Natural Theology

So, after doing some looking ahead, I discovered that Nash does indeed have another section where he addresses arguments for the existence of God. This section is just about the rationality of the belief. Today was the last bit of this rational section. It's pretty much just a conclusion. Make sure to check out tomorrow's post- It should be more applicable as far as real world use goes.

Natural Theology- what is it?
Simplistic definition: An attempt to provide arguments for God's existence outside of scripture.

The pursuit of NT is a denial that the belief in God is a Basic belief.
(I don't know if Nash addresses this later in the series or something, but I kind of disagree. Further on in this lecture, he talks about the usefulness of NT, and I think that someone can pursue it in context. There's a difference between thinking that it must be done, and acknowledging it's usefulness. Nash words it a bit oddly- on one hand he paints it like it's a bad thing, and on another he shows the usefulness of it. Really, its all about knowing where the line is, and understanding its purpose. Useful, but not necessary).

This next part is short and sweet. (And sort of repetitive of what's in parentheses above).

A. Is it necessary (In order for the belief in God to be rational)?
No.  Two major reasons:
1. Epistemological
        - A substantial amount of people have come to faith without "proof"
        - Religious experiences are enough to bring a person to God, therefore, it is not necessary to have the proof.

2. Experiential
        - Personal stories (There's not much difference between this one and the above point. The main difference is that the above one would be numbers, and this one has to do with real people. For example, I'm guessing that if you're a believer, and you're reading this blog, there's a pretty good chance that you came to Christ based on something other than logical reasoning. Your personal story would be an example of Experiential evidence. I'm the same way. I came to faith because of a "religious experience" as Nash calls it. Therefore, my story also fits in this category. )

2. Is it useless (For helping to make a case for the rationality of the belief in God)?
No. (Nash's lecture refused to load at this point, so the stuff below is pretty much just me...)
Necessity and Usefulness are two different things. Just because it doesn't have to be there, that doesn't mean it isn't extremely helpful when dealing with non-believers. God has given us loads of proof for his existence beyond scripture. Nature, our minds, beauty, morality- all point toward the existence of God. Once we understand that it doesn't have to be there- it sort of becomes like the cherry on top. (or cherries more rather). Everywhere we turn around, God's fingerprint is present.

Tomorrow hopefully I'll get started on the section on the arguments for God's existence. Should be pretty interesting.