Introduction to Natural Theology
Natural
Theology vs. Revealed Theology
Three (3) positions on belief of God
The
Legitimacy of Philosophy Of Religion as an Academic
Discipline
Agnosticism
(My Exchange with Paul Draper from years ago…)
Introduction to Natural
Theology
Natural Theology vs. Revealed Theology
Theology is the “study of God.”
But one can try to answer questions about the existence and nature of
God in at least two very distinct ways: via Natural Theology and via Revealed
Theology. Both count
as “theology” since both inquiries are trying to answer questions about the
existence and nature of God.
Revealed Theology: an investigation into the existence and nature
of God based on revelation.[1]
Revealed theology generally consists of answering questions about the
existence and nature of God by reference to a body of previously established beliefs
about God. This established set is held
to have been revealed by God (e.g. God
is speaking to people through prophets, inspired writings, holy institutions or the history of a chosen people, etc.). Thus, revealed theology is a faith-based
means of answering questions about God and largely consists in extending the
body of established beliefs into a logically coherent doctrine. The three major Western religions[2]
base their notions of God on revelation; supernatural
revelation of God's existence and essence.
Among the world religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam bear a
special relationship to each other and to Western philosophy. They are often called
"Abrahamic" religions because all three trace their roots to Abraham
of the Old Testament. Thus, the concept of God central to each is the "God
of Abraham."
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are closely associated with each other
and with the West for another reason as well. The early religious thinking of
all three religions was heavily influenced by the Greek philosophy of Plato and
Aristotle. Although some other religions make use of Greek philosophy, its
influence in other faiths is extremely modest as compared with its influence in
Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thought. In
fact, in his book The God of Faith and Reason, philosopher
Robert Sokolowski argues that a properly Christian apprehension of divinity
only came to full expression through the gospel’s encounter with pagan
philosophy and religion. He calls it the “Christian Distinction.” If he is right, there is more going on here
then using philosophy to give intellectual respectability to Christian
doctrine. The Christian view of divinity
is inherently dependent on certain Greek philosophical notions, namely God as
the absolute self-sufficient fundamental reality and source of creation, while
creation itself is radically contingent.
“In the Christian distinction, God is understood as
‘being’ God entirely apart from any relation of otherness to the world or to
the whole. God could and would be God even if there were no world…. The
Christian distinction between God and the world is therefore a distinction that
is, in principle, both most primary and yet capable of being obliterated,
because one of the terms of the distinction, the world, does not have to be. To
be God, God does not need to be distinguished from the world, because there does
not need to be anything other than God alone. As Aquinas has formulated it, God
is not related by a real relation to the world.” (p. 32-34)
Yet the God who appears in the Old Testament is not immediately recognizable
in anything found in either Platonic or Aristotelian terms. For instance, Plato’s “Form of the Good” is
held by Plato to be the source of all being, truth, goodness
and beauty, but it is neither dynamic nor conscious. The God that Aristotle endeavors to prove,
his “Unmoved Mover,” may well be unaware of humans and would likely not respond
to prayer or bestow forgiveness for sins.
The picture of God in the early Hebrew Scriptures, by contrast, seems to
be dynamic, with will and demonstrates responses to of events in human history
and petitions for help. There remains a
debate among theists today on this very issue, i.e. as to whether it is proper
to think of God as “personal” and dynamic/ eminent or as an unchanging/
transcendent “Abstract Being.”
Nevertheless, as we shall see, the concept of God which has preoccupied
Western natural theology has indeed been a concept of God related to the God of
the Abrahamic religions. But to be
clear, natural theology does not rely on revelation to investigate the
existence and nature of this “God.” You
may look ahead to our discussions of the metaphysics and epistemologies of Plato
and Aristotle and see that neither uses revelation when seeking to answer
questions about the existence and nature of God. That is why it's called Natural theology
Natural Theology: a branch of philosophy which
seeks to answer questions about the existence and nature of God through the use of natural experience and ordinary human
reason alone.
The three major Western religions do indeed base their notions of God on
revelation; supernatural revelation of God's existence
and essence. Prominent representatives
of all three major Western religions however, have
held that the notions of God operative in their religious tradition is consistent
with natural reason and indeed philosophy can demonstrate the truth of some of
the revealed claims about God. “Revelation”
itself stands in need of some philosophical unpacking, but at a minimum these
are extraordinary experiences not accessible to everyone nor reproducible in
any reliable way.
