En el ápice de nuestro conocimiento conocemos a Dios como lo desconocido

Most streams of Christianity have emphasized the unknowability of God, but they have also asserted that Christ is the criterion through whom we may have limited access to the depths of God, and through whose life and death we can formulate the doctrine of God as Triune. This standpoint, however, leads to certain complications regarding ‘translating’ the Christian message to adherents of other religious traditions, and in particular the question, ‘Why do you accept Christ as the criterion?’, is one that Christian thinkers have attempted to answer in different ways. There are two influential responses to this query in recent Christian thought: an ‘evidentialist’ approach which gradually moves from a theistic metaphysics to a Christ‐centred soteriology, and an ‘unapologetic’ standpoint which takes God's self‐disclosure in Christ as the perspectival lens through which to view the world. The opposition between these two groups is primarily over the status of ‘natural theology’, that is, whether we may speak of a ‘natural’ reason, which human beings possess even outside the circle of the Christian revelation, and through which they may arrive at some minimalist understanding of the divine reality. I outline the status of ‘natural theology’ in these strands of contemporary Christian thought, from Barthian ‘Christomonism’ to post‐liberal theology to Reformed epistemology, and suggest certain problems within these standpoints which indicate the need for an appropriately qualified ‘natural theology’. Most of the criticisms leveled against ‘natural theology’, whether from secular philosophers or from Christian theologians themselves, can be put in two groups: first, the arguments for God's existence are logically flawed, and, second, even if they succeed they do not point to the Triune God that Christians worship. In contrast to such an old‐fashioned ‘natural theology’ which allegedly starts from premises self‐evidently true for all rational agents and leads through an inexorable logic to God, the qualified version is an attempt to spell out the doctrinal beliefs of Christianity such as the existence of a personal God who interacts with human beings in different ways, and outline the reasons offered in defence of such statements. In other words, without denying that Christian doctrines operate at one level as the grammatical rules which structure the Christian discourse, such a natural theology insists on the importance of the question of whether these utterances are true, in the sense that they refer to an objective reality which is independent of the Christian life‐world. Such a ‘natural theology’, as the discussion will emphasize, is not an optional extra but follows in fact from the internal logic of the Christian position on the universality of God's salvific reach.

Reviewed by: A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology Donald Wiebe Alister E. McGrath . A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology. Louisville, KY: WJK, 2009. Pp. xv + 262. Paper, US$29.16. ISBN 9780664233105. A number of peculiarities characterize Alister McGrath’s 2009 Gifford Lectures, titled A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology. Perhaps the most surprising oddity of the volume—especially given the title of the book and his claim that “human longing to make sense of what we observe in nature and history partly underlies both science and religion” (51)—is his claim that the quest for God in science—that is, classic natural theologies—is simply misdirected. Indeed, he simply rejects all natural theologies that assume the possibility of demonstrating the existence of God by unaided human reason on the basis of nature or the natural world without recourse to religious beliefs or assumptions (12). Such a view, he maintains, is a by-product of modernity that is assumed to be universal when in fact it is nothing more than “a situation-specific understanding ... being assumed to be normative” (14). He argues, moreover, that there is no “nature itself”—that claims about nature are simply interpretations of a reality that are always open to re-interpretation—and, therefore, that there is no standard conception of “natural theology” that leaves open the possibility of re-interpretations of the notion of “natural theology” (6). He appears to think that recognition of these “facts” indicates that natural theology as “the attempt to provide a reliable basis for belief in God” (15) is in crisis, and that this justifies either a search to retrieve older approaches to that task, or an attempt to forge new approaches to it (14). As he puts it, there is “no compelling reason to defend a modernist vision of natural theology in a postmodern culture” (14). For McGrath, then, natural theology must move beyond the simple idea of showing the necessity of god/God in making rational sense of the world. Natural theology, he believes, must transcend “the limits of merely making sense of things” (27). The second oddity in this volume is McGrath’s admission that the essential argument of the volume has already been set out in an earlier work of his titled The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology (2008) in which (a third oddity of the book) he argues that natural theology is nothing less that “the traditional quest for truth, beauty, and goodness” and that this implies that the renewal and revalidation of natural theology is “a legitimate aspect of Christian theology” (x). What the Gifford Lectures do, he says, is to expand on that argument by exploring the degree of “empirical fit” between science and Trinitarian theology (xi). He states that his objective is “to observe the phenomena of the natural world from the standpoint of the Christian tradition and then to ask whether there is a significant ‘empirical fit’ between the theoretical and empirical. Nature is not studied with any expectation that it will offer a ‘proof’ of the existence of God; rather, Christian theology is proposed as an insightful tool for making sense of what is observed within the world” (34; emphasis added). “The possible existence of god ... cannot be treated as if it were a purely speculative hypothesis” (68); it is also a matter of meaning and life. The rationality of God, he writes, is the only “thing” that can account for the “fundamental resonance between human minds—“the totality of human experience” (56)—and the structure of the universe” (77). It is not simply seeing nature from that point of Christian theology simpliciter that constitutes the new natural theology but rather that nature must be “viewed, interpreted, and appreciated with Trinitarian spectacles” (95). What McGrath sees as of particular significance for the new “Christian, Trinitarian, natural theology” is the increase in our scientific knowledge about the universe over the past few centuries and particularly the fine-tuning of the cosmos (x–xi). He does not set out to argue that the fine-tuning is a “proof” for the existence...

