Systematic Theology (Volume 1 of 3)Strong, Augustus Hopkins
Religion
Systematic Theology (Volume 1 of 3)
Strong, Augustus Hopkins
Baptists -- Doctrines; Theology, Doctrinal
The doctrine of evolution answers many of these objections, by
showing that order and useful collocation in the system as a whole
is necessarily and cheaply purchased by imperfection and suffering
in the initial stages of development. The question is: Does the
system as a whole imply design? My opinion is of no value as to
the usefulness of an intricate machine the purpose of which I do
not know. If I stand at the beginning of a road and do not know
whither it leads, it is presumptuous in me to point out a more
direct way to its destination. Bowne, Philos. of Theism, 20-22—“In
order to counterbalance the impressions which apparent disorder
and immorality in nature make upon us, we have to assume that the
universe at its root is not only rational, but good. This is
faith, but it is an act on which our whole moral life depends.”
Metaphysics, 165—“The same argument which would deny mind in
nature denies mind in man.” Fisher, Nat. and Meth. of Rev.,
264—“Fifty years ago, when the crane stood on top of the tower of
unfinished Cologne Cathedral, was there no evidence of design in
the whole structure?” Yet we concede that, so long as we cannot
with John Stuart Mill explain the imperfections of the universe by
any limitations in the Intelligence which contrived it, we are
shut up to regarding them as intended to correspond with the moral
state and probation of sinners which God foresaw and provided for
at the creation. Evil things in the universe are symbols of sin,
and helps to its overthrow. See Bowne, Review of H. Spencer, 264,
265; McCosh, Christ. and Positivism, 82 _sq._; Martineau, Essays,
1:50, and Study, 1:351-398; Porter, Hum. Intellect, 599; Mivart,
Lessons from Nature, 366-371; Princeton Rev., 1878:272-303; Shaw,
on Positivism.
2. _Defects of the Teleological Argument._ These attach not to the
premises but to the conclusion sought to be drawn therefrom.
A. The argument cannot prove a personal God. The order and useful
collocations of the universe may be only the changing phenomena of an
impersonal intelligence and will, such as pantheism supposes. The finality
may be only immanent finality.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account