> A few weeks ago we were studying Romans 1 and 2 and concluded that atheism is
> not a intellectual decision but a moral one because of the non-excusability
> principle in Romans.
1) Paul's concern is not "atheism", which in the strict sense
was pretty rare in his context. He says that the root Sin is
worshipping the creature rather than the creator. & worshipping God's
creatures, or even products of our own imagination, often is precisely
the result of design arguments & the like. That is why the natural
theology route is, at best, very risky if it does not begin from God's
historical revelation. More on this below.
2) If (which I'm not sure is entirely true) atheism is a moral,
rather than an intellectual problem, then intellectual arguments by
themselves will not solve it.
> > May it be that some things can be learned about God simply by observation
> > of the world? If I may make use of the Watchmaker analogy, once I
> > aknowledge that a maker exists I may infer simply by looking at the watch
> > that the maker has a certain knowledge of mechanics, an interest in
> > time-keeping, etc.. But there would be many other things which could not
> > be inferred. To know them I would have to meet the Watchmaker and he would
> > have to reveal them to me.
This is a traditional & popular approach - we can know some
things about God from nature but can only know about Trinity,
Incarnation, atonement &c from revelation. History has shown that it is
all too easy for what we think we can learn from reason to take
precedence over revelation. Since we can supposedly infer the _unity_
of God from reason but not the Trinity, the Trinity then becomes a
theological problem or is relegated to the status of a pious formula.
Since we can conclude philosophically that God can't suffer & die, the
cross becomes a problem which we try to talk our way around rather than
the fundamental revelation of who God is.
> > What is debated is whether the existence of the Watchmaker can properly be
> > inferred from simple observation of the watch.
........................
> > But on what basis can they be held accountable for their rejection of one
> > who had not been revealed to them? Despite that they have not been the
> > recipients of that revelation which came through the Jewish people, they
> > are held accountable in view of what has been plainly visible to all people
> > in all places.
But of course for Paul & 1st century Judaism God's
self-revelation does not begin with Abraham. It goes back through the
covenant with Noah to the beginnings of the human race.
> > Whilst the text does not starkly insist that God's existence is properly
> > inferrable from the world around, it does say that certain qualities are
> > discernible. And it would need explaining how qualities could be inferred
> > to a being whose existence cannot be.
Again, it does not say that people's sin consisted in denying
the existence of any deity, but in misrepresenting the deity &
worshipping the creature instead of the creator. & if sinners attempt
to deduce something about a deity without beginning from revelation,
they are simply replaying Paul's scenario.
> > This is not independent natural theology because it asserts that a
> > sufficient knowledge of God can only come through special revelation, but
> > it accords some true and decisive content to general revelation
> > nonetheless.
It is independent natural theology in the sense in which I (&
Torrance e.g.) use the term - a theology (albeit incomplete) which is
independent of historical revelation. With Aquinas, Lutheran Orthodoxy
&c the _incompleteness_ of any such natural theology was recognized. It
was the Enlightenment which moved to the idea that an independent
natural theology was complete & sufficient - e.g., Lessing. & that is a
danger which always lurks in the natural theology program.
George Murphy