Moderating Natural Theology: