A Discussion of Modern Philosophy, the Trend to Naturalism, and Swedenborg (original) (raw)
Related papers
Natural Theology and Religious Belief
In The Cambridge Handbook of Religious Epistemology. Edited by Jonathan Fuqua, John Greco, and Tyler McNabb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022
It is no exaggeration to say that there has been an explosion of activity in the field of philosophical enquiry that is known as natural theology. Having been smothered in the early part of the twentieth century due to the dominance of the anti-metaphysical doctrine of logical positivism, natural theology began to make a comeback in the late 1950s as logical positivism collapsed and analytic philosophers took a newfound interest in metaphysical topics such as possibility and necessity, causation, time, the mind-body problem, and God. This chapter begins by considering how we might characterise natural theology as a field of enquiry. It then proceeds to survey the landscape of contemporary natural theology, which has spawned a large and at times highly technical body of literature. Finally, consideration is given to two epistemological issues confronting the theist who wishes to appeal to natural theology, which could be termed the problem of the gap(s) and the problem of accessibility.
Naturalism, Supernaturalism, and the Question of God
Topoi, 2023
My starting point in this paper is that expansive naturalism is a defensible position. I spell out what this position involves, and grant with Iris Murdoch that we should take seriously the idea that the world in which we are immersed has an irreducibly spiritual dimension. I consider what it could mean to think of spiritual reality in supernaturalist terms, agree with the naturalist that dualistic supernaturalism is to be rejected, and ask whether one can legitimately reject this model as both a naturalist and a theist.
Introduction: Knowledge, Belief, and the Impulse to Natural Theology
Science in Context, 2007
The title of this issue of Science in Context – “Believing Nature, Knowing God” – is intended to suggest the moral, emotional, and cognitive conditions in which the historical alliance of “nature” and “God” operated, and to make a more general point about knowing and believing. The production of scientific knowledge includes mechanisms for bringing about acceptance that such knowledge is true, and thus for generating a psychological state of belief. To claim to have knowledge of nature involves an attitude of belief in certain epistemic values, in the procedures associated with them, and in the results to which they lead. “Nature,” both as a totality to be known, and as the sum of the results of research directed towards it, turns out to be an object of belief.
2019
In the field of Science of Religion and associated fields of the Human Sciences revisions about the limits of reality have begun, in response both to intercultural encounters as well as to a rising awareness of research on the complexity of reality in the natural sciences. These have elicited proposals that the perspectives of the "religious" and the "para-normal" should be distinguished. This resonates with traditions of empirical and theoretical research often marginalized by the prevailing Positivist ideology and by Cognitivism. It also resonates with suppressed cultural traditions. A cautious movement towards a wider and differentiated assessment of reality and of phenomena, to be approached in these two perspectives, can however be observed in scholarship of religion, and even in the fold of Cognitivist Psychology. This presentation, held at the conference of the German Association for Science of Religion / DVRW in Potsdam in 2018 explores the field and argues for the validity and heuristic power of this distinction.
Natural Theology, Perspectivalism, and the Assumption of the Divine - Text.pdf
Natural Theology has traditionally been defined as that part of philosophy which explores that which man can know about God (his existence, divine nature, etc.) from nature, via his divinely bestowed faculty of reason; and, this, unaided by any divinely inspired written revelation. Defining Natural Theology this way seems to give value to the study of philosophy and encourages the use of philosophy in theology. Since the early 1900s, however, many Christian theologians have begun describing Natural Theology as the attempt to prove the truth of the Christian Religion, or worse, as the attempt to replace revealed truths with human ideas. These theologians often go on to claim that the only way that Natural Theology could be valuable, is if we first assume the truth of Christianity. In other words, the universe does not point to the existence of God, unless we first assume a religious position in which some God exists. Though this approach is, in Christian apologetics, often associated with Cornelius Van Til’s Presuppositionalism; it is also known, to philosophers, as Perspectivalism. Other well-known theologians who seem to have adopted this approach to Natural Theology, include Alister McGrath, Fergus Kerr, and Wolfhart Pannenberg. In their opinion, Natural Theology has no other use than to provide Christians, if it does even this, with some form of existential certitude concerning the truth of Christianity. Natural Theology most certainly does not prove Theism, let alone the truth of the Christian Religion. In this paper, I will begin with a short exposition of the positions of the contemporary theologians mentioned above. I will then attempt to refute these claims through (1) an historical exposition of the traditional approach to Natural Theology, and (2) a philosophical argument demonstrating the self-defeating nature of these claims.
The aim of this paper is to analyze the implications flowing from adopting methodological naturalism in science, with special emphasis on the relation between science and religion. Methodological naturalism, denying supernatural and teleological explanations, influences the content of scientific theories, and in practice leads to vision of science as compatible with ontological naturalism and in opposition to theism. Ontological naturalism in turn justifies the acceptance of methodological naturalism as the best method to know the reality. If we accept realistic interpretation of scientific theories, then methodological naturalism conflicts science with religion. Theistic evolution does not seem to be a proper way to reconcile Darwinism and methodological naturalism with theism. Many of such propositions are boiled down to deism. Although evolution can be interpreted theistically, it is not the way in which majority of modern scientists and respectable scientific institutions understand it. KEY WORDS: methodological naturalism, ontological naturalism, evolutionary theory, theistic evolution, teleology, randomness.
The naturalness of religious belief: epistemological implications
Blackwell Companion to Naturalism, edited by Kelly James Clark, 2016
This paper examines how the cognitive science of religion (CSR) relates to naturalism, both as a methodological and a metaphysical principle. CSR is heir to a rich tradition of natural histories of religion. They provided integrated causal accounts of religion based on anthropological, historical, and psychological observations. Natural histories of religion traditionally had a strong anti-theistic agenda. This in part explains why CSR is still regarded as a project that has mainly negative implications for the rationality of religious beliefs. The question of whether CSR challenges religious beliefs nevertheless remains a subject of enduring debate. To approach this question, I examine how naturalness is developed as a concept in CSR, exploring McCauley’s claim that religion is natural. I conclude that the naturalness of religion does not challenge the epistemic standing of religious beliefs. Notably, this is a result of CSR’s self-imposed methodological constraints, in particular, its attempts to reduce religious phenomena to non-religious cognitive dispositions.