AJ Roberts's Theology of Nature

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

I agree. I don’t see tradition as immune from scrutiny. I see tradition and fresh Biblical exegesis as in a healthy dialectical tension. And of course nothing I said went against the idea of development in theology. Indeed, there is development between Augustine and Aquinas, and between Augustine and Luther and Calvin, and in many other parts of the tradition. My complaint is more against people who don’t see the history of Christian thought as worth knowing, on the premise that Biblical exegesis is all we need. On BioLogos the interest in the history of Christian thought (as opposed to merely quarrying Augustine and Calvin for a couple of set proof-texts about science and religion) has been minimal, and that’s why I recommend Christians interested in the history of ideas about Creation, Fall, nature, providence, chance, etc. to read the material written by Jon Garvey on Hump of the Camel. I’m a trained religion scholar, but that hasn’t stopped me from learning from Jon’s columns, which are very good.

[Guy_Coe]

Same here, and I appreciate your willingness to approach cautiously, yet productively, the “dialectic” of which you speak… humbly, I might add! : )

[AJRoberts (Molecular Biologist/Virologist)]

Article on revelation: Reveling in Revelation

[AJRoberts (Molecular Biologist/Virologist)]

@Eddie

It might seem contradictory for me approve of European thinkers and then disapprove of the Faraday Institute. But I had in mind older European theological thought, i.e., pre-Enlightenment theological thought, before Christian theology defensively reshaped itself to meet the Enlightenment critique. Most modern European theology, like American theology, is reactive to the Enlightenment, modern Biblical criticism, Darwin, and other modern developments, and both European and American thought have a tendency to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” in their theological revisions. Thus, the Faraday Institute, consisting of British scientists who like North American ones are deeply steeped in modernity, shows the same tendencies as BioLogos, including the same tendency of scientists to construct their own, individualistic, private versions of Christian theology in order to harmonize with perceived demands of modern science. When I read Denis Alexander’s book on creation and evolution, I was struck by how much his argument rested on his own fresh interpretation of the Bible, and how little his readings of passages were shaped by centuries of theological reflection.

The more general cultural point I was making is that modern Protestants, and especially American Protestants, tend to be individualistic in their theologizing, whereas older Europeans were more corporate. The Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, Presbyterian and other older churches tend to emphasize creeds, formal Confessions (of their various denominations), etc.; theology isn’t a free-for-all of individuals reading their Bibles subjectively, but is governed by authorities within a religious community. This makes perfect sense given that both Israel and the Church (in the New Testament) were always treated as corporate entities. But in the American ethos, where the prairie homesteader, due to his isolation or life in very small communities without much contact with the older European theological tradition, was often his own minister, his own theologian, and his own Pope, an individualistic attitude toward the Bible and theology sprang up, with many going so far as to start up their own denominations because they didn’t agree with anybody else’s interpretations. (I’ve heard figures quoted of between 2,000 and 10,000 American denominations today.) Many American Protestants imagine that they have no theological obligation to anything but the Bible (as read by them) and their own “conscience.” The sense that a corporate entity has the right to correct an individual’s theology is not strong, in many sectors of American Protestantism. The right of private interpretation is almost sacrosanct.

Hi, @Eddie, didn’t realize earlier you prefer this diminutive. This is what I agreed with. The irony was in saying Americans needed to be less oriented toward American ways of viewing things (individualistic, etc) while your comparison of UK groups always emphasized the American organization BioLogos in the comparison. Just a little poking fun at an irony that said be less American-centric and more open to history and European thought while not IDing the FI and only IDing BL in the analogous comparison of the two groups…

[AJRoberts (Molecular Biologist/Virologist)]

@Eddie

I’m not sure I understand your paragraph containing theological objections to my post. I don’t think you would want to argue that Paul in Romans is saying that pagans who observed nature, even if they had never heard of Abraham, Moses, the Jewish Scriptures, etc., would look at nature and derive from it a Triune God, including a Logos who was incarnated as Jesus Christ. Surely Paul is indicating that paganism is capable of rising to a general idea of a God behind the universe, not that paganism is capable of deriving the existence of Christ by reasoning from the facts of nature.

I’m not saying all of those specifics of God can be observed by a pagan looking over the created order/nature. For the specifics we need the prophets, the Scriptures, and the incarnation (and it’s immensely helpful to have the historical writings of the church as well to protect us from cultural and temporal biases). But a pagan can observe enough to know it’s not all by accident. A Creator of great power, insight, cleverness, and benevolence has provided an abundant and lavish place of beauty and life that any creature based account fails to explain.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@AJRoberts

But a pagan can observe enough to know it’s not all by accident. A Creator of great power, insight, cleverness, and benevolence has provided an abundant and lavish place of beauty and life that any creature based account fails to explain.

