I would like to see more engagement with natural theology within Orthodoxy. But I don't want it to become a central focus like it has in Roman and Protestant thought. Much of Western theology is hyper-rationalistic and uncomfortable with mystery. I'm fairly new to Orthodoxy, but speaking as a Christian philosopher who is himself prone to hyper-rationalism (an occupational hazard!), I value the experiential focus of Orthodoxy ("taste and see that the Lord is good") as a necessary corrective to my own rationalistic tendencies.
I'd like to see solid natural theology become accessible in the east. Many secular people (Especially youth) are told that believing in a transcendent being is like believing in Santa Claus, so seeing the rigorous intellectual backing for this supreme beings existence leads to one genuinely seeking where God might have revealed himself.
Original Comment: I'll be honest, I hope that Natural theology doesn't infect the Eastern Orthodox way of doing Christianity. Mystery and apophatic theology I think is more true to the phenomenal experience of God, William Lane Craig endlessly debating the A-theory of time and Kalam with random atheists and people watching and de-converting en-masse is the staple of American Natural Theology... Edit: My main issue I think is with the tendency of natural theology to turn into pop-apologetics which I think is very harmful
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese WLC himself calls Alexander Pruss and Josh Rasmussen two of the greatest Christian philosophers alive today, check those two out. (Rasmussen's channel is called 'worldview design')
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Only if you specifically define "Christian" as someone who's part of the Orthodox Church. Most people define 'Christian' as someone who (1) believes in a supreme triune God, (2) believes that Christ is God incarnate, (3) believes that Christ rose bodily from the dead. Even prominent Orthodox figures like Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick and Fr. Stephen de Young grant that non-Orthodox denominations are Christians.
theistic evolution makes the fall and Genesis in general mythical and non-historical at best. however, the rest of the Bible, including the words of Jesus, assumes Adam and Eve and the fall as historical. allegorizing Genesis and the proposition that death is natural were eventually condemned in several ecumenical councils as part of the condemnations of Origen's heresies. i recommend Genesis, Creation, and Early Man by Fr. Seraphim Rose on this topic.
Was there any contrast of this form of apologetic or argument with others, or how the orthodox version is different than the western? Seems like something that would have been mentioned by the time I got to.
6:58 This is not correct. There was 1 argument that Kant supported: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Only_Possible_Argument_in_Support_of_a_Demonstration_of_the_Existence_of_God 20:38 bookmark
Muslim theology is the most advanced that Jews like Musa Ibn Maimoon incorporated the Muslims writing like Imam Ghazali in Jewish theology Even Decart had to submit to the logical arguments of Imam Ghazali and Imam Razi That an Algerian historian found notes written on Imam Ghazali's book by Decart himself "this has to be transferred to our theology " 😎
These arguments are not biblical. The reason why Christians find these arguments from natural theology compelling is because they are regenerated and have been given eyes to properly interpret the creation through the Special Revelation of Scripture. Isn’t it ironic that the passages proponents of NT always cite like Psalm 19 and Acts 17 for example, are found in Scripture, but they are not arguments from natural theology? These passages presuppose the existence of the biblical God. I don’t think suspicion arises just because Roman Catholics use NT but because Romans 1:21 teaches that everybody already know that true and living God, not a generic “god” who is the “prime mover.” also Swinburne admits that these arguments lead one to a high level of probability… Seriously, is the mere probability of God’s existence truly biblical?
