{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1929",
    "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it.  Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.",
    "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'"
  },
  "archive": "urth",
  "thread": {
    "id": 1929,
    "subject": "natural theology, argument from design, Wolfe, and other",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "1999-11-06T10:09:56+00:00",
    "last": "1999-11-06T10:09:56+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0028-0403@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Jeremy Crampton",
        "address": "jcrampto at gmu.edu"
      },
      "date": "1999-11-06T10:09:56+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) natural theology, argument from design, Wolfe, and other",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Dan sez:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "The \"argument from design\" is a much more modern theological supposition ..."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "and.."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Natural theology, on the other hand, is a much older and more complex\nideology\nAs I understand it, natural theology argues, among other things, \nthat because the world was created by a supernatural being, that being can \nintervene in the affairs of the world, producing miracles."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Hm, interesting. Here is what I know about this, tho I'm no expert on it so\ninvite comment:\n\nNatural theology doesn't necessarily deal with miracles and is indeed based\non the design argument (teleology). So I guess I'm disagreeing with you here.\n\nEvidence: Encyclopedia Britannica WWW edition (which I swear I didn't read\nbefore my last post!): \n\n_________________\n\"Natural theology is generally characterized as the project of establishing\nreligious truths by rational argument and without reliance upon alleged\nrevelations, its two traditional topics being the existence of God and the\nimmortality of the soul. \n\nArguments for the existence of God\n\nThe design (or teleological) argument\n\nSt. Paul, with many others in the Greco-Roman world, believed that the\nexistence of God is evident from the appearances of nature: \"Ever since the\ncreation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and\ndeity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made\"\n(Romans 1:20). The most popular, because the\nmost accessible, of the theistic arguments is that which identifies\nevidences of design in nature, inferring from them a divine designer. The\nargument was propounded by medieval Christian thinkers and was developed in\ngreat detail in 17th- and 18th-century Europe by such writers as Robert\nBoyle, John Ray, Samuel Clarke, and William Derham and at the beginning of\nthe 19th century by William Paley. Such writers asked: Is not the eye as\nmanifestly designed for seeing, and the ear for hearing, as a pen for\nwriting or a clock for telling the time; and does not such design imply a\ndesigner? The fact that the universe as a whole is a coherent and\nefficiently functioning system likewise, in this view, indicates a divine\nintelligence behind it.\"\n_______________________\n\nIn other words, traces of a Deity are found in the landscape and we can\ncome to know that Deity better by studying how the world works. So\ninterestingly enough it has scientific pretensions. William Paley for eg\nwas a cleric and geologist (IIRC) (and also creationist) who wrote \"Natural\nTheology, or evidences of the existence and attributes of the Deity\" which\nmade the analogy of the universe as a watch (the divine watchmaker). This\nlater influenced anti-teleologists such as Darwin and Dawkins (eg \"Blind\nwatchmaker : why evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design\"\n1986).  \n\nWhat Wolfe is doing with the tea-lady is to give us her view of science\nthru teleological eyes ie., that science destroys wonder (a common\nanti-evolutionist claim to this day). When the ballooning of the cathedral\ntent can be explained by the hot air from the fire which was started by\nSeverian's crash, this for her, misses the point, which is to see the Hand\n(of God) in nature. She isn't calling for a miracle, but that the event\nshould send us to God, not to the explanation. We modernists in turn reject\nher viewpoint, eg., viz. Dawkins last book \"Unweaving the rainbow :\nscience, delusion and the appetite for wonder\" which I believe argues that\nscientific understanding is what truly leads to wonder and respect for\nevolutionary explanation.\n\n(That's enough teleology: ed).\n__\nJeremy W. Crampton\t\t         http://geog.gmu.edu    jcrampto at gmu.edu\nDept. of Geography & Earth Science\n[MS 1E2]\t\t\t\t’Tis true; there’s magic in the web of it.\nGeorge Mason University\t\t\t\t\t--Othello (III.iv.69)\nFairfax, Va 22030"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}