I'm Orthodox, and I think natural theology and Jay's approach are answering different questions entirely, and that both are useful. Natural theology is great when engaging people who aren't naturalist skeptics. It's the most effective way of engaging people of different religions (like the Church Fathers did). However, much of the world today are some form of skeptic that deny the existence of things like metaphysics, free will, goodness, objective truth, etc. So making appeals to goodness, being, cause, etc. will just be pushed aside by them since the skeptic wants material proofs, not logical appeals. This is where Jay's approach is useful, however I think his approach is only applicable when dealing with atheists, he's just mistaken in thinking that it's the only good method of apologetics.
@@TheMeatyOne360 Yeah I think scholastics would agree on this. Also Telos Bound has made a great article in support of natura theology from EO perspective.
@@riverrun7061 I understand that there are responses from natural theology, but the issue is that atheism since Hume has practically only critiqued natural theology. The modern atheist is extremely wary of natural theology's arguments, and will just question any premise a Christian poses to them( to the point of making themselves incapable of justifying anything). So it's not that I think natural theology doesn't have good answers to the atheist, but rather I believe the atheist has a hardened heart and will do mental gymnastics to justify a world without God no matter the cost (just look at Matt Dilahunty). Here, the only appeal is to make them question their motives and assumptions. That's where I think presup shines, but again I don't think it has use against someone who isn't a radical skeptic, unfortunately though that's much of the world currently. I don't see why when arguing for God we have to limit ourselves to one method though.
@@TheMeatyOne360 I mean, fair enough but then that's just saying that Jay has rhetorical (affective) arguments, which he does, but they are shit, and any natural theologian is perfectly capable in principle of rhetorical arguments. In other words, I don't understand how anything he does is supposed to be *actually" (as opposed to his proclamations) exclusive of natural theology and exclusive to his approach. Every natural theologian can also be a big mouth who gets fellas worked up with memes and shoddy philosophical claims.
Also the gospel of John is basically natural theology for the greeks
I have an Orthodox friend who used St Thomas' arguments for God and disagrees with Jay Dyer on this issue.
I'm Orthodox, and I think natural theology and Jay's approach are answering different questions entirely, and that both are useful.
Natural theology is great when engaging people who aren't naturalist skeptics. It's the most effective way of engaging people of different religions (like the Church Fathers did).
However, much of the world today are some form of skeptic that deny the existence of things like metaphysics, free will, goodness, objective truth, etc. So making appeals to goodness, being, cause, etc. will just be pushed aside by them since the skeptic wants material proofs, not logical appeals. This is where Jay's approach is useful, however I think his approach is only applicable when dealing with atheists, he's just mistaken in thinking that it's the only good method of apologetics.
@@TheMeatyOne360 Yeah I think scholastics would agree on this. Also Telos Bound has made a great article in support of natura theology from EO perspective.
@@TheMeatyOne360But in natural theology we give defenses of these things also. They are all among the basic preambula.
@@riverrun7061 I understand that there are responses from natural theology, but the issue is that atheism since Hume has practically only critiqued natural theology. The modern atheist is extremely wary of natural theology's arguments, and will just question any premise a Christian poses to them( to the point of making themselves incapable of justifying anything).
So it's not that I think natural theology doesn't have good answers to the atheist, but rather I believe the atheist has a hardened heart and will do mental gymnastics to justify a world without God no matter the cost (just look at Matt Dilahunty). Here, the only appeal is to make them question their motives and assumptions. That's where I think presup shines, but again I don't think it has use against someone who isn't a radical skeptic, unfortunately though that's much of the world currently. I don't see why when arguing for God we have to limit ourselves to one method though.
@@TheMeatyOne360 I mean, fair enough but then that's just saying that Jay has rhetorical (affective) arguments, which he does, but they are shit, and any natural theologian is perfectly capable in principle of rhetorical arguments. In other words, I don't understand how anything he does is supposed to be *actually" (as opposed to his proclamations) exclusive of natural theology and exclusive to his approach. Every natural theologian can also be a big mouth who gets fellas worked up with memes and shoddy philosophical claims.
Please discuss more of this. Much appreciated
Good and absolutely correct.
Jay has spoken, the cause is finished
😂😂
Iaeus tussitus est
“Ahh rees stee dess” Aristides.
Jay is annoying