly refers to what we...David,<br /><br />Natural theology broadly refers to what we can or do know about God aprt from special revelation. General revelation would be a medium or source of natural knowledge. Most grant general revelation but some have denied we can know anything about God *from* or *by* general revelation due to various epistemic post-lapsarian conditions.<br /><br />Sudduth helpfully distingushes between natural theology A and natural theology B, his book is a defense of the latter.<br /><br />Natural theology B is useful for the knowledge of God and his attributes, or for giving us warrant for a belief even if not enough warrant for knowledge can be given by natural arguments.<br /><br />As far as natural law, that's a divided question from natural theology. Perhaps I shouldn't have even mentioned natural *law* in the introduction.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67785489807433128592010-06-28T02:02:35.692-04:002010-06-28T02:02:35.692-04:00Paul, I think if what is intended in promoting &qu...Paul, I think if what is intended in promoting "natural law" AND "natural theology" is simply what we mean by "general revelation", then there should be no objection. I think the ambiguity comes in when we consider how natural theology should lead us to the God and story that Scripture presents, and how Scripture serves as a corrective for distortions and errors we make in interpreting general revelation.<br /><br />I suppose I have come to see knowledge in a two-tiered system, corresponding to the law/gospel distinction. In general revelation (natural theology, natural law) God, his attributes, and His law are revealed. Whereas in special revelation, the gospel is revealed. Presuppositional and transcendental arguments are good to establish the former, but historical, inductive ("evidential") arguments are good for the latter.David Gadboishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18375984671877016361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71598683880516133672010-06-27T16:23:17.115-04:002010-06-27T16:23:17.115-04:00Thank you Paul. This is awesome. Still going throu...Thank you Paul. This is awesome. Still going through it. Thanks so much for taking the time to write this review.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01486181682000581501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32548021611471248212010-06-27T08:18:45.988-04:002010-06-27T08:18:45.988-04:00Hi Ronnie, I address that very question in the ope...Hi Ronnie, I address that very question in the opening paragraph :-)<br /><br />. . . except I don't comment on his view on natural law or its connection to natural theology. I'm not sure he'd say that they <i>logically</i> imply the other, but I think I rember him saying that he affirmed natural law in an email once.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27367601648421309932010-06-27T07:59:16.629-04:002010-06-27T07:59:16.629-04:00Paul,
Thanks for this very informative review.
I...Paul,<br /><br />Thanks for this very informative review.<br /><br />I would say not only has the twentieth century Reformed aversion been toward Natural Theology, but also Natural Law. Dr VanDrunen has spent most of his efforts arguing that the Reformed Tradition accepted the latter. Is Dr. Sudduth arguing for the Reformed Tradition acceptance of both of these doctrines? Does he see them as one logically leading to the other? Two complete issues and he is only dealing with one?<br /><br />Thanks,<br />RonnieRonniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999674884401144818noreply@blogger.com