History and Eschatology: Jesus and the Promise of Natural Theology

Ramified Natural Theology in Science and Religion: Moving Forward from Natural Theology

Arguments in natural theology have recently increased in their number and level of sophistication. However, there has not been much analysis of the ways in which these arguments should be evaluated as good, taken collectively or individually. After providing an overview of some proposed goals and good-making criteria for arguments in natural theology, we provide an analysis that stands as a corrective to some of the illformed standards that are currently in circulation. Specifically, our analysis focuses on the relation between the veracity of the premises and their relation to the conclusion of an argument. In addition to providing a clearer account of what makes an argument good, an upshot of our account is that there remain positive contributions for “weak” arguments, especially within cumulative case arguments in ramified natural theology. The recent resurgence of natural theology has produced a wealth of arguments, deductive and inductive, for the existence of God. 1 The level of logical rigor in the development and analysis of these arguments has probably never been higher. But there has been relatively little attention paid to the question of what makes a deductive argument good, and the application of probabilistic analyses to ramified natural theology—the extension of the project of natural theology, which starts with public data, into the realm of historical argumentation to produce a case for the detailed claims of a particular religion—is still a relatively unexplored area. 2 In this paper, we explore some existing criteria of goodness for deductive arguments and develop some tools that permit a broader evaluation of the uses of argument in natural theology and elsewhere. In particular, we pay close attention to the question of the relation between the credibility of the premises of a deductively valid argument and the credibility of its conclusion and show that some claims made about the circumstances under which one ought to accept the conclusion of such an argument have been inaccurately formulated. We go on to suggest, however, that there are more uses for what one might term “weak” arguments than are generally appreciated, particularly in the context of a cumulative case argument for the existence of God. Finally, we show how a probabilistic model enables us to appreciate the contribution that each distinct line of evidence makes to such an argument. Some Goals of Theistic Arguments What should a good theistic argument do? This apparently simple question has elicited surprisingly diverse answers, and it is worth trying to clarify the question before we embark on any detailed analyses. 1 See Craig and Moreland, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2009); Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2d. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). Rodney Holder, God, the Multiverse and Everything (Burlington, VA: Ashgate, 2004). 2 See Richard Swinburne, “Natural Theology, Its ‘Dwindling Probabilities’ and ‘Lack of Rapport,’” Faith and Philosophy 21 (2004), pp. 533-35.

The phrase ‘a theology of nature’ is an abbreviation for ‘a theological account of natural happenings’—happenings which are properly investigated in the first instance by appropriate ‘natural sciences’. A Christian theology of nature seeks to provide a systematic appreciation of the physical universe, its items and occurrences, from a Christian theological point of view. If it is to rank as a serious contribution to human wisdom, it must be a disciplined effort to understand in appropriate terms the object of interest. One version of the discipline would be to produce an extension of the natural sciences, to cover topics—God, freedom, immortality—which fall outside their scope by a ‘metaphysical’ science which links these topics to the subject-matter of natural sciences in a theoretical account of ‘being as such’. This would have the effect of reintroducing ‘Natural Theology’, reshaped and revitalised, into the fabric of Christian systematic theology. This project is not being advocated in this article. It is mentioned solely in order to distinguish the present topic, a ‘theology of nature’, from what is traditionally known as ‘natural theology’. The purpose of this article is to explore afresh the structure of Christian intellectual response to the wonder of the world, as it is now being analysed by science, with particular attention to the ‘evolutionary’ aspect of things, appreciation of which has radically affected modern sensibility.

