In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 2 The Revealed-Idea Argument for the Existence of God Francis Bacon once famously said that “a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”1 Alexander Campbell held a similar view. He thought that, done poorly, natural theology can push a person toward atheism, or least skepticism; but done properly, natural theology can point you toward the very thing it stands in need of, namely, supernatural revelation. One of the clearest traces of this view of Campbell’s is his unique argument for the existence of God—what I call his revealed-idea argument. My primary aim in this chapter is to reconstruct and critically examine that argument . But first I need to set the stage. Campbell’s seemingly split attitude toward philosophy—his view that certain sorts of philosophical argumentation about God’s existence are pernicious and other sorts are vital—can be confusing. It leads him to decry some sorts of philosophizing about religious matters even while he engages in others, whereupon he can appear hostile to natural theology as a whole. So to see his revealed-idea argument in the proper light, we first have to get clear on what he thinks of natural theology in general. In this chapter, I start by addressing the common misperception that Campbell was somehow opposed to natural theology (§2.1). I then explain why he rejected John Locke’s cosmological argument for God’s existence, since Campbell’s reasons shed light on why he thought we need his revealed-idea argument in the first place, as well as why he thought it serves as a corrective to previous efforts in natural theology (§2.2). The next task is to reconstruct Campbell’s argument in detail (§2.3). I end by considering some of the more obvious objections to the revealed-idea argument and some replies that Campbell could offer (§2.4). Although Campbell’s argument remains unconvincing, it nonetheless represents an interesting and genuinely novel contribution to natural theology, or so I will argue. 26 The Revealed-Idea Argument for the Existence of God 2.1. Was Campbell Opposed to Natural Theology? The term natural theology typically gets defined in contrast to revealed theology, where the former is generally seen as a project for philosophers and the latter for theologians. For our purposes, we can think of natural theology as, roughly, the effort to gain warranted beliefs about God’s existence (or nonexistence) or about God’s attributes (or other divine matters) without recourse to any purportedly revealed sources such as the Bible or the Qur’an. Accordingly, a natural theology argument for God’s existence would not contain any premises that rely on the authority of some supernaturally revealed source of information. In contrast, revealed theology places no such methodological constraint on itself. Accordingly, revealed theologians would take themselves to be free to construct theological arguments on the basis of a given religious text. Some theologians—Karl Barth most notably2 —want to eschew the project of natural theology altogether, insofar as they see it as somehow distasteful, unnecessary, or otherwise problematic.3 In their view, we need not (and perhaps ought not) try to do anything other than understand , and draw out the implications of, the received divine revelation. By contrast, natural theologians tend to think that revealed theology alone, while perhaps crucial in other respects, simply cannot provide noncircular arguments for the most fundamental claims of religion. Not surprisingly, then, natural theologians typically begin with questions such as, What reasons do we have for thinking that God exists?—and, What reasons do we have for thinking that a purportedly revealed source is actually of supernatural origin? Bearing this distinction between natural and revealed theology in mind, we can now turn our attention to Campbell. Much of the literature on Campbell can lead readers in the direction of supposing that he had a low opinion of, or was even opposed to, natural theology.4 And it is easy enough to see why interpreters might be tempted to draw this conclusion . For one thing, this temptation is amplified by the fact that a chief aim of his religious movement was to restore Christianity to the revealed model of the New Testament—and to that biblical model exclusively. In addition, Campbell offers ample textual fodder for such a misperception: he is often aggressively critical of natural religionists and their undertakings, and he repeatedly comments on the failure of...

Share