Yes and no…its complex, right? This reference to the pagan reminds me of CS Lewis’ greatest novel, Till We Have Faces. Read the plot if you can. The gods are good to a pagan queen in revealing the true order of her world. Nature declares, but the gods still reveal.

Till We Have Faces

https://www.amazon.com/Till-We-Have-Faces-Retold/dp/0062565419

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Eddie

Hello, Joshua. I couldn’t reply to you last night, because I had reached the maximum number of posts for the day. (I didn’t know there was a maximum number, but I wish the software would tell you you’ve reached it before you compose another post, not afterward!)

Just promoted you, jumping you past the limits.

@Eddie

It may be that we are simply using the word “assume” in different ways, and that we have no disagreement on this.

I think this what it is. If that is the only disagreement, I think we might not be at odds here. It is very likely that word choice could be refined. Perhaps more softly, they have high prior believe that scientific inquiry itself can reveal divine design (without calling divine) in the language of science according to the rules of science.

[AJRoberts (Molecular Biologist/Virologist)]

@swamidass

Nature declares, but the gods still reveal.

Excellent point, and an excellent book! Lewis, ahhhhh.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@swamidass

I am not willing to concede to as much of a paradox as you imply.

Honestly not sure what we disagree about in all this. Science is blind because it doesn’t look, just as you say. Maybe you are certain there is a difference when there in fact is not?

So thinking about this a bit, I’m convinced we are using language with subtle differences, and we actually agree. Let me review some proper distinctions.

1. “God is hidden” is different than “God is hiding”
2. “Science” is different than “Scientists”, the people who do science.
3. “Nature” is different than “Science”, one effort to study Nature.

With those distinctions in mind, I would not say:

1. God is hiding Himself in science and nature.
2. Science explicitly demonstrates God exists.
3. God is not revealed in science.

I would rather say:

1. God is usually hidden from view, usually because we are not looking for him.
2. Science brings us into close contact with Nature, where we are confronted with something of God.
3. Science is blind and mute, without language of God, but the Scientist might clearly see what science cannot.

@AJRoberts I think is your view too. It seems we just a had a miss in the language. Do you agree?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

I agree with all of this, which leaves me wondering where the disagreement you indicated lies. The traditional understanding of natural theology was that it could take us as far as the insights you have indicated, but not to the specifics of Christian revelation. But if natural theology can take one even that limited distance, it would be sufficient to refute Dawkins, etc.when they claim that the facts of nature have shown that God does not exist.

A case in point is former atheist Antony Flew. He was converted by design arguments to belief in a God; but he did not take the step to Christianity. But that makes perfect sense, since design arguments can’t speak about Christianity. They can’t speak about the Fall, Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, etc. They point to the doctrine of Creation, but about the rest of Christian theology they are powerless to speak.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Eddie

A case in point is former atheist Antony Flew. He was converted by design arguments to belief in a God; but he did not take the step to Christianity. But that makes perfect sense, since design arguments can’t speak about Christianity. They can’t speak about the Fall, Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, etc. They point to the doctrine of Creation, but about the rest of Christian theology they are powerless to speak.

Yup, which is why I find Jesus to be so much greater than nature. Amen?

[Guy_Coe]

A pagan king who reads the Biblical accounts of things like kings being brought to naught by worms, or turning into raving beasts who eat the grass for a few years, etc., is, in fact, being confonted with the hazards of ignoring or opposing God.
Loved the blogpost, @AJRoberts , and always appreciate your beautiful and poetic prose and sensitive portrayals of vital theological topics!
One wonders how much cynicism within the hard sciences could be overcome with mandatory daytime or starlight hikes away from the laboratory being made a matter of mandatory professional practice! : )

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@swamidass

Yup, which is why I find Jesus to be so much greater than nature. Amen?

The whole of Christian theology is going to be richer and fuller than the part. The doctrine of Creation, while very important, is only part of Christian theology. If one believes in Creation, one might be many things other than a Christian – a Jew, a Muslim, a Deist, or a generic Theist. The Christian affirms additional things beyond the doctrine of Creation. So neither traditional design arguments nor modern ID arguments could ever serve as a substitute for Christian belief. That has always been my position, so we agree.

My only objection has been against those who think that design arguments to a mind behind nature are theologically forbidden or inherently anti-Christian. Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin never thought so. And outside of Barth, who is an outlier among classical Christian theologians for his extreme view on the subject, I never encountered any widespread hostility toward such arguments in my academic reading on theology. I never found it in popular Christian writing, either, until I became involved in ID/TE debates. Then I noticed that it was a common motif in comments and articles coming from TEs, and that it was usually brought up in the context of an attack on the alleged bad theology of ID folks. My campaign to defend natural theology from those who would impugn it began at that point. Otherwise, I would never have said a word about it.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Eddie

Then I noticed that it was a common motif in comments and articles coming from TEs, and that it was usually brought up in the context of an attack on the alleged bad theology of ID folks. My campaign to defend natural theology from those who would impugn it began at that point. Otherwise, I would never have said a word about it.