As the father of the Protestant Church reformer, Luther has made limitations on natural theology. He has criticized natural theology, even at first he rejected natural theology. However, today we see that natural theology has been constructed by several Protestant Christian theologians, among others: Gifford, Swinburne and Alister MacGrath. The problem is whether natural theology is in accordance with the doctrine or teachings of the Protestant Christian Church? The author's purpose is to find out whether the teachings of natural theology are in accordance with the doctrine of the Protestant Church and how they are applied in the life of the congregation? The research method was carried out with a literature study with the following stages: (i) First, observing and analyzing Luther's criticism of natural theology. (ii) Second, observing the limits of natural theology constructed by Gifford, Swinburne and Alister. (iii) Third, the author analyzes each of their definitions of natural theology. This analysis and evaluation is based on Luther's critique of natural theology. For Gifford's natural theology, knowledge of God is limited to a priori knowledge only, because knowledge is obtained from nature and the human mind not from God's revelation, whereas for Swimburne and McGrath, knowledge from nature stems from faith in Christ Jesus so that a priori knowledge of God can be known. For Swimburne, rational knowledge of nature can support faith in God, while McGrath does not require rationality in believing in God. In this case it is different from Luther, because according to him, the emergence of absolute faith is only by special revelation from God and nothing else, nor as a companion, so as not to become an idol.

This chapter deals with a reading of Gregory's apophaticism which is particularly focused on his philosophy of language. In his interpretation, Scot Douglass builds on the work of patristic scholars such as Mariette Can évet, Ekkehard Mühlenberg, and Alden Mosshammer; he brings to his analysis, however, a profound interest in post-Heideggerian philosophy and his approach assumes that Gregory still has profound and interesting things to say about the nature and purpose of theology. The chapter first outlines Douglass's account of Gregory's philosophy language. It then indicates how Douglass makes connections between this and the rest of Gregory's theology, in particular Gregory's notions of divine presence through revelation and incarnation; the specific nature of theological discourse and the nature of the soul's encounter with that of which it cannot speak. It then comments on the connections that Douglass draws between Gregory's theology and Heidegger, Derrida, and Marion and the conclusions he subsequently draws about the nature of theology as the Cappadocians saw it.

Catholic educationalists frequently have to wrestle institutionally and personally with the dilemmas posed by competing theological positions expressed by the magisterium and professional theologians. Many are left bewildered about what to teach and communicate on important matters. This article deals with the characteristic emphases expressed by these two constituencies concerning the means and meaning of ‘liberation’, with specific reference to liberation theology. I suggest that the problems which this issue has promoted are only partly assuaged by the recent publication of the International Theological Commission, Theology Today: Perspectives, Principles and Criteria. While the document sets out some helpful criteria about the nature of contemporary Catholic theology, ambiguities and complexities remain. Nevertheless, what Catholic educationalists are left with after their involvement with this debate, is a healthy recognition of key hermeneutical issues that continue to reside at the heart of Catholicism.

This chapter examines the connection between music and natural theology, first considering two examples of efforts to incorporate music into projects that might be termed ‘natural theology’. The first is a wide-ranging and immensely ambitious theological project pioneered by David Brown, currently at the University of St Andrews. The second involves Anthony Monti's book, . The chapter then addresses the following questions: what distinguishes ‘natural theology’ from any other theology? How might music play a part in the endeavour of theology to bear witness to the nongodforsakenness of creation even under the conditions of sin?

As the father of the Protestant Church reformer, Luther has made limitations on natural theology. He has criticized natural theology, even at first he rejected natural theology. However, today we see that natural theology has been constructed by several Protestant Christian theologians, among others: Gifford, Swinburne and Alister MacGrath. The problem is whether natural theology is in accordance with the doctrine or teachings of the Protestant Christian Church? The author's purpose is to find out whether the teachings of natural theology are in accordance with the doctrine of the Protestant Church and how they are applied in the life of the congregation? The research method was carried out with a literature study with the following stages: (i) First, observing and analyzing Luther's criticism of natural theology. (ii) Second, observing the limits of natural theology constructed by Gifford, Swinburne and Alister. (iii) Third, the author analyzes each of their definitions of natural theology. This analysis and evaluation is based on Luther's critique of natural theology. For Gifford's natural theology, knowledge of God is limited to a priori knowledge only, because knowledge is obtained from nature and the human mind not from God's revelation, whereas for Swimburne and McGrath, knowledge from nature stems from faith in Christ Jesus so that a priori knowledge of God can be known. For Swimburne, rational knowledge of nature can support faith in God, while McGrath does not require rationality in believing in God. In this case it is different from Luther, because according to him, the emergence of absolute faith is only by special revelation from God and nothing else, nor as a companion, so as not to become an idol.

