Symposium on Ramified Natural Theology: Introduction
Menuge (Angus) & Taliaferro (Charles)
Source: Philosophia Christi, Volume 15, Number 2, 2013
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsColour-ConventionsDisclaimer


Extracts1


Contents
  1. The Probability of the Resurrection of Jesus (Richard Swinburne) – 239
    • Swinburne’s initial essay summarizes several of his book length studies and serves as a paradigm case of ramified natural theology. Using a Bayesian formulation, Swinburne shows that there is one and only one individual — Jesus of Nazareth — who plausibly satisfies both the prior and the posterior requirements to be God incarnate, and that since the evidence for this is so strong, God would have to be a grand deceiver (or one who permits some lesser agent, such as the devil, to perpetrate grand deception) if some other past or future figure were the messiah, but this is incompatible with God’s perfect moral character.
  2. Swinburne on the Resurrection: Negative versus Christian Ramified Natural Theology (Robert Greg Cavin and Carlos A. Colombetti) – 253
    • The authors claim that Swinburne’s last claim does not satisfy the demand for total evidence, because it overlooks the evidence for intentional human deception by false prophets (and self-deception) on a massive scale. Given their disagreements about which revelation is authentic, it is arguable that either Christians or non-Christians must have been deceived in some sense. Cavin and Colombetti conclude, contra Swinburne, that it is not improbable that the evidence for the Incarnation and Resurrection is mistaken or misleading.
  3. Does God Permit Massive Deception? (Richard Swinburne) – 265
    • In his response, Swinburne provides a close study of different kinds of deception, and argues that Cavin and Colombetti conflate God’s unjustifiable permission of deliberate deception with His allowing people to hold false beliefs or to be deceived in justifiable ways. He claims that the examples provided by Cavin and Colombetti fall into the latter category, and that this is compatible with God’s moral perfection. This exchange is likely only the beginning of an important dialogue on the evidential impact of “negative natural theology” on the project of ramified natural theology.
  4. Why We Need Ramified Natural Theology (Rodney Holder) – 271
    • While this project is vitally important to Christian philosophers and apologists, is it something theologians proper should take seriously? Rodney Holder provides several reasons for an affirmative answer. The first is premised on the fact of religious pluralism: the many competing religions all provide internal criteria for the correctness of their beliefs, but these do not give the outsider an independent means of deciding which revelation is most likely true. Drawing on the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Brian Hebblethwaite, and others, Holder argues that theologians need ramified natural theology to overcome this impasse. They also need it to avoid circular presuppositionalism and to show that Christians have a faith founded on historical fact. As Holder concludes, “the traditional division between natural theology and revealed theology breaks down as soon as we ask why we should believe in a putative revelation and how we can commend our own perceived revelation to others.”
  5. The Methodology of Ramified Natural Theology (Hugh G. Gauch, Jr.) – 283
    • Some may suspect that ramified natural theology employs an ad hoc procedure of argumentation, gerrymandered by religious apologists to show their faith in the best light. To the contrary, Hugh Gauch argues that like natural science, ramified natural theology functions with the most basic presuppositions of empirical method required to gain factual information about the world. Since these presuppositions are held in common between parties in disagreement, and since only public evidence and standard logic is permitted, ramified arguments are capable of objectively discriminating between worldviews. Sound methodology is vital because, Gauch argues, “Any success and significance that ramified natural theology may have originates in, and depends on, its methodology being clear, impartial, settled, and effective.” Gauch shows in particular that this approach is ideal for investigating the facticity of miracle claims. Reinforcing Holder’s assessment, Gauch suggests that natural and revealed theology are not competitors but partners in a fruitful synergy.
  6. Natural Theology and the Uses of Argument (Timothy McGrew and John M. DePoe) – 299
    • One of the extraordinary differences between contemporary natural theology and the natural theology of previous centuries is the former’s integration of the rigorous formalisms of deductive logic and probability theory. Timothy McGrew and John DePoe seek to show how these technical breakthroughs provide sometimes surprising insights into what does and does not count as a strong argument of natural theology. On the cautionary side, they show that common intuitions about the probability of deductive arguments are often wrong. Yet they also show that an important implication of Bayes’s theorem for ramified natural theology is that the combination of many individually weak pieces of evidence can yield a cumulative case argument of great certainty. They further point out that there are many possible goals of natural theological arguments, and that the value of the argument will often depend on the epistemic state of its audience.
  7. Probabilistic Issues Concerning Jesus of Nazareth and Messianic Death Prophecies (Lydia McGrew) – 311
    • Lydia McGrew uses a Bayesian approach to show that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. Her argument nicely illustrates the fact that even if each piece of evidence raises the probability of a hypothesis by a modest amount, their combination can yield a powerful cumulative case argument. She further argues that if we consider the remarkable fact that this Messiah is prophesied both to die and also to have a glorious future, the Resurrection is much more probable. This essay thus provides some further support for Swinburne’s conclusion that Jesus was God incarnate and was raised from the dead.
  8. Ramified Natural Theology in the Context of Interdenominational Debate (Travis Dumsday) – 329
    • Travis Dumsday argues that once we consider evidence such as visions and miracles which may favor Christianity over its rivals, it is an unavoidable possibility that some of this evidence will favor some denominations over others. Dumsday argues that ramified natural theology is, in any case, already at work in interdenominational debate, since philosophical and historical arguments are used to defend or critique confessional positions, for example, on baptism, predestination, and whether scripture can coherently be claimed as the sole source and norm of Christian doctrine. Dumsday points out that these arguments are typically not decisive as, for example, evidence may be rejected as the result of demonic delusion, yet there are limits to how far a Christian can reasonably (and charitably) pursue this dismissive strategy. In all this, he urges a posture of “cautious, critical open-mindedness.”
  9. Omnibenevolence, Moral Apologetics, and Doubly Ramified Natural Theology (David Baggett and Ronnie Campbell) – 337
    • The moral argument for God is a staple of natural theology and many have undertaken to establish the existence of a good God from the apparent facts of moral obligation. In their paper, David Baggett and Ronnie Campbell seek to extend this argument by showing how Christianity provides superior resources to account for what it means to be a good God, particularly if it has been shown that such a being must be essentially loving. This is because the Trinity does real explanatory work in showing us what it means for God to be loving in His own nature. The authors point out that not only does this approach favor Christianity over non-Christian theistic religions, it also provides a reason to prefer some denominations over others on account of their portrait of God’s character. They dub this intra-Christian inquiry “doubly ramified natural theology.” This matters not only to the Christian seeking the true church, but also has an impact on non-Christians, as they may reject the faith because some denominations offer a distorted picture of what God is like.

Comment:

See Link



In-Page Footnotes

Footnote 1: The chapter-summaries are extracted into the TOC below.


Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2019
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)



© Theo Todman, June 2007 - July 2019. Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.com. File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page