·
St. Anselm tries to give a philosophical argument
to prove the existence not only of “a” god, but of a
divinity consistent with Christian Scripture, though his proof is not based
on Christian Scripture.
·
St. Thomas Aquinas also tries to prove the existence
of God through philosophy.
Note: Some philosophers engaged in Natural Theology
believe that they can demonstrate through rational argument that there is NO
Divine Being. (e.g. David Hume, Quentin
Smith, etc.) Such individuals seek to
demonstrate through philosophical reasoning that the universe contains nothing
answering to the descriptions of God found in monotheistic religions or the
speculations of natural theologians or, perhaps even, anything “divine” at
all. Each of these is a significantly
different project. But note, these projects all fall within the domain of
Natural Theology and one need not be a theist (or even
want to be a theist) to engage in Natural Theology.
Three (3) positions on belief of God:
1.
Theism: The
position which holds that there is a God, gods or any
divine reality to the universe; Theism is a very general/generic term for one
who thinks there exists a fit object of worship.[3] Most typically theisms are committed to the existence
of a supernatural order over and above the profane/ mundane.
2.
Atheism: The position which holds that there is no God, gods or any divine reality to the universe; this view claims
that there does not exist any fit object of worship. Atheism generally, though not necessarily, is
committed to a naturalist worldview and the denial of a supernatural order.
a.
Logical Atheists: The existence of God is
logically impossible. No new evidence
could ever demonstrate the existence of such a being because the very concept
either entails a contradiction (e.g. Omnipotence is logically impossible, thus
an omnipotent god is likewise logically impossible.) or the existence of God is
logically incompatible with some known fact (e.g. the existence of evil). These types of atheists though, are usually
working with a particular conception of god to begin
with. (e.g. See J. L. Mackie “Evil and
Omnipotence.”)
b.
Empirical (Friendly) Atheists: While the existence of God (a god) is not a logical impossibility, there
is insufficient reason to think such a thing exists and a preponderance of
evidence to establish that no such thing exists. (e.g. See William Rowe.) Such individuals allow for the possibility
that future evidence may make a difference to the matter (as is the case for all
empirically justified contingent beliefs), but as things stand now, only atheism
is warranted by the available evidence.
3.
Agnosticism: This is the position one is in when one claims not
to know whether there is a God or not.(without knowledge)
a.
The Unreflective (Lazy) Agnostic: When asked, does
there exist a God, god or anything divine? Does there exist a fit object of worship, she
responds, “I don’t know.”
b.
The philosophical agnostic: one who claims that,
given the available evidence, one cannot know whether or not
there exists a God, gods, or divinity of any kind. Usually such a person believes that there is
some relevant evidence, but it is insufficient to establish either Theism or
Atheism as rationally justified, and therefore the rational thing to do is to
assert neither. (Paul Draper)
c.
In some cases, the agnostic claims that no evidence
is, or could be, relevant. Both Theism and Atheism beg the question or are
based on unsubstantiated presuppositions and therefore neither can be
established. (Soren Kierkegaard-
arguably).
All three positions (as I have defined them) assert something and as
such stand in need of justification.
When one claims something to be true, it's always fair for a
Philosopher-type to ask "What is your justification?-
Why should I believe you?"
Therefore, whether a theist, an atheist or an
agnostic, one ought to have good reason for taking the position one does.
1.
Monotheism: single God; (Judaism, Islam)
But actual religions do not always fit neatly into
one category or another. For instance, Trinitarian
Christianity is a monotheistic religion, but the doctrine of the trinity makes
that a complicated sort of monotheism.
Even so, Monotheistic religions/ belief systems differ with one another.
·
Is the “god” of monotheism a caring, loving god?
·
An indifferent god?
·
A metaphysical principle of motion?
Deism: The belief in a
God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
–
(Not surprisingly, it is said also to reject
supernatural revelation since revelation seems incompatible with indifference.)
2.
Polytheism: there are many gods; (Ancient Greek
Paganism)
Again, actual world religions do not always neatly
fit into these categories. Consider the
multiple “gods” of Classical African Yoruba religions. These religions refer to various orishas who
should be worshipped, reverenced and propitiated, but
they also hold that even these orishas have their origin in a single creator
god. One might think of this religion as
a monotheism which admits of demi-divine beings, such as angels are in Western
monotheisms.
3.
Pantheism: all is God, everything is holy, divine.