Natural theology is enjoying something of a resurgence at present but this article seeks to question its place in Christian philosophy and theology. Antecedent natural theology accepts that it is necessary for Christian beliefs to be rationally warranted. Romans 1:18ff. is often cited in favour of natural theology. However, examination of this text shows that Paul argues here on the basis of a prior revelation. Not only does he not endorse natural theology but what he does say implies that arguments for a God's existence are not likely to lead to the God revealed in Jesus Christ. Such arguments are in any case tainted by the noetic effects of sin. It is therefore not clear that these arguments lead to the God of Christian belief who calls us to simple discipleship. Consequent natural theology holds that Christians are under an epistemological obligation to their surrounding culture to show that they are reflectively rational. But the arguments put up for this by Michael Sudduth ignore theological arguments which should bear on Christian epistemology. Apart from God's self-revelation we find ourselves sceptics, and natural theology is unable to overcome this. Historical research has shown the damaging effects that arguing from nature has had on Christian theology. So, for both theological and historical reasons, Christians need not accept the epistemological obligations imposed on them by unbelievers which lead them to do natural theology.

This study aims to present an effort for an encounter between Christian faith and science in Alister E. McGrath’s thinking. The process of encountering both Christian faith and science is mediated by Christian natural theology. Christian natural theology is the result of rethinking conventional natural theology by McGrath. This is carried out because the meaning of conventional natural theology as an interface of Christian faith and science is not in accordance with Christian faith. The efforts to encounter Christian faith and science through conventional natural theology are something that is not possible, because conventional natural theology is denoted as pure theology centred on the rationality of scientific thought alone. In this article, we will show how Christian natural theology as a result of thinking by McGrath can be a medium for an encounter between Christian faith and science. The analysis of this article is generally based on the writings of McGrath, which are only partially reconciled with the views of several other theologies. Data collection was carried out through a literature study and described descriptively. The result of the research is a description of the encounter between Christian faith and science mediated by Christian natural theology. McGrath established Christian natural theology on observations in critical reality, Christian history and the word of God (Gn 1 and 2), allowing the human intellect to have a strong relationship with the order and beauty of nature that God created. This is the reason why the encounter between Christian faith and science based on McGrath’s concept of thought is more likely to reveal the truth in the reality of the Christian faith’s life.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This study recommends that efforts be made to identify faith, science and natural theology in the work of Alister E. McGrath. This article has contributed to highlighting natural theology, which is still under long discussion, especially in the context of the Christian faith and the ambiguity of nature, which is also important in various disciplines, including theology, natural science and science.

The name ‘ontology’ is a word coined by modern philosophers. For many years, philosophers used the name ‘metaphysics’ instead of ‘ontology.’ But the name ‘metaphysics’ did not have a clear definition, and the metaphysical discussion in Aristotle’s book ‘metaphysics’ was not clear. The philosophers of medieval Islam attempted to solve this problem. Avicenna, a medieval Muslim philosopher, argued that ‘being qua being’ or ‘being in general (ens commune)’ is a proper object of metaphysics. For him, ‘metaphysics’ is ‘ontology.’ Medieval Muslim philosophers such as Averroes rejected this view of Avicenna. Averroes saw ‘metaphysics’ as ‘natural theology.’ Is the object of metaphysics ‘being in common’ or ‘God’? Is ‘metaphysics’ ‘ontology’ or ‘natural theology’? The medieval European philosopher Albertus Magnus tried to solve this problem on the side of Avicenna. He thought God cannot be a proper object of metaphysics made of human reason, because God is only the object of faith and can not be the object of rational thought. After the long hardships of medieval philosophers, modern philosophers no longer wondered whether metaphysics was an ontology or a natural theology. Modern philosophers did not think metaphysics was one of these two branches; they thought it was a study that included both. To this end, they began to call metaphysics, which studies ‘being qua being’ or ‘being in general’, ‘Generalis Metaphysica’, and created a new name for metaphysics, ‘ontology’. And metaphysics, which studies existences such as ‘God’, began to be called ‘Specialis Metaphysica’. The result of this modern philosophy is the result of the difficult journey of medieval metaphysics. This paper does not simply see medieval metaphysics history as a conflict between ‘ontology’ and ‘natural theology’, but rather it tries to show that the conflict is a journey toward modern metaphysics. Medieval philosophers had already done academic acts on ‘being in general’; there was simply no proper name for them. But modern philosophers have made that proper name, and the name metaphysics has become more clear. And this paper also shows that medieval Muslim philosophers play a major role in all these journeys.

1. Natural theology in this century: Concepts and approaches 2. Paul on the Areopagus 3. St Paul and the Hebrew background 4. Natural theology in the Jewish tradition 5. Within the Old Testament 6. A return to the modern discussion 7. Religion, tradition, and natural theology 8. The image of God and natural theology 9. Science, language 10. Scripture 11. Natural theology and the future of biblical theology