Saturday, February 11, 2006
Is natural theology the only or best means to select between the competing "programs"?
"One way of describing this perplexing situation is that we live in a multiply ambiguous world. This is a world in which Christianity competes, it seems, with other doxastically rational religious traditions which are increasingly wellunderstood by it, and it by them, and them by each other; and in which each such tradition competes with many forms of secularised naturalism of which the same can be said.
This situation is one that is tailormade for someone who thinks like the preCartesian sceptic, who saw a large variety of competing ideologies and beliefsystems, and saw that each could sustain itself by philosophical argument, and judged this very fact to be a reason to suspend judgment about all of them. This is a rational response, and readily understandable after a few courses in philosophy and comparative religion. But it is not the only rational response. What is one to say if one recognises that this is our intellectual situation, but does so while remaining in one of the competing beliefsystems, such as Christianity or Buddhism, or whatever?
I submit that the doxastic obligation of the rational being faced with this ambiguity is to try to resolve it; to try to disambiguate our world. If it is doxastically proper to retain a set of convictions in such a world, it is nevertheless obligatory to find some arguments to sustain them. This, after all, is what traditional natural theology sought to do. It predates Enlightenment foundationalism, and I submit that Christianity has more need of it than ever. The arguments of Reformed epistemology do not show it is not needed. All they show is that Christians have not been irrational to come by their beliefs without doing it first. This is not enough, once one comes to see how readily the same point can be made about so many other world views. One does not defeat one's opponents by beating one's own chest. Reformed epistemology does not show us we do not need natural theology. It helps reveal a situation in which we can see we need it more than ever."
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/papers/other/penel.html
This view indicates that because the good rational basises for all these beliefs are the same principal, there is no rational basis for selecting any one of these beliefs. The most reasonable solution is to "suspend judgement".
This indicates the need to use traditional natural theology as a basis by which to select between them.
Is natural theology the only or best means to select between the competing "programs"?
This situation is one that is tailormade for someone who thinks like the preCartesian sceptic, who saw a large variety of competing ideologies and beliefsystems, and saw that each could sustain itself by philosophical argument, and judged this very fact to be a reason to suspend judgment about all of them. This is a rational response, and readily understandable after a few courses in philosophy and comparative religion. But it is not the only rational response. What is one to say if one recognises that this is our intellectual situation, but does so while remaining in one of the competing beliefsystems, such as Christianity or Buddhism, or whatever?
I submit that the doxastic obligation of the rational being faced with this ambiguity is to try to resolve it; to try to disambiguate our world. If it is doxastically proper to retain a set of convictions in such a world, it is nevertheless obligatory to find some arguments to sustain them. This, after all, is what traditional natural theology sought to do. It predates Enlightenment foundationalism, and I submit that Christianity has more need of it than ever. The arguments of Reformed epistemology do not show it is not needed. All they show is that Christians have not been irrational to come by their beliefs without doing it first. This is not enough, once one comes to see how readily the same point can be made about so many other world views. One does not defeat one's opponents by beating one's own chest. Reformed epistemology does not show us we do not need natural theology. It helps reveal a situation in which we can see we need it more than ever."
Terence Penelhum
University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/papers/other/penel.html
This view indicates that because the good rational basises for all these beliefs are the same principal, there is no rational basis for selecting any one of these beliefs. The most reasonable solution is to "suspend judgement".
This indicates the need to use traditional natural theology as a basis by which to select between them.
Is natural theology the only or best means to select between the competing "programs"?
# posted by Dan @ 11:38 PM 
