- Natural Theology: What Is It? (Full Lecture) | N.T. Wright Online
- An example of “Natural” something or other is: Isaac Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica [*The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy"]
- Wright’s twist on it is that he wants to put Jesus at the center of the “Natural” stuff,
2 Likes
Traditionally, it seems natural theology has referred to arguments from nature for the existence of God. I think I have made it clear that I do not support these, I don’t think the arguments are sound or convincing. Not only that but I think they distort our understanding of God and mislead us to replace a faith in God with a faith in the premise of these arguments. I think the belief in God must be a choice and a matter of faith – all about what kind person we want to be and what kind of existence we want to be a part of.
So, basically I would give a different role to natural theology. To leave the question of God’s existence to faith and instead natural theology would inform us about what kind of God (and theology) would be consistent with what we see in nature. Wright’s approach focusing on history is interesting but I lack his confidence in historical science. On the other hand, I see little reason not to take the accounts in the Bible seriously whether they meet the standards of modern historical science or not.
I make no pretense to objectivity in religion. I frankly think that is inconsistent with the purpose of religion. Wright seems to be looking for an objective basis for Christianity in history, and that is hard for me to get excited about. I would limit apologetics to a defense of the logical coherence of Christianity and not look for an objective basis for believing in it.
3 Likes
Wright first developed his idea of an epistemology of love in The New Testament and the People of God (1992), where he noted: “The lover affirms the otherness and the reality of the beloved. Love does not seek to collapse the beloved in terms of itself.” (p. 64). I used this quote in explaining my own methodology in my book The Liberating Image.
Wright’s point in his “epistemology of love” is twofold. First, as a critique of the stance of modernity, true knowledge is not predicated on any supposedly “objective” distance of the subject from the object of knowledge; rather the knower must care about (and engage with) the object; we bring ourselves with all of our assumptions and experiences to the project of investigation. But, second, as a critique of much postmodern discourse, the subject must respect the otherness and integrity of the object of knowledge (on analogy with one’s love and respect for another person).
4 Likes
You probably have made it clear, but thank you for repeating for the sake of those who aren’t that familiar with you.
I don’t find these arguments convincing, either, at least the few that I’ve been exposed to, but probably for different reasons than you. As someone who has only a basic (and antiquated) science background, I am frustrated when it seems like people with strong science backgrounds use “nature up to God” arguments with people outside their fields, because “just trust me on this” isn’t a sound way to deal with such monumental matters.
I am even more frustrated by people who don’t have a background, say, in physics, who try to argue from physics the existence of God. I can’t get past: “Does this person remotely know what they’re talking about?” and “Is the claim true?”
And on it goes…
Exactly this: “a faith in the premise of the arguments”
If the arguments contain flaws, but are foundational to a person’s faith, then what? Rather than harranging people for not being convinced by unconvincing arguments, and blaming them for a lack of faith generated in response to logical or factual flaws, the apologist should examine herself.
I’ve heard too many misapplications of Romans 1:18-23, as if a person unconvinced by an apologist’s arguments already knew the truth, denied it and continued actively, deliberately to disbelieve it. Particularly, when the problem was with the apologist’s reasoning!
@mitchellmckain, when we finally get to the later lectures you are responding to here, would you be willing to copy the pertinant sections of these earlier posts into later ones, so they’re more in the flow of the discussion on those lectures? Your insights are valuable; I would hate for people to miss them, when the rest of us catch up with you. Thanks for considering.
@Terry_Sampson thanks for putting this in the discussion. I hadn’t thought of putting in “Reference Resources” this time.
Thank you for this explanation. That helps a lot!
It will be interesting to see how Wright applies this to his concept of natural theology and what he believes it can show us.
Thanks, @Jay313 I"ve been enjoying these a lot!
4 Likes
By that last word “itself” I take it this refers to the lover rather than the beloved. In other words, love does not seek to reduce the beloved to the advantages and such the beloved provides for the lover. It reminds me of Kant who says that not using people as a means to an end is the foundation of ethics.
