Re: [asa] Re: natural theology, bad and good

From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Date: Sun May 03 2009 - 07:43:54 EDT

Cameron -

Boy, I feel like the wolf in the 3 Little Pigs! I intended to get up early enough to add something to my post last night & you've already replied to it! I'm not sure why my post didn't get to the list but appreciate your including it for the benefit of others who may be interested. You'll see that I've sent a separate note to make folks aware of that.

Rather than rush things I'm going to wait till later today to complete what I said yesterday & reply to your post below. But let me say this briefly now. I didn't mean to accuse Aquinas, or you, or any of the more sophisticated ID proponents, of the kind of naive belief represented by "God speaks to me when I feed the birds," or of thinking that any natural knowledge of God is salvific. The point I was emphasizing was the danger that natural theology, like the camel's nose under the tent, will eventually take over. It didn't for the "virtuosi" of whom Westfall spoke - but what of the next generation? While sophisticated ID proponents may know its limits, what
religious impact will ID claims have on the unsophisticated person in the street, many of whom already think "believing in God" is the sum and substance of Christianity? & as I argued, if this tendency of a classic view of natural theology to slide to an Enlightenment "natural religion only" view is so widespread, may there not be something fundamentally wrong with that classic view?

More later - I've got an hour's drive to where I'm preaching this morning.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 3 07:44:07 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 03 2009 - 07:44:07 EDT