Kinds of pantheism:
a.
divine spirits live in all kinds of creation
(Animism- Druids) All of reality has a spiritual dimension and is at least
potentially divine.
b.
reality and God are One. There is no Creator/ Creation distinction as one
finds in monotheistic religions.
(Upanishad traditions, Spinoza, Hegel)
c.
nature/reality, while not actually supernatural
at all, is deserving of reverence. We
must regard nature as Divine. (Transcendental Movement, Henry David Thoreau,
Walt Whitman, some proponents of “Gaia”)[4][5]
4.
Panentheism
Deism and Pantheism combined: Related to Process
Theology, panentheism is essentially a combination of theism (God is the
supreme being) and pantheism (God is everything). While pantheism says that God
and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims the God is greater than
the universe and that the universe is contained within God. Panentheism holds
that God is the “supreme effect” of the universe. God is everything in the
universe, but God also is greater than the universe itself. Events and changes
in the universe affect and change God. As the universe grows and learns, God
also increases in knowledge and being.
5.
Theistic Dualism: This theism believes in 2 Divine
Natures that are in constant opposition to one another
a.
could be Good and Evil (Manichæism,
Star Wars) where each side seeks to vanquish its "foe."[6]
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmS_hMnFNVM)
b.
could be Eastern concept of Yin and Yang, where the
object is not victory, but the balance of 2 opposing forces. Harmony is achieved and sustained through
maintaining a tension.
6.
Anatheism: Returning to God after God
As previously mentioned, historically, Western Philosophy of Religion and
Natural Theology has concerned itself with debates about God as conceived in the
major Western Monotheistic Religions.
However sometimes these philosophical speculations have led some natural
theologians to embrace not Western monotheism, but rather pantheism. Nevertheless,
the traditional Western conception of God within the monotheistic traditions
has been referred to as the “O-GOD.” Traditionally
it has been claimed that this is a Supreme Being, a Being with all perfections.
A Perfection is a “great-making” quality. It is a quality such that any being
possessing that quality, exclusive of other factors, is more valuable (greater,
more worthy of admiration, more perfect) for possessing it than if it did not. Specifically, The O-God is defined as having
all perfections. Three such perfections are considered to be particularly important.[7]
The O-God possesses:
1.
Omni-benevolence
2.
Omnipotence
3.
Omniscience
There are a host of other perfections traditionally predicated of God,
and some perfections imply others. For instance, being eternal may imply being immaterial since no material thing
is eternal. Much Natural Theology
centers on whether or not it is reasonable to believe
that the O-God exists. This will be the
first topic we will review in our excursion into Natural Theology. Additionally, Natural Theology considers what
the “perfections” are and how they can be related to one another.
What we shall next be considering is what good philosophical reasons we
might have for accepting Theism, Atheism or Agnosticism. The concept of god
we will be utilizing in these considerations will largely, but not exclusively,
be the O-God.
The Legitimacy of Philosophy Of Religion as an
Academic Discipline
As previously noted, much of the Philosophy of
Religion that has been produced has been steeped in the religious concepts and
practices arising from Western religious traditions. Indeed, much of it is a philosophical
examination of issues that arise from the practice of these religions. Some have gone so far as to say that
Philosophy of Religion, both historical and contemporary, is so focused on
Western monotheism, that it unfairly and unjustifiably privileges these religious
traditions over other world religions.
They go on to say that, as it stands currently, it has no place in
secular universities.
I am sensitive to this critique. Nevertheless, we shall begin our course by
looking at arguments for and against Theism.
For a bit more on the Philosophy of Religion, you may wish to look over
this brief article by former FIU professor and colleague of mine Paul Draper.
http://philosophyofreligion.org/?p=14582
Agnosticism (My Exchange with Paul Draper from years ago…):
I was trying to write up a definition of Agnosticism for my students and
I became puzzled. One might say that an
agnostic is one who neither asserts nor denies the existence of a fit object of
worship. But there is really
more to it than that. My grandnephew
(2 years old) fits the definition, but that’s only because he hasn’t really
thought about it. Agnostics have.
They seem to be saying that one cannot get sufficient justification for
belief. But they must be saying more than
that too because a lot of Theists would agree (Kierkegaard for instance) and to
claim that an agnostic is one who claims that in principle we could have
sufficient evidence to confirm or dis-confirm Theism, but in fact lack both, is
simply false.
