The Demise and Revival of Natural Theology
By James K. Dew Jr. and Ronnie P. Campbell Jr.
In the early seventeenth century, René Descartes initiated a major shift in Western philosophy with his quest to establish new epistemic foundations for our knowledge. In the process of his work, however, he also makes an argument for God’s existence that is often thought of as an ontological argument but might also be described as an argument from perfection. The late seventeenth-century philosopher and scientist Robert Boyle also made considerable use of natural theology. Believing that the work of science was a religious act, he suggested that the natural order offered opportunities to gain insights and understanding about the Creator. And in the following century, Joseph Butler used the moral features of our world to argue in favor of Christian theism. In the Analogy of Religion, for example, he offers an early version of the watchmaker argument that would later be popularized by Voltaire and William Paley and defends divine truths that arise from both natural and special revelation.
There are plenty of other examples of natural theology during this period, but none more important than Paley and his 1802 work Natural Theology. As others before him, Paley seeks to argue for the existence of God from the evidence of design in nature. By carefully considering the function of dozens of objects in nature, Paley concludes that nature displays numerous cases of design and contrivance. That being the case, he argues by way of analogy that these examples of contrivance require a designer. Paley’s argument from design in nature is considered to be a classical expression of the teleological argument. In the opening chapter of Natural Theology, Paley introduces his argument with an analogy:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to shew the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be enquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the several parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.
For Paley, this framing, adjusting, regulating, and shaping of parts could only be taken as evidence that the discovered watch was a product of design. He says, “The inference, we think, is inevitable; that the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.”
As you can see, natural theology has a long, rich history in the Christian tradition. It has been adopted and developed by a wide variety of philosophers and theologians. But as the next section will show, it has also had major critics and was largely rejected and abandoned for extended periods of time.
The Demise (and Revival) of Natural Theology
In addition to the new interest and development in natural theology, the Enlightenment brought significant criticisms for it as well. In a multifaceted attack, criticisms from philosophy, science, and theology eventually converged to render natural theology as obsolete and unattractive in Western thought. In fact, once these criticisms were leveled against it, natural theology was largely rejected by Christian philosophers and theologians for the next few centuries. One classic example of the philosophical criticisms of natural theology comes from David Hume’s Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. Set as a dialogue between three friends named Cleanthes, Demea, and Philo about the existence of God, and our ability to prove his existence from design features in the physical world, Hume offers several objections to the design argument: (1) who designed God objection, (2) coherent universe objection, (3) insufficient evidence objection, (4) problem of evil objection, and (5) weak analogy objection. There were plenty of other philosophical critics during this period, but Hume’s objections had the greatest, and most lasting, impact for sure.
Scientifically, Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species significantly changed the perception of natural theology in Western thought. From 1802, when Paley wrote Natural Theology, until 1859, when Darwin published On the Origin of Species, Paley’s work was read and highly regarded by theologians, scientists, and philosophers. Yet, with Darwin’s work, Paley’s design argument was rejected, and the perceived plausibility of all such arguments was greatly diminished. Specifically, Darwin’s theory of natural selection provided scientists with a plausible explanation for how wide diversity could have originated without any need for divine causation. This gave those already inclined toward theological skepticism an explanatory mechanism that they had not had until Darwin’s work. Neal Gillespie notes that it “has been generally agreed (then and since) that Darwin’s doctrine of natural selection effectively demolished William Paley’s classical design argument for the existence of God. By showing how blind and gradual adaptation could counterfeit the apparently purposeful design, … Darwin deprived their argument of the analogical inference that the evident purpose to be seen in the contrivances by which means and ends were related in nature was necessarily a function of mind.”
Theologically, no criticisms were as important as those offered by Karl Barth, who suggested that such arguments for God “obviously have no value.” And in his written debates with Emil Brunner (who offered a defense and vision for natural theology) on natural theology, Barth famously replies with a simple one-word German title to his essay: Nein! McGrath offers a helpful synopsis of Barth’s primary critiques: “Barth’s hostility towards natural theology thus rests on his fundamental belief that it undermines the necessity and uniqueness of God’s self-revelation. If knowledge of God can be achieved independently of God’s self-revelation in Christ, then it follows that humanity can dictate the place, time and means of its knowledge of God. Natural theology, for Barth, represents an attempt on the part of humanity to understand itself apart from and in isolation from revelation, representing a deliberate refusal to accept the necessity and consequences of revelation.” With powerful philosophical and scientific criticisms already in place, Barth’s stinging theological criticisms of natural theology had a huge impact in Christian theology. Reflecting on how devastating these criticisms were for natural theology, McGrath says, “If my personal conversations with theologians, philosophers, and natural scientists over the last decade are in any way representative, natural theology is generally seen as being like a dead whale, left stranded on a beach by a receding tide, gracelessly rotting under the heat of a philosophical and scientific sun.”
As such, natural theology was mostly dormant from the mid-nineteenth century until the later twentieth century. During this time, the disdain for natural theology was so universal that most would have never expected the vibrant revival in natural theology that we have seen over the past few decades. To the surprise of many, natural theology is back, more robust than ever before, reigniting debates and dialogues of old. James Sennett and Douglas Groothuis suggest that this is because proponents of natural theology are “using many new developments in science, theology and philosophy to make new and intriguing cases for the justification of theistic and Christian concepts and beliefs.”
Indeed, the discoveries in physics, chemistry, biology, and cosmology over the past few decades—along with major revisions to the versions of the arguments from philosophers—have given new life to what was once considered a dead enterprise. In short, the metaphysical and theological implications of many recent scientific discoveries are clear and, for many, overwhelming. As the late Fred Hoyle has said, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” And with the revival in natural theology, the debates once again take a significant place within our work in theology and apologetics.
— James K. Dew Jr. (PhD, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; PhD, University of Birmingham) is president and professor of philosophy at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in New Orleans, Louisiana. He previously taught at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has written, coauthored, or edited several books, including Philosophy: A Christian Introduction, How Do We Know? An Introduction to Epistemology, and God and the Problem of Evil: Five Views.
— Ronnie P. Campbell Jr. (PhD, Liberty University) is professor of theology and apologetics and director of doctoral programs at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. His books include For Love of God: An Invitation to Theology and Worldviews and the Problem of Evil.
---
Excerpted from Natural Theology: Five Views edited by James K. Dew Jr. and Ronnie P. Campbell Jr. (Baker Academic, 2024). Used by permission.
“In this thought-provoking book, leading scholars from five distinct viewpoints come together to discuss key questions concerning natural theology. Through their engaging and insightful dialogue, this volume provides a comprehensive and balanced overview of the subject. It is a must-read for scholars and students of philosophy and theology as well as for anyone interested in exploring the relationship between faith and reason.”
—Yujin Nagasawa, Kingfisher College Chair of the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics, University of Oklahoma
Find Natural Theology: Five Views at Baker Academic, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Christianbook.com, and other booksellers.
* sponsored