Talk:Natural theology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Eastern Orthodox

Orthodox Christianity rejects Natural theology. Can someone add this in the article? Also contrast it to scholastic theology. --Kupirijo 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natural Theology vs. Deism

I see a lot of similarities between these two philosophies/theologies. I understand Deism is a type of natural theology, but I was wondering what the differences are and what other types of natural theology there is besides Deism. Thanks!!! Byronarnold 22:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Natural Theology was pretty clearly used in both Deism and Theism, since it's beyond my expertise you'll have to look at these articles to work out the difference. However, William Paley was clearly a theist and his Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature followed on from his Evidences of Christianity and was similarly influential on the Church of England which was the church the authors of the Bridgewater Treatises such as William Whewell. However ideas such as Whewell's "But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this-we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws." which Charles Darwin cited at the start of The Origin of Species may be more deistic. Good luck with the quest, .. dave souza, talk 08:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
As of right now, I consider myself Deist. But I want to learn as much as I can about "Natural Theology". Maybe I fit more under it than I do Deism. Who knows? Well, I'm going to google the term, see what all I can find! Thanks for your reply!!! Byronarnold 01:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resemblance to Intelligent Design

I can't help but notice that Natural Theology bears a striking resemblance to Intelligent Design. So striking is the resemblance, that I'm tempted to say that Intelligent Design is Natural Theology repackaged for the modern age. Should this article be expanded into that area or would that cause a redundancy? Wolf ODonnell 14:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A brief mention is appropriate, but detail belongs in the intelligent design articles – as you've probably noted, Behe explicitly refers back to William Paley as a predecessor of ID, though of course they tend to claim that ID's not religion. . . dave souza, talk 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
ID can be either or both of two things: (1) an argument that naturalism is insufficient to explain evolution; (2) a P.R. campaign to make Creationism palatable to educators. If it's also a form of natural theology then it's three things and that would make my head spin. --Uncle Ed 17:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barth and Brunner

This article should at some point discuss the debate between Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. 70.131.128.247 04:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
In my opinion the sentence you deleted actually provides useful clarification and links that are inappropriate in the title phrase to the article, so I've reinstated it. Mr Hippo does seem to be an early exponent of the idea, suitable references for this and other points will welcome. .. dave souza, talk 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential source

The introductory chapter (p9-54) of Adaptation: Natural Selection in Evolution, Michael R. Rose, George V. Lauder (available through Google books), contains considerable information on the movement of Natural Theology from a basis in astronomy ('Astrotheology') to a basis in biology ('Physicotheology'). Might prove useful in fleshing this article out. HrafnTalkStalk 09:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead problem

I noticed an editor recently alter the lead without any discussion here. Of course the alteration miraculously benefits a content dispute this editor is having at Astrotheology. The basic definitions I've seen for natural theology seem to more or less follow this one: "'Natural Theology' is the favorite term in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries designating the knowledge of God drawn from nature in distinction from the knowledge of God contained in revelation." I'm not sure that this is specific to "God's purpose" as the new edit claims. Also the edit in question claims that natural theology is theology "on nature" as opposed to a theology "from nature" or "based upon the observation of nature". Isn't that entirely reversed? Can someone with expertise here please have a look at this. I reverted it and asked the editor to bring the change to the talk page first. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Gifford basically establish Natural Theology to prove the existence of God, and he wanted it to be a natural science. It evolved and embraced many theologies over time. The quote I put there was based on Paley's Natural Theology, and the quote is taken almost exactly as it exists in Modern Predicament. I realize there was a better way to states it, but I wanted to make sure I would not be accused of exactly what you accused me about. WP:AGF, and using "editor" to hide it doesn't help. Since you restored the text, it is now up to you to WP:PROVEIT. — Dzonatas 22:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I noted a suspicious circumstance I did not accuse you of bad faith. By what authority do we alter the lead of an entry on a very broad ranging historical concept to fit the strict definition of one of many possible primary sources? I will advise you once again to please familiarize yourself with our sourcing conventions. WP:V and WP:RS are the places to start. Anyway I've asked for outside opinions here at three Wikiprojects: Religion, Philosophy and Christianity. RegardsPelleSmith (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"By what authority do we alter the lead of an entry on a very broad ranging historical concept to fit the strict definition of one of many possible primary sources?" There was nothing being cited in the lead, and wikipedia needs it to be verifiable. Hmmmmm, so you deleted one of the only verifiable statements in the lead section and was not ready to provide something better cited? At least, if you felt it did not reflect what the source says, then attempt to rewrite it. You've obvious taken such open rewrite position on astrotheology to suit your pov, but you don't apply the same spirit here? — Dzonatas 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'm not the one who came here and altered the entry after getting into a content dispute at astrotheology. I'm only returning it to its pre-altered state. Lets not confuse events here. I apply the same spirit here of course, and its actually that spirit I'm trying to impart on you. The issues I have on the other entry also have to do with WP:V and WP:RS. Primary sources are not encouraged, particularly not when we dealing with a primary historical source in what is a much much larger concept.PelleSmith (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Your invite attempt looks suspicious to call more attention to the AfD. — Dzonatas 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If I wanted to just mention the AfD I would have, and there would be nothing inappropriate about it. Of course I didn't do that, I asked for people with expertise here to please take a look at the disputes. These Wikiprojects are relevant to the topic at hand. Please do post this at other relevant Wikiprojects I might have missed.PelleSmith (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)