So are they saying
that one can’t get sufficient justification (for whatever reason) and that one
should only believe when one has sufficient justification? But that seems wrong too. For one thing, many people who call
themselves agnostics have probably never thought about that second condition
(justification). Plenty of agnostic
people believe lots of things without (sufficient) evidence and don’t think
they’re doing anything wrong. They may,
for instance believe that they had breakfast this morning, but be unable to
provide an unassailable justification for that belief. Besides I’m sure that they do things all the
time that they don’t think they ought to do.
And I don’t think it's part of the claim that someone is an agnostic
that he or she thinks faith is in epistemically inappropriate (though no doubt
many do). Agnostics simply lack faith.
There is a difference between being an agnostic and being a rationally
justified agnostic. It seems that being and agnostic is simply being in a state of considered
(self-conscious) non-belief, leaving open the question of why one
is in that state (whether it is a reasoned, deliberate and voluntary choice or
involuntary). It seems that to say that
one is an agnostic is only to say that this person lacks faith as well as rational
compulsion for theism while also lacking faith and rational compulsion for
atheism as well. Does this seem right to
you?
Let me know your thoughts.
Kenton
An agnostic is someone who has entertained the proposition "God
exists" and neither believes that it is true nor believes that it is
false. This is close to your definition.
According to one standard definition, agnostics believe that one could
not have evidence or adequate evidence for or against God's existence.
Skepticism is often defined in a parallel way. But this ignores Pyrhonian skeptics (e. g. Sextus Empiricus)
who claim only never to have found a convincing reason to believe anything
about reality (they have no problem with appearances) but leave open the
possibility that the next argument they confront will convince them. They thus
avoid the inconsistency of the "academic skeptic" (the sort of
skepticism taught at Plato's academy some time after Plato's death) who claims
dogmatically that they know nothing about reality. I maintain that agnostics,
like other skeptics, could be dogmatic or Pyrrhonian.
By the way, I found your use of the term "faith" a bit
troubling. Perhaps agnostics can have a great deal of faith (a la
Schellenberg).
Also, won't a theist who understands the concept of epistemic
probability, who realizes that it is irrational to believe that p is true and
not also believe that p is probably true, and who claims not to have sufficient
(inferential or non-inferential, propositional or
non-propositional, direct or indirect, etc.) evidence for God's existence
inevitably be guilty of some sort of self- deception?
For how could a clear-thinking person believe that God probably exists
and not believe that evidence makes it probable that God exists?
What else could make it epistemically probable? Surely the intrinsic
probability of God's existence is less than 1/2. But that means that God's
existence is probable only if there is evidence pushing the probability of
God's existence above 1/2.
Paul
[1] “Revelation”
itself stand in need of some philosophical unpacking, but at a
minimum revelatory experiences are extraordinary experiences not
accessible to everyone nor reproducible in any reliable way.
[2]
We may also call them the three "Western" religions because they
originated among peoples living “west” of the Indus River of South Asia, one
traditional dividing line between the East and the West. It flows from Tibet, into Jammu and Kashmir
(India) and the rest of Pakistan.
[3] It can be objected that this is an overly Western notion of theism. Certain forms of Buddhism maintain that there is a divine ground of being, but deny that this needs to be propitiated or worshiped. While I am sensitive to this objection, I don’t think it damning and the general tenor of my point here remains. First these forms of Buddhism are often referred to as “non-theistic” Buddhism, which I think would entail a kind of atheism. Second, while the attitude of “worship” may be importantly different, I am not sure it is always wholly absent. The goal of the religious practice is to achieve the proper perspective on and relationship to the “ground of being” “ultimate reality,” see through the illusions of separation and individuality and achieve the proper relationship to the “divine.”
[4]In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins describes Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.” Some people have interpreted that as an insult, but this was not his intension. Dawkins accepts pantheism as many other scientists do, but as atheistic, that is, disbelieving in a personal creator god. By calling it sexed up he means it’s more alluring and enticing than traditional atheism, but substantially making the same claims.
[5] The adherents of Non-theistic Satanism, or Non-supernatural Satanism insist this view to be a genuine religion, and this should be afforded all the legal protections enjoyed by other religions under the U.S. Constitution. However, they deny there exists any supernatural order. But this raises the intriguing question as to whether this view should indeed be regarded as a genuine religion, and for that matter, what is a religion after all.
[6]This
is NOT the Orthodox view of Western Monotheism because supposedly God created
Satan and, as a mere creature, Satan is not the equal of God. Satan exists only because God wills it to be
so. It would become dualism if Satan
were regarded as an eternal rival of God.
[7] One might add that of equal importance is that the O-God is “personal” and singular.