Abstract
Van den Brink confesses to being increasingly dissatisfied with the idea that theology can accept "natural explanations" for religion because they seem to make "theological explanations" superfluous. The author shares van den Brink's assessment that a facile "God works through natural processes" approach seems to be unsatisfactory, but for entirely different reasons. Van den Brink and the author approach the question from entirely different perspectives and offer entirely different apologies, but they seem to agree that theologians do themselves a disservice by seeking to explain religion through “natural explanations.” Yet, assuming that the author has understood van den Brink correctly, there is more to the agreement, as he appears to offer something that might be interpreted as conforming to NOMA. To borrow the language of Sergei Bulgakov once again: God creates; God does not cause anything.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