Of course, I agree. In fact, I would say this is the reason for God’s creation of the physical universe and natural law, to give us a basis of existence apart from Himself. And thus I oppose the efforts of many to see Hebrews 1:3 as meaning our continued existence depends on the continual work of God. I think this is essentially pantheistic and makes these words of Wright “collapse the beloved in terms of itself” apply to us in relation to God. Frankly I think this interpretation of Hebrews 1:3 has more to do with the religionist exaggerating his own importance vicariously from that kind of all importance of God in maintaining our existence. But I think this demotes God from being a true creator to merely a dreamer (we being nothing more than what He dreams).
1 Like
Should the individual Christian want or look for objective bases? How about the unbeliever? Think of Phil Yancey, for instance. There are of course others who can be mentioned with factual details.
[ETA: This may have sounded upon first reading like I was contesting Rich @JRM, but no, not at all (notice my ‘Like’ above 
). I am just trying to emphasize objectivity, factualness, in a loving relationship – in both directions.]
The lover of God affirms the otherness and the reality of God, the beloved. The lover of God does not seek to collapse God into terms of itself and its feelings or imaginings and as just another ‘part of me’ and everyone else.
Can we know God? Do we care about the object, God? The first petition in The Lord’s Prayer, Matthew 6:9, is caring about him. Can we engage with the object, God, objectively?1 Otherwise we aren’t we merely postulators at keyboards.
If (and since) we are speaking with respect to God who is personal, our love and respect for him does not and should not need to be an analogue.
And if we as individuals are the beloved, as the object of God’s love, we should desire, yearn for and seek objective evidence of that love, as did Tim Keller’s parishioner, so that we can say in the first person singular, “I am loved”:
1 (We can objectively be obedient, but is that the same as engaging? I do think it is part of it.)
[See the ETA note at the beginning, if you haven’t already.]
2 Likes
As an addendum to the last, and lest we imagine or fantasize woo, intellectualize, philosophize or theologize too much about where we think Dr Tom is coming from, I think this is worthy of note to bring us down to earth so to speak: he considers God’s love for him to be an objective fact (or a factual fact, if you don’t like ‘objective’ ; - ), has for a long time, it has shaped his life, and admirably so …also notice he uses the word ‘fact’:
Everything that has happened to me since has produced wave upon wave of the same.
2 Likes
Good context. Thanks much. I’m diving into these lectures “sight unseen” and asking questions as I go along. It’s helpful to get a nudge in the right direction from folks like you who’ve been reading him for decades.
Agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments.
2 Likes
Continuing some notes on the lecture itself:
15:47 Epicureanism increasingly popular as an alternative to state religion since the rediscovery of Lucretius’ poem in 1417. … But after 1755 (Lisbon), Epicureanism had come to stay. … Religion is a human invention designed to keep the masses docile. The world does what it does in random ways and changes without outside interference.
I realized that Pascal’s mention of Epicureans ca. 1650 lends credence to what Wright says here. It seems to have been a notable enough sect (not just an ancient Greek philosophy) for Pascal to casually drop it as common knowledge.
On religion, the connection between keeping the masses docile and Epicurus comes in the quote from Marx at 17:35. I would object to their views on the basis that they’re both ignorant of the actual origins of religion. They were philosophizing based on zero knowledge of human origins. In fact, there were no “masses” to be kept docile when Göbekli Tepe was constructed 12,000 years ago, when the Lion-man was carved 40,000 years ago in Germany, or when the first human burial happened 75,000 years ago in Africa.
19:00 History of Ideas
This clears up a lot of objections brewing in my head. Wright explains that his aim is “not to attempt a chronology of developing ideas, but to the draw attention to currents of thought which, with hindsight, we see to have shaped the world within which our questions have been asked.”
Watching some football. I’m not in a huge hurry, since we’re not scheduled to discuss the 2nd lecture till the 19th.
