Reply to C. Stephen Evans:

  1. This is a clear and forthright discussion of natural theology in language understandable by any thoughtful person;

  2. like yourself, I agree that the main objections to natural theology all have some important though limited significance, but that they do not discredit natural theology when it is understood in a balanced and plausible fashion;

    1. of course, natural theology is at best an incomplete prologue to the Christian world view--a preparation for the gospel;

    2. but philosophically it is an essential prologue, even though its significance for particular individuals is exceedingly variable--I agree with Mavrodes that arguments are person-relative in their persuaiveness (though not in their substance);

  3. of course, pieces of natural theology can be thought of (correctly for many persons) as natural signs whose significance and communicative effectiveness are open to all, but are at the same time always resistable.

  4. however, I seem to sense that, despite all your agreement, my view of the importance of philosophical (and therefore of natural) theology grants to that enterprise a more elevated position than it has on your view: a Christian philosophical theology (something along the lines of my Reconstruction book) should have as its aim the setting out of a more plausible view of reality then any of its religious or secular alternatives!

Thanks for your fine work!