Replies

But Nature is beautiful so constantly that we seem forced to believe that it is in some sense under a necessity to be beautiful. If this is true, then it follows that Nature is in some sense governed by aesthetic as well as by purely physical principles.

Shebbeare spends little time on biomechanical contrivances and biological adaptations: he pulls out the heavy metaphysical guns right away: beauty in nature. This approach to the argument of Design is more in line with the continuity of history. It is different from Design arguments today, which focus more on biomechanical contrivances in nature, and less on primary principles like order, intelligibility, and beauty.

The sound argument is that Naturalism, in denying that there is in Nature any tendency towards beauty and aesthetic harmony as such, is hereby treating the beauty of Nature as a mere accident; and this, we rightly feel, is utterly incredible.

This comment by Shebbeare bears repeating, for it opens up productive possibilities for natural theology. One need not think of the argument of Design or natural theology as a body of argument intended to convince an atheist of something. Indeed, I believe that that attitude is not very productive. For it really takes an act of God to make an atheist see the light anyway.

But what natural theology can do is show you exactly what it is that an atheist is denying. Against the argument from Beauty, the response I have most often heard was a denial of beauty in nature. Either a denial of the meaning or validity of the concept, or a denial of its reality -- or an affirmation that it is an illusion, or that it only exists in our minds as an opinion. Likewise I have seen atheists deny, in one way or another, truth, knowledge, objective reality, morality, good, evil, beauty, design, purpose, meaning, intelligibility, causation, even their own existence. We can consider this a reductio ad absurdum of the atheist world-view. That is the real strength of natural theology.

To give you an example, here is a short debate between the atheist Bertrand Russell, and Fr. Frederick C. Copleston S.J. If we are expecting to see Russell admit to the existence of God we will be disappointed. But if we adopt the other view of natural theology, as an examination of atheistic denial and reductio ad absurum, it is indeed most interesting: Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell

Natural Theology Series
Natural Theology, Design, Teleology, and Metaphysics
Selections scavenged from the oblivion of old and forgotten books.
Condensed, arranged, and edited by ECO. Freepmail me if you
want on or off the Natural Theology Series ping list.

01 Argyll - Man as the Representative of the Supernatural
02 Gerard - The Voices of Babel

I'd like to pose a question for any interested in responding as it deals with intelligent design or lack thereof. The question is this:
If I find a chipped stone how can I determine whether it is the result of deliberate action of an intelligent being or the result of last year's spring flood, mere chance?
Actually two questions: At what level of chipping done on the stone could I say with a certainty of mind that only an intelligent agent acting with deliberation could produce it?

read later