1 Like
There is a clever turn in epistemology when it is appreciated for what pure reason can tell you about the world and what it cannot. Somewhat related, I think, is how John Betz connects metaphysics and mimetic desire.
It would also be fascinating to see Wright comment on an argument from Peter at the beginning of Acts. Keener writes about it. How the “therefore know for certain” is based on 3 types of evidence: the testimony of Scripture, eyewitness testimony for the resurrection, and a self-evident testimony of the Spirit.
1 Like
I am beginning to lose interest in these lectures in the midst of lecture 7. I don’t see much of anything so informative or insightful here… for me… It is not that there is nothing which others might not gain from listening to this part. I would sum it up as standard orthodox Christianity well said… even eloquent. Many may really like that kind of confirmation of their own worldview. I am less needy of such an echo of my own thinking… ok… sometimes I like that too. But what really caught my interest in the beginning of these lectures was the new perspective I never heard before.
maybe I’ll jump to lecture 8 and see if this is different.
…same. Good recommendation for something which gives Christianity expressed well.
1 Like
Any last bits to cover from Lecture 1, before we add in Lecture 2?
Lecture 2 is also very dense with names and philosophy of historical enquiry into Christianity (my term; I’m sure there’s a better one).
These are some questions that are coming to my mind, if anyone wants to discuss Lecture 1 further:
What do you think of Wright’s treatment of the history of the influence of ideas on enquiry into Christianity so far?
Is he thorough enough? Is he cherry picking? What is extra or left out?
What do you think of Wright’s characterization of the common understanding/s of Natural Theology?
What do you think of his critique of this view of Natural Theology as well as his reconceptualization of it so far? Is anything missing? Will this reconceptualizaiton help?
What questions do you have for the group? For Wright’s upcoming lectures?
…
Either late 1/18 or early 1/19 I will post a “divider” that includes the Table of Contents for this thread from the OP. I will continue to update those “divider” posts as we go along, so that they make navigating the thread easier later. Feel free to PM me if you have suggestions for other ways to improve navigation through the thread. Thanks!
2 Likes
Sorry I watched too much football this weekend. But as a Dallas fan, I’m pretty much done with it now. Oof.
I’m still uncomfortable with Wright’s characterization of God being “kicked out” of politics, science, etc. (as if that were possible), but I understand a bit better the second time around when he ties it to Hume. I’ve heard Wright’s version of the history of ideas before, and there’s no doubt the intelligentsia in “natural philosophy” (an older term for “science” prior to Bacon) and philosophy influenced their literate contemporaries in art, music, poetry, etc., but I have serious doubts how far down these ideas penetrated into a largely illiterate, rural population. A nitpick.
He isn’t cherry picking, I have no reason to doubt his intellectual honesty, and no one can say everything or answer every possible objection even in an 8-hr lecture series, so I’m along for the ride until my next mental pothole.
Final thoughts on the first lecture in a follow-up post.
2 Likes
Forgot to mention a note I made regarding Wright’s comments from between 24-26 min:
The Enlightenment as a “coming of age” project. “We’re grown up. We can stand on our own feet.”
Funny, but I think that’s the archetypal story of humanity from beginning to end. An archetype is literally an “original pattern,” so an archetypal character – such as “the woman” in Genesis 3 – represents a shared human experience, collectively and individually. Her “coming of age” is replicated in the “fall” of the first humans and every adolescent individual, male or female. The pattern didn’t begin with the Enlightenment.
The woman determined her personal moral principles vis-à-vis the command. She applied her own moral judgment, a phenomenon that begins in adolescence and continues throughout the rest of life, and weighed whether the rule was hypothetically non-binding and contrary to her own self-interest (the fruit was “good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom”). The universal nature of temptation and sin appears at the end of a process of moral maturation that all children undergo. In the end, the adolescent applies her own moral principles, considers her self-interest, and declares her independence, albeit prematurely.
