Your article about Nature in The Classical Teacher - Winter 2009

[Maria57]

Hi Martin - just read and took notes on your article about the view of nature from both the Classical view and the Modern view. What did Christians say about purpose? Did they view it as intrinsic? or as 'imposed' by God?
I'm assuming that the progression was from Greek Classical view, modified by Christian, and then transformed and finally dumped by Darwin and buddies.
You did a good job making the distinction between the classical and modern views...I'm still fuzzy about where Christian fits in.

I also really enjoy your articles about Logic. They help give me the bigger picture. This is my 3rd year teaching logic and I didn't know a thing to begin with. I'm getting good at details..but still need to see the whole context. Each article I read helps!

Maria

[tanya]

Maria,

The Christian view is basically identical to the Aristotelian view until the late Middle Ages and reaches its zenith in the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. Then, first Duns Scotus, then William of Ockham begin to place the will of God higher than His own rational nature. This is part of the rise of "nominalism", the belief that things have no natures, but are only collections of characteristics: so there goes formal cause. Since things don't have natures, then they don't have purposes fitting those natures either: so there goes final cause. Many protestants (not all) are influenced by this thinking and also by the thinking of the Enlightenment that results from it.

The result has been a split in protestant thinking about these issues. Some accept the classical view and some don't. Catholics have pretty much held the line with Aquinas.

You can see the same fault lines on the issue of natural law--the belief that, because humans have a particular nature and their behavior is bound by that nature and so there are moral standards that can be detected through reason even apart from divine revelation. You can see it in the recent Manhattan Declaration, which was signed by both Catholics and protestants, but only the protestants that accept natural law. So you have Robert George (Catholic), Timothy George (protestant), Charles Colson (protestant), and Al Moeller (protestant) signing on, since they accept natural law, and others like John MacArthur and Mike Horton, both protestants, refusing to sign because of differing views on natural law.

It's the same issues underlying both. In other words, if you hold the classical view, you will accept natural law, and if you reject the classical view, then you'll reject natural law. So you'll find the same people on the same sides.

I hope this helps!

Martin

[Maria57]

Martin - you did answer my basic question, but you opened up areas of which I know little. Fascinating about the Manh Decl debate. I have read so much on both sides...but to see you apply this grid on that - now that is interesting.
Here are my questions in parentheses preceded by my intials :
Maria,



**

You can see the same fault lines on the issue of natural law (mc: what did the classic philosophers say about natural law? )-

So you have Robert George (Catholic), Timothy George (protestant), Charles Colson (protestant), and Al Moeller (protestant) signing on, since they accept natural law,(mc: I only know about natural law in the context of inalienable rights that accrue to all humans – you’re saying that there are several ‘Christian’ views on them?)

and others like John MacArthur and Mike Horton, both protestants, refusing to sign because of differing views on natural law. (mc: what are their views?)

[tanya]

Maria,

There is an excellent rundown of the views of the classical philosophers and the Christian theologians in Heinrich Rommen's The Natural Law, which you can find online here. Part I addresses your question. I highly recommend it.

On the different Christian views, I would say that, of course, there is only one right view, which I believe is housed in the tradition that derives from St. Thomas Aquinas, but there are other views that vary from this in varying degrees of digression. The range from the view of Aquinas, which are based on human nature and which derive from classical thought (and which is also expressed briefly by Paul at the beginning of Romans) and which are classical to views that are based on the individual, which derive from the Enlightenment, a cultural movement which steps away from the main stream of classical thought.

Again, this is discussed by Rommen.

John MacArthur's views are here, and Mike Horton's here. Thanks.

Martin