# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S251
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

II. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
Session 3: Historical Context (Chapter 2, pages 52–71)
As you read the following three comments from the scientist Isaac Newton (1642–1727) and
philosophers David Hume (1711–1776) and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), notice the sequence of
ideas concerning creation, religious beliefs and knowledge.
“To make this system therefore with all its motions, required a Cause which understood and
compared together the quantities of matter in the several bodies of the Sun and Planets and the
gravitating powers resulting from thence…”—Isaac Newton 17
“It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are
observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous peoples.”—David Hume 18
“In a word, scientific knowledge, critically explored and systematically introduced, is the
narrow gateway which leads to wisdom, if by such wisdom is understood not merely what one
ought to do, but what ought to serve as a guide for teachers, in order to find well and clearly the
paths to wisdom on which every man ought to tread, and to preserve others from dead alleys.”—
Immanuel Kant 19
Isaac Newton believed that an intelligent “Cause” was required to establish the solar system. A
few decades later, David Hume stated that beliefs concerning miracles and the supernatural (such
as an intelligent Cause) are found primarily among “ignorant and barbarous” people. Immanuel
Kant believed that scientific knowledge alone was “the narrow gateway” to wisdom. How did we
lose the sense that nature is God’s world? How did we lose the idea that human reason is God’s
gift to enable us to understand nature?
The attack on final causes and the decline of natural theology
(In Christ, page 53)
The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 B.C.) proposed the idea of final causes in things, that
is, the purpose for which something existed. What was the goal or purpose of the thing in
question? For example, the goal—or final cause—of a seed is to mature into an adult plant.
Although this idea was dominant for a long period of history, some medieval theologians came
to view the final causes proposed by Aristotle as a threat to God’s sovereignty because such
causes or goals operated independently of God. In the thirteenth century, the Bishop of Paris
condemned some of Aristotle’s ideas. The following statements were among those condemned:
“The first cause (God) cannot make many worlds,” and “God cannot move heaven in a linear

17
Isaac Newton, correspondence (1692), quoted in Stephen D. Snobelen, “The Theology of Isaac Newton’s
Principia Mathematica: A Preliminary Survey,” Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und
Religionsphilosophie (January 2010): 383.
18
David Hume, Of Miracles (1748), quoted in Craig S. Keener, “A Reassessment of Hume’s Case against Miracles
in Light of Testimony from the Majority World Today,” Perspectives in Religious Studies (September 2011): 289.
19
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason (1788), quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., The World Treasury of
Modern Religious Thought (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990), 180.

movement. The reason is that this would leave a vacuum.” 20 If something within nature could
dictate its own final purpose, or if there was something God could not do, then He was no longer
free to govern His creation as He wished. For that reason such proposals were condemned.
Other theologians, however, believed that God worked through final causes for the benefit of
humanity. Studies of blood, respiration and muscles assumed that these systems existed for a
purpose. The search for divine purpose in the natural world provided a religious reason for the
pursuit of knowledge. However, some theologians claimed too much, imagining God’s final
causes in all sorts of things (for example, seeing God’s hand in the behavior of a wood-eating
worm that brought nations together in commerce, trading in the tar or resin that protected ships’
wooden hulls). Such beliefs caused some people to become skeptical and weakened the idea of
God’s care and involvement in His creation. Others argued that if nature was God’s design, then
God was responsible for evil such as predators, parasites and disease. Still others saw all of this
as speculation and unnecessary for science.
Does the eighteenth century argument about the purpose of the wood-eating worm (page 55 in
All Things) carry the idea of God’s involvement too far from biblical truth, or is it a reasonable
assumption about a creature’s purpose? Read Exodus 10:12–20, 2 Chronicles 7:12–14 and
Psalm 107:23–32. What do these verses say about God’s involvement in His creation? What
purposes of God are revealed in these accounts?
The rise of autonomous reason
(In Christ, page 59)
Nature was still thought of as “God’s book,” but in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
human reason was increasingly exalted. Many scholars came to believe that human reason could
discern objective truth without the help of divine revelation. Two important books from the
seventeenth century, Francis Bacon’s The New Organon (1620) and Rene Descartes’ Meditations
(1641), reject tradition and external authorities (such as divine revelation) as a basis for
knowledge in favor of using unaided human reason and experience. Francis Bacon said a
scientist must purge his mind of bias so he does not anticipate what nature must do. The scientist
must be open to discovering the truth of natural events. He should collect samples and interpret
what he sees. Rene Descartes affirmed God as Creator and sustainer of the world, but believed
that people can discern the structure of reality without the help of faith or divine revelation.
There was a growing tendency to think that reason could “go it alone.”
Still, for Descartes, God was in charge of the mechanical natural world; He was the primary
cause of motion. Isaac Newton (1643–1727) believed that the system of planets and sun arose
from the work of an intelligent designer. However, as the Age of Enlightenment continued, the
idea of God’s control was increasingly rejected. Matter did not need God to govern it—it was
self-sufficient, and a self-sufficient world did not need God’s guidance or presence. Some people
embraced Deism, the belief that God created the universe but then withdrew from it and
remained uninvolved in His creation. Others dismissed miracles entirely and thought that
20
Alexander S. Jensen, “The Unintended Consequences of the Condemnation of 1277: Divine Power and the
Established Order in Question,” Colloquium 41:1 (May 2009), 60.