1 Like
That could be an interesting (whether related or not to Wright’s stuff) bit of ground to turn up. To what extent is the ‘intelligentsia’ the dog that eventually gets to wag the tail? Maybe it takes a while, but the ideas do seem to percolate out, right? Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Maybe this is a big reason why conservatives today find the liberalized academy so disturbing. Is it a harbinger of things to come? What happens when a movement becomes ‘decapitated’ (as the dispensationalism movement did)? It’s still around - but not much in circulation with the commerce of ideas now. If a populist movement disavows itself from any establishment-respected leadership, what happens to that populist movement over time? I imagine that’s quite the lively question to have answered right now.
1 Like
Wrapping up the first lecture …
Epicureanism and Progress 34:11
I’m well aware of the myth of progress and its ties to postmillennialism and scientism, all blown to bits by the “War to End All Wars.” Besides football, I also did a deep dive on Epicurus in the interim. An interesting cat, but he falls into a big category of ancient Greek philosophers who asked questions like “How to live a happy life?” (Epicureans, Stoics, Hedonists) or “How to live a good life?” (Plato, Aristotle). Everyone eventually asks those questions of themselves, unless they’re too busy asking “How to survive until tomorrow?”
Anyway, I can see why Wright focused on Epicurus – a lot of his answers foreshadow modern thinking. He focused on the fear of death and punishment by the gods in the afterlife as the source of anxiety and irrational fears. Sounds a bit like Freud, and I suspect a lot of Christians who’ve moved away from fundamentalism and “eternal conscious torment” in hell can relate to Epicurus on that score. The fact he rejected Greek polytheism and Plato’s idealistic “forms” shouldn’t be held against him. I probably would’ve agreed had I been born in that time and place. (For the curious, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Epicurus is a great summary.)
Overall, Wright seems overly focused on “randomness” and atoms. Epicurus talked about these things, but he had something entirely different in mind by those concepts than we do. I still have more to go, but this strikes me as a backhanded critique of evolution using concepts recycled from the intelligent design movement. It’s similar to my earlier critique of Wright’s language about “removing” God from science via the post-Baconian scientific method. Again, reminiscent of ID. Does anyone know whether Wright has published anything on the subject of intelligent design?
Finished. We’ve already discussed the concepts in the rest of the lecture, such as “progress” in culture, morality, and human rights. I have nothing more to add on my end. The “divider” idea sounds fine, though I still vote for starting a new thread for lecture #2. I seem outvoted on that score so far.
3 Likes
We would have to take this over to the big side discussion to be thorough. It’s still around; it’s very much alive. Look for names you know from the hayday. See what they’re doing now. You already know.
3 Likes
Pre-trib rapture is almost synonymous with YECism and that hasn’t gone away! They might not use the ‘dispensationalist’ label or know what it means necessarily…
2 Likes
Yes, the ideas percolating on top tend to filter down. But the folks on bottom before the invention of mass media received their news via rumor and the local priest/pastor or trader passing through. The rural/urban divide existed long before the late 20th century, but until recently it tilted far more rural than urban.
I forgot to mention my biggest issue with this first lecture. Does God intervene in history – whether human history or our personal histories? The question draws a line in the sand between Deism and Christianity. The problem arrives when people try to interpret individual events. Skeptics interpreted the Lisbon earthquake during Sunday Mass as evidence of God’s absence; fundamentalists interpreted Hurricane Katrina as God’s judgment on godless New Orleans. Some people see God’s hand in every minute detail; others pray for deliverance and receive no answer. I’ll wait to see where Wright comes down, but my own experience is most often silence with an occasional course correction.
Addendum: Forgot to mention the liberalized academy. Seriously, for every Harvard there are dozens of Wichita States, Emporia States, Fort Hays States, Eastern New Mexico Universities, New Mexico Highlands Universities, and on and on. It’s a drummed up fear of nothing, like Christian persecution in the US.
2 Likes