“The purpose of natural theology is to establish knowledge of god, or, at least, a readiness for the knowledge of god, common to all people” (354). Natural theology is the branch of philosophy and theology, which attempts to either prove God 's existence, define God 's attributes, or derive correct doctrine based solely on human reason and/or observations of the natural world. Amongst the four views presented in the dialogue, the views of Karl Barth are more persuasive.
In the dialogue between Barth and Tillich, Barth was more persuasive. The view of Karl Barth that God is revealed in Jesus Christ is more persuasive because that is what is written in the canonical scriptures. He says that theology is the study of god and it is not possible
…show more content…
The God is a mystery and it is the God that reveals himself through Jesus Christ. There is no other way to know about the God. For Barth revelation is objective. He says that the revelation of God was a gift that is received by humans. Moreover, revelation is a surprise and it makes the humans inquire more about the God. But Tillich says that revelation is objective and subjective with strict interdependence. This means that the God has to reveal himself and the humans have to receive the knowledge from revelation. The knowledge can be accepted or denied by the humans. Tillich uses the analogy of accepting and denying gift to explain his point about revelation. Through this example he explains that the gift of revelation can only be accepted when people have faith in god, otherwise it like throwing stones. But then Barth’s argument is more persuasive because it is the God that seeking us and not us seeking the God, so having or not having faith does not hinder the revelation. And also that if the questions of theology arise from the situation rather than the God then the God cannot reveal …show more content…
Rahner states that the God is an incomprehensible mystery. He says that the truth of theology is derived from the ontology and anthropology. He also says that the people experience the mystery of God in everyday activities and this experience forms the basis of their faith. Barth rejects this because he thinks that our understanding of the truth of theology comes from the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. This idea of Barth is more persuasive because deriving the truth of theology from ontology or anthropology would mean that our knowledge of theology comes from human experience and not from the God himself. We cannot know about the God unless the God reveals it to us through Holy Spirit. Rahner also states that grace is a “constituent part” of our existence. But then Barth correctly states that if we have grace then why do we have to look beyond ourselves to Christ to know about sin and salvation. Barth is also more persuasive about the rejection of the idea of “anonymous Christianity”. He says that in order to be Christian, in has to believe in Jesus
“Theology is not superior to the gospel. It exists to aid the preaching of salvation. Its business is to make the essential facts and principles of Christianity so simple and clear…that all who preach or teach the gospel…can draw on its stores and deliver a complete and unclouded Christian message. When the progress of humanity creates new tasks…or new problems…theology must connect these old fundamentals of our faith and make them Christian tasks and problems.” (WR 6)
Peterson, Michael - Hasker, Reichenbach and Basinger. Philosophy of Religion - Selected Readings, Fourth Edition. 2010. Oxford University Press, NY.
Before I start the paper there are a few points that must be established. First is a clear definition of Philosophy of Religion, which is the area of philosophy that applies philosophical methods to study a wide variety of religious issues including the existence of God. The use of the philosophical method makes Philosophy of Religion distinct from theology, which is the study of God and any type of issues that relate to the divine. Now there are two types of theology, Revealed and Natural Theology. Revealed Theology claims that our knowledge of God comes through special revelations such as the Bible, the Holy Spirit, and the Koran. Saint Thomas Aquinas indicates that Revealed Theology provides what he calls “Saving Knowledge”, which is knowledge that will result in our salvation. Now Natural Theology is our knowledge of God that one ascertains through natural reasoning, or reasoning that is unaided by special revelations. Saint Thomas noted that this type of reasoning can provide knowledge of God’s nature, or even prove his existence, but can never result in the person attaining salvation for as he states, even demons know that God exists. A note must be made before we press on; as one might notice Natural Theology is akin to philosophy of religion in the sense that both use human reasoning in their attempts to explain the divine. The main difference between them of course is the range of the topics considered.
Barth’s opening thesis is a view that everything that can be known with confidence about God or divine things is known only or primarily by faith, as opposed to a coherent or cognitive. In addition, existential, in the sense that Barth affirms that scripture has an objective significance, even before considering it through faith and reason. According to Barth, “This circumstance is the simple fact that in the congregation of Jesus Christ, the Bible has specific authority and significance” (p. 56) and without the congregation it becomes only historical. It becomes important to uphold and defend the Bible’s authority and the power does not come from any simple measure employed by us individually. It is up to the congregation to openly confess the analytical propositions without fear and become actively engaged in the faith and obedience of which it asks (p. 56).
