A Thinking Reed

Theology, natural and otherwise

Written by

Lee M.

in

Thomas Adams at the blog Without Authority has a couple of good posts on a “modest” natural theology, especially as it interacts with modern science. Natural theology still seems to be largely on the outs in contemporary theology, owing perhaps to the influence Barth still exerts, as well as the recent trend toward seeing theology as a language game or as a discourse whose justification can only be intra-communal or intra-textual.

Interestingly, though, natural theology has made a significant comeback in the last few decades, not only among thinkers working in theology and science like John Polkinghorne (as Thomas discusses), but also among analytic philosophers of religion who have quite successfully challenged the longstanding consensus that between the two of them Hume and Kant had discredited natural theology once and for all.

In his recent book In Defence of Christianity (review here), philosopher and Anglican priest Brian Hebblethwaite contends that arguments for theism arising from phenomena like the existence of rational creatures, the intelligible order of the universe, the existence of moral values, etc., while not providing the foundation of Christian faith, can at least serve as “buttresses” or supports to it. Hebblethwaite concedes that most people’s faith comes from being raised in a religious community or having a powerful conversion experience, but the arguments of natural theology can help show how belief can makes sense of the world as we find it, thus contributing to a “cumulative case” for Christian faith (one that also includes appeals to revelation).

I think some kind of natural theology is probably inevitable, because Christians (and other theists) will always seek to understand how their faith relates to other areas of knowledge. And they will always want to know if there are reasons that can commend the faith to someone who doesn’t already share their commitments (or to the doubting part of their own selves).

Comments

2 responses to “Theology, natural and otherwise”

  1. Thomas Adams

    I’m glad that you enjoyed the posts, and I look forwarding to reading Hebblethwaite, who you recommend. It’s promising that philosophers are beginning to re-engage with theology, given the commonalities between the two fields and their shared histories. A quick question: why are so many of the great scientist-theologians (Polkinghorne, Peacocke, Torrance, and McGrath), along with philosopher-theologians like Hebblethwaite, from Britain? It must be more than coincidence. Perhaps natural theology was able to resist Barth’s attacks on the British Isles, while succumbing to defeat on the Continent. Regardless, these Brits are doing the Church a real service by addressing these areas of interaction where theology has always felt itself to be vulnerable.

    Reply
  2. Lee

    My guess would be that it’s the longstanding British aversion to extremism in theology (as in other fields – e.g. “common sense” philosophy). You could say this goes back at least to Hooker – the original theologian of the via media. It seems that they’re less likely to swallow an entire theological program (be it Barthian, or whatever) hook, line, and sinker. That, and maybe the British tradition of integrating faith and reason – St. Anselm was Archbishop of Canterbury after all!

    Reply

Leave a comment

More posts