13

religious texts were legends. God was considered unnecessary—only nature was needed to
understand nature.
A contemporary scientist comments, “As science explains more and more, there is less and less
need for religious explanations … As time has passed, we have explained more and more in a
purely naturalistic way. This doesn’t contradict religion, but it does take away one of the
original motivations for religion.” 21
Read 1 Corinthians 2:6–16. Is it accurate to say that only nature is needed to understand
nature? What advantage does faith in Christ give us? Does faith—with its acceptance of divine
revelation—give us an advantage in areas of scientific study or does it apply only in “spiritual”
matters?
Naturalistic thinking expanded in influence, as illustrated in the writings of David Hume (1711–
1776), who thought that belief in the supernatural was found primarily among “ignorant and
barbarous” people. According to naturalistic thinking, one could not use the design of the world
as a starting point to establish the existence and nature of God. Two increasingly popular factors
worked against such an argument from design. The first was the theory of natural selection in
Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species (1859). According to Darwin, living creatures
were designed by natural causes. Chance variation and natural selection produced creatures
adapted to their environments. The second factor was the philosophical developments leading to
the rise of scientism, the understanding that science is the only reliable source of knowledge. The
philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) concluded that speculation about God, souls and
miracles cannot be “knowledge.” Science provides knowledge about the world, but no one can
have such certain knowledge about religion or ethics.
Naturalistic science, combined with scientism, resulted in the belief that the supernatural does
not exist, since science cannot detect the supernatural. God himself, therefore, is unknowable.
“[T]he cultural residue of scientism is still with us in the widespread assumption that there is no
such thing as metaphysical, religious or moral knowledge. At the practical level of everyday life,
this is the legacy of naturalism, which makes people unable to see how what is believed by faith
could be known to be true … Science is by definition naturalistic and if something cannot be
known scientifically, it cannot be known at all. As a result, the resurrection and other miraculous
claims of Christianity are relegated to a subjective realm accessible only by faith.” (68)
According to this point of view, we can know things because of science, but in religious or
spiritual matters we can only believe.
Read the following comment from a contemporary interview: “[New developments in science]
support what Steven Weinberg, the Nobel laureate in physics, said: ‘The more we learn about
the universe, the more we realize how pointless it is.’ We’re learning a lot about the universe
and what we are seeing is that it’s all a naturalistic process.” 22
21
Steven Weinberg, interview with Ana Elena Azpurua, at http://www.newsweek.com/will-physicists-find-god84363.
22
Worrall, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/150531-religion-science-faith-healing-atheism-peoplengbooktalk.

251

14

In view of the above comment by Steven Weinberg, read Romans 1:19–20, Romans 8:20–21,
Ephesians 1:7–10 and Philippians 2:9–11. If the universe is not pointless, what is its “point,”
its purpose?
Science as a profession
(In Christ, page 68)
Nature is now viewed by many people as merely a “machine” with undirected purposes. When
God is removed as the Author of the book of nature, a career in science may no longer be
understood as a vocation, a calling from God, but may instead be viewed as simply a profession.
Today’s scientists may not see a clear connection between the official standards of their
scientific work and those governing their faith. The connection between theology and science is
not considered appropriate to a discipline (science) that claims its own authority.
The roots of moralistic therapeutic deism
(In Christ, page 69)
“The energetic anti-God evangelism of [atheist authors] Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins,
Christopher Hitchens, and others has emboldened millions of Americans, especially those under
forty, to question the existence of God, the role of faith, the value of churches, and the genesis of
moral standards.” 23
Questions concerning divine revelation and God’s involvement in His creation extend far beyond
those involved in scientific careers. A contemporary survey reveals that the majority of
American youth accept a belief system known as moralistic therapeutic deism. This worldview is
moralistic, although the moral decisions are not based on God’s will as revealed in Scripture, but
on personal experiences and feelings. People are encouraged to do “whatever makes you feel
good about you.” (70) This worldview is therapeutic because people want to have their needs
met and still want the “comfort” of religion. For that reason, strict deism, the belief that God is
not involved in the ongoing care of His world, is revised to include a God who is there (when we
want Him) to make us feel better.
Faith is reinterpreted as the choice of a happy, positive attitude. Contemporary people have a
hard time seeing any deep connection between faith and science, since Christianity is no longer
regarded as a source of objective truth. Faith is understood as an attitude of mind that does not
embrace definite knowledge. Religion offers comfort only in questions of meaning and value that
science does not address.

George Barna and David Kinnaman, Churchless: Understanding Today’s Unchurched and How to Connect With
Them (Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale Momentum, 2014), 8-9.

23

15

16

2019 Convention Workbook