Part 1, which has four essays, treats theological preliminaries and emphasizes the sources of Christian theology. In the first essay, Richard Swinburne discusses revelation. For example, one part of the Bible urges the extermination of the Canaanite people, while another part advocates non-violence, and Genesis, if taken literally, clashes with modern science. Early Christian thinkers like Origen and Augustine were aware of the apparent contradictions and cautioned against an exclusively literal reading; Augustine suggested that we not take a passage literally if it clashes with purity of life or soundness of doctrine.
He contrasts this view with that of Plantinga, who argues that Christian beliefs are warranted if they are produced by a process put into us by God in order to lead us to the truth. Stephen Davis discusses revelation and inspiration. God reveals himself so that humans may develop a personal and loving relationship with him.
While God reveals himself in both actions and words, the words are important to clarify the actions. Davis struggles to develop a more balanced account that recognizes the influence of the Holy Spirit to insure somehow that the words of the inspired writers are appropriate.
Del Ratzsch discusses science and religion. We can see the two as entirely unrelated, as in conflict so we must choose between them , or as in dialogue so that they can mutually enlighten each other ; he argues for a version of the last approach. Then I realized that how we interpret the Bible depends in part on what we do when it seems to clash with science or with other secular subjects, like history.
William Wainwright urges the importance of mystery in our halting understanding of God and he discusses forms that mystery can take. This essay would perhaps fit better in the next section, especially since Christian thinkers almost uniformly believe that God to a great degree is beyond our understanding. Part 2, containing six essays, is about divine attributes. Many Christian thinkers today ignore this as verbal nonsense, as a category error, or as wrongly identifying God a person with properties like goodness.
William Craig argues that we should not regard God as existing timelessly. This essay was a model of clarity and logical rigor — and was my favorite essay of the book. The chief problem he considers that there seem to be things that God cannot do but that we can do — like hate, or fail at a task, or take a walk.
Does it imply that God is a spatial, hence material, being? Or maybe God should be seen as a non-spatial being, like a number? Or maybe saying that God is everywhere simply means that he influences every point of space, sustaining it in existence?
Does this attribute mean that God created the best of all possible worlds, and is there any such thing? Or does it mean that he maximizes good consequences, or fulfills all of his duties, or acts from virtuous intentions? Part 3, made up of seven essays, is about God and creation. First, Robin Collins asks why God would have created us by an indirect evolutionary process that took 14 billion years, depended on random factors, and caused much cruelty to animals.
He argues that this approach best realized different kinds of human connectiveness. Thomas Flint discusses divine providence. Consider, for example, naturalistic debunking of theistic belief, in terms of projection, or wish-fulfilment, or mastery of existential anxiety, or higher criticism, or the like: if naturalism is true, then perhaps some debunking accounts of these general kinds will turn out to be correct; but, if naturalism is false, then no such debunking accounts of these general kinds will turn out to be correct.
A third project is what we might call 'development' of a given worldview. Within Abrahamic theism, there is a question about how people could come to have the knowledge of God that they do. Should Abrahamic theists suppose that their knowledge of God depends upon particular 'miraculous interventions' in the natural order; or should they rather suppose that they could have come to knowledge of God even if God had made no particular 'miraculous interventions' in the natural order?
Does all knowledge of God depend essentially upon scripture and revelation; or could some knowledge of God have been arrived at without the assistance of scripture and revelation including miracles and religious experience? Of course, the naturalist way with these questions is short: since there is no God, there is no knowledge of God, and so these questions are uninteresting.
Thus, there is a sense in which serious concern about naturalism does not even come into view when these kinds of questions are being raised. Of course, it is also true that naturalists are substantively concerned to deny the claim that some knowledge of God can be arrived at without the assistance of scripture and revelation, including miracles and religious experience.
Is it a myth that Hume and Darwin 'pulled the rug out from underneath the pretensions of natural theology to any philosophical or scientific legitimacy'? Not entirely. If we think about our first kind of project, then it seems hard to deny that Hume and Darwin helped to significantly dampen the prospects for the development of a successful case for the global theoretical superiority of theism to naturalism.
Moreover, if we think about our second kind of project, then it seems equally hard to deny that Hume and Darwin made some positive contribution towards the prospects for the development of certain kinds of debunking accounts of theistic beliefs.
But, of course, Hume and Darwin had nothing directly to say about our third kind of project -- e. Is 'the "natural" vs. Not really. If we think about our first kind of project, then -- in the nature of the case -- 'reports of revelation' figure in the data, but revelations themselves do not. While -- as noted above -- naturalists and theists do not agree on the characterisation of natural reality, there is clearly a good sense in which all of the data in the first project is 'natural': for, in the interests of serious dialogue, only 'agreed', or 'common ground', data can be admissible.
Of course, when we turn our attention to the second and third kinds of projects, and we think about their prosecution by theists, we expect that many theists will feel free to appeal to 'data of revelation' in carrying out these projects. Is there more to 'natural theology' than 'modern scientific natural theology'? For the most representative information available, applicants should consult the most recent Handbooks and Schedules of Papers. Students commencing the first year of the course in October will take a Preliminary Examination in Handbooks contain general information about academic life in Oxford as well as and specific details relating to individual courses.
Skip to main content. Home Course Handbooks Course Handbooks.
0コメント