In today’s society, there are two topics of conversation that most people shy away from discussing in order to avoid the endless debates and pointless agreements these topics can evoke with a mere mention of them; debates which educate no one on a different point of view but only cause people to fight with relentless passion to defend their own view. These two hot button topics are religion and politics. Even though the touchy nature of these topics is widely known, Thomas Mardik decided to disregard this notion and discuss his religious beliefs in the semi public manner by making them the topic of his “This I Believe” essay. The main belief he discussed was a basic one and is fairly common; millions of others all over the world hold this same belief to be true. This belief is the belief in God. The purpose of his paper was to inform his audience of his belief and to explain aspects of his belief, events that have strengthened his belief, and ways his belief is part of his life. Thomas’s essay is a semi success mostly due the ways he tries to appeal to his audience in the three different areas. These three areas of appeal are logos, ethos, and pathos. Today I will be analysis how Thomas used logos ethos and pathos in his essay.
In I.17.1 of John Calvin’s work, Calvin argues that people do not need to worry about anything they do not understand because God takes care of everything. It is important to understand that this is not the beginning of Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion, because his points in chapter sixteen set the basis for his argument in this next section. Chapter sixteen on providence gives the foundation of
The foundation of a Christian worldview is the belief in a personal God, creator and ruler of the universe. The Christian worldview views the world through God’s word, providing the framework for humanity to live by giving meaning and purpose to life. It defines who Jesus is, human nature, and how salvation is achieved. In essence it is the basis of which Christians behave, interact, interpret life and comprehend reality. A Christian worldview imparts confidence, answers to life’s problems, and hope for the future. In this paper I will discuss the essentials of a Christian worldview and an analysis of the influences, benefits, and difficulties sustaining the Christian faith.
Hick, John. Disputed Questions in Theology and the Philosophy of Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. Print.
St. Augustine is a man with a rational mind. As a philosopher, scholar, and teacher of rhetoric, he is trained in and practices the art of logical thought and coherent reasoning. The pursuits of his life guide him to seek concrete answers to specific questions. Religion, the practice of which relies primarily on faith—occasionally blind faith—presents itself as unable to be penetrated by any sort of scientific study or inquiry. Yet, like a true scientist and philosopher, one of the first questions St. Augustine poses in his Confessions is: “What, then, is the God I worship” (23)? For a long time, Augustine searches for knowledge about God as a physical body, a particular entity—almost as if the Lord were merely a human being, given the divine right to become the active figurehead of the Christian religion.
Paley, William. “Natural Theology,” in Introduction to Philosophy. 6th edition. Perry, Bratman, and Fischer. Oxford University Press. 2013, pp. 47-51.
W. Andrew Hoffecker. Building a Christian World View, vol. 1: God, man, and Knowledge. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, New Jersey : 1986. William S. Babcock. The Ethics of St. Augustine: JRE Studies in Religion, no. 3.
In conclusion, Lessing’s Nathan the Wise argues in favour of a religion in which the focus is redirected on human beings. His conception of a universal religion of reason refers to a praising of human reason without ignoring existing religious beliefs. However, it appears that these two conceptions of religion cannot coexist. Moreover, Lessing’s conception of a universal religion of reason seems to fail to understand the nature of religion, which is to apprehend the causes of one’s existence.
Aquinas goes on to answer that challenge that, if philosophy based on Christianity is a science, it is a lesser science because it is less certain of its conclusions, having accepted them on faith. Aquinas responds to this argument in two parts. First, he argues that God’s revelation is more certain then what seems self-evident to humans because God, unlike humans, is omniscient. The only reason it seems less certain is because fully comprehending God’s level of certainty is beyond human abilities.
Westphal, M. (2009). Whose Community? Which Interpretation?: Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church. Baker Academic. 107
Coyne describes that religion has three qualities: theism, moral system, and supernatural agent. With the claim of theism, he explains that God is always in contact with the world. With this notion, he understands that religion has one God in which watches everything that his followers perform in and proceeds to reward or punish their behavior. The second characteristic is the institution of a moral system. Considering this, Coyne depicts that based on the reward and punishment system based on behavior, religion is to believe that there are certain actions in which God considers to be right or wrong. This is a major component of most religious practices. The third feature is the interpersonal relationship with God. By making wrong decisions, we are spared from our wrongdoing by having an association with God. With these three components, Coyne defines religion. Now with this information, he dissects religion and tries to determine if religion looks for truth, similar to the field of science. In his findings he has concluded that theologians believe that the existence of God is indeed considered factual information. When pressed on this issue for evidence, many theologians claim that God cannot be described and is