MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133067726

Who's Afraid of the Unmoved Mover?: The Failure of Postmodern Evangelical Rejections of Natural Theology

2018· dissertation· en· W7133067726 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEvolution and Science Education
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundationalismNatural theologyChristian theologyChristianityNatural (archaeology)ApologeticsSystematic theologyArgument (complex analysis)Philosophical theology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In terms of Christian theology, natural theology is understood as that branch of human inquiry which seeks to discover knowledge about the existence and nature of God apart from sources of revealed theology (i.e. the Bible, the person and work of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and various forms of prophecy). Knowledge of this kind is based on the validity or suggestive power of arguments made from observations of the natural world, human experience, and necessary truths. Various argument forms are employed including deduction, induction, and inferences to the best explanation. Closely related to natural theology is the practice of positive apologetics, where the arguments of natural theology and other aspects of Christian theology are defended rationally, with the claim, either explicit or implicit, that the doctrines and practices of Christianity correspond to reality, are internally consistent, and are existentially viable. The Evangelical philosophers James K. A. Smith, Myron B. Penner, and Carl A. Raschke claim that most forms of natural theology are dependent on modern conceptions of reason, truth, and language. Marshalling postmodernism's critiques of foundationalist epistemology, the correspondence theory of truth, and referential semiotics, these authors argue that Evangelicals should reject natural theology. Appeals to common ground in nature to demonstrate or infer the existence of God will fail because these appeals are beholden to modernity's outmoded grounds for knowledge. Moreover, because of their dependence on modernism, natural theology and apologetics are often hindrances to authentic Christian faith. According to these authors, notions like objectivity, neutrality, and rationality are various forms of idolatry, and any philosophical dependence on knowledge informed by these values will be a kind of idolatry. I ask this key question: Do these postmodern Evangelical philosophers provide sound objections to natural theology? I explicate the objections to natural theology made by Carl A. Raschke, James K. A. Smith, and Myron B. Penner and show that their objections fail by employing primarily analytic philosophical strategies and, on occasion, biblical and systematic theology regarding the issues of truth, rationality, general revelation, and evangelism.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it