This is a wonderful review. I have recently discovered Dr. Markos’s writing in my quest for resources to help me teach my homeschool students about ancient mythologies. The natural theology he points toward has deeply enriched our learning and captivated our family. I appreciate his perspective, his winsome and witty tone, and his thorough knowledge and research. I’m looking forward to his book on classical education!
Good review. I'm an Atheist, but I find the project of Natural Theology very interesting and enjoy researching and engaging with arguments for (and against) Theism. I'm glad to see Swinburne's work was represented and might get the book just for Taliaferro's excellent chapter.
I don't see however what the issue is with Taliaferro's quoted excerpt in that if reason discerns us a picture of God that is at odds with anciet texts, then surely it is the latter that we have to discard? Otherwise, we're simply begging the question or engaging in dogmatism. I'd recommend J.L. Schellenberg's excellent work on this area, especially his recent text "What God Would Have Known".
Thanks very much for your comment. Glad to hear you enjoy thinking through arguments in natural theology. Louis Markos asked me to post his answer to your question, which I'll do below.
All the best,
Chris
---
Thanks for your response and for your thoughtful question, one that calls for a more general and a more particular response. The more general response has to do with the difficult balancing of reason and revelation. When discussing God’s nature there are some characteristics that we can infer from general revelation and natural theology, while there are others that call for God’s self-revelation to man. The Enlightenment taught us that reason must always trump revelation, if indeed revelation is even possible, but that has not been proved. Let us not forget that our reason is itself a gift of God’s revelation, one that is not shared by any other physical being on our earth. Through reason we can rise above the limits of nature in a way that animals cannot. And yet, even as we have exceeded the limits of animals, there are limits placed on us that prevent us from inferring by reason alone the full nature and character of God. The Bible claims to be more than an ancient text, like the Iliad or Republic. It claims to contain divine (special) revelation about God’s nature and will and his divine interactions in human history.
The more particular response has to do with the specific focus of Taliaferro’s quote. Human reason has not “taught” us that homosexuality is suddenly alright and natural. That “insight” marks a political and cultural shift born out of the sexual revolution that would have been considered absurd by ancient Greeks and Romans who turned a blind eye to homosexuality but did not believe that it was just as healthy and good as heterosexual relations. Furthermore, the link between God’s maximal excellence and our modern, anything goes sexual ethic is tenuous indeed. Given that the homosexual lifestyle leads to extremely high rates of depression, substance abuse, and suicide (even in countries like the Netherlands where it has been socially accepted for several decades), a maximally excellent God would want to spare his creatures such negative consequences. I agree with Taliaferro that God is maximally excellent, but, to borrow a line from The Princess Bride, I don’t think that phrase means what he thinks it means.
This is a wonderful review. I have recently discovered Dr. Markos’s writing in my quest for resources to help me teach my homeschool students about ancient mythologies. The natural theology he points toward has deeply enriched our learning and captivated our family. I appreciate his perspective, his winsome and witty tone, and his thorough knowledge and research. I’m looking forward to his book on classical education!
Good review. I'm an Atheist, but I find the project of Natural Theology very interesting and enjoy researching and engaging with arguments for (and against) Theism. I'm glad to see Swinburne's work was represented and might get the book just for Taliaferro's excellent chapter.
I don't see however what the issue is with Taliaferro's quoted excerpt in that if reason discerns us a picture of God that is at odds with anciet texts, then surely it is the latter that we have to discard? Otherwise, we're simply begging the question or engaging in dogmatism. I'd recommend J.L. Schellenberg's excellent work on this area, especially his recent text "What God Would Have Known".
Hi Desert Naturalist,
Thanks very much for your comment. Glad to hear you enjoy thinking through arguments in natural theology. Louis Markos asked me to post his answer to your question, which I'll do below.
All the best,
Chris
---
Thanks for your response and for your thoughtful question, one that calls for a more general and a more particular response. The more general response has to do with the difficult balancing of reason and revelation. When discussing God’s nature there are some characteristics that we can infer from general revelation and natural theology, while there are others that call for God’s self-revelation to man. The Enlightenment taught us that reason must always trump revelation, if indeed revelation is even possible, but that has not been proved. Let us not forget that our reason is itself a gift of God’s revelation, one that is not shared by any other physical being on our earth. Through reason we can rise above the limits of nature in a way that animals cannot. And yet, even as we have exceeded the limits of animals, there are limits placed on us that prevent us from inferring by reason alone the full nature and character of God. The Bible claims to be more than an ancient text, like the Iliad or Republic. It claims to contain divine (special) revelation about God’s nature and will and his divine interactions in human history.
The more particular response has to do with the specific focus of Taliaferro’s quote. Human reason has not “taught” us that homosexuality is suddenly alright and natural. That “insight” marks a political and cultural shift born out of the sexual revolution that would have been considered absurd by ancient Greeks and Romans who turned a blind eye to homosexuality but did not believe that it was just as healthy and good as heterosexual relations. Furthermore, the link between God’s maximal excellence and our modern, anything goes sexual ethic is tenuous indeed. Given that the homosexual lifestyle leads to extremely high rates of depression, substance abuse, and suicide (even in countries like the Netherlands where it has been socially accepted for several decades), a maximally excellent God would want to spare his creatures such negative consequences. I agree with Taliaferro that God is maximally excellent, but, to borrow a line from The Princess Bride, I don’t think that phrase means what he thinks it means.