The way I see it is this. Do not pick on my language too much. I’m speaking with archetypes.

The New Atheists said science demonstrates God does not exist, tacitly invoking a false natural theology.

Intelligent Design responded that science demonstrates an Intelligent Designer exists, tacitly invoking natural theology with science.

Evolutionary Creation responded that science does not demonstrate God exists, and became suspicious of natural theology.

Peaceful Science responds that science is neutral on theology, and we need a good explicit theology of nature and natural theology to make sense of all that science uncovers.

I hope our bet on this is right.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@swamidass

Intelligent Design responded that science demonstrates an Intelligent Designer exists, tacitly invoking natural theology with science.

The advantage of traditional “design arguments” over modern ID in this respect is that traditional design arguments moved from nature to God, not from “science” to God. They never needed to speak of “science” at all. I was a supporter of natural theology long before I ever heard of ID.

@swamidass

Evolutionary Creation responded that science does not demonstrate God exists, and became suspicious of natural theology.

I agree, but this is because they conflated natural theology with ID. Desirous of rebuking ID, they went too far in some cases, and denigrated all of natural theology. But the classic works of natural theology long predate the existence of ID, TE, etc.; they were written when the term “scientist” as we use it did not yet exist. That’s why I’ve tried to disentangle the terms, indicating that “design arguments” is a much broader term than “ID” and doesn’t need to be tied up with “scientific arguments.”

In short, if one is an ID proponent, one automatically accepts the legitimacy of design arguments, but if one accepts the legitimacy of design arguments, one is not necessarily an ID proponent. I would not call Calvin an ID proponent, for example.

And yes, both natural theology and theology of nature are valid enterprises which Christians need not be afraid to investigate.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Eddie

The advantage of traditional “design arguments” over modern ID in this respect is that traditional design arguments moved from nature to God, not from “science” to God. They never needed to speak of “science” at all. I was a supporter of natural theology long before I ever heard of ID.

This is really interesting. I want you to expand on this. It sounds like an approach to natural theology very resonant with my understanding. It sounds actually to be language to explain what I am endorsing.

@Eddie

I agree, but this is because they conflated natural theology with ID. Desirous of rebuking ID, they went too far in some cases, and denigrated all of natural theology.

I see this. You seem to be right. That is why its good for us to break with that pattern and find a better way. Something better than ID and than rejection of natural theology…

[Patrick]

@AJRoberts

Article on revelation: Reveling in Revelation

AJ, I enjoyed reading your article. I get similar feelings when I hike as well. Here is an article by Michael Shermer about whether an atheist can be in awe of the universe. Seems like similar feeling to what you wrote.

Can an Atheist Be in Awe of the Universe?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

Article on revelation: Reveling in Revelation

AJ, I enjoyed reading your article. I get similar feelings when I hike as well. Here is an article by Michael Shermer about whether an atheist can be in awe of the universe. Seems like similar feeling to what you wrote.

This experience you and the article are describing is very similar to what we as Christians describe as “worship.” Nature, we believe, calls us into worship, by bringing us into clear view of the immutable qualities of God. This is nature’s “declaration.” We also are convinced that atheists hear this declaration too, as this article is explaining, you are guided by nature into awe and wonder too.

For me, the puzzling thing is that I am drawn into wonder at images like this:

Pillars of Creation

And…

Hubble Deep Field

I am drawn into awe in wonder at mathematical the formulas underlying my work all the time too. Even though these feelings are prompted by science, I can’t give a good scientific account of how this awe and wonder arises. Certainly, our proclivity to respond this way to the universe exists before we even know the universe exists…very curious…

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@swamidass

I am drawn into awe in wonder at mathematical the formulas underlying my work all the time too. Even though these feelings are prompted by science, I can’t give a good scientific account of how this awe and wonder arises. Certainly, our proclivity to respond this way to the universe exists before we even know the universe exists…very curious…

@AJRoberts, I thought you might like this quote from a Veritas Video…

@swamidass

And I have to let go of my cartoon understanding of the world and enter into the possibility of this reality. That is the experience of science. (@swamidass)

See the video in the link here: What are Veritas Forums?

[AJRoberts (Molecular Biologist/Virologist)]

@Eddie

They point to the doctrine of Creation, but about the rest of Christian theology they are powerless to speak.

We may disagree here… They can tell us that God is powerful, providential, benevolent, perhaps even loving, perhaps even longing for those who possess rational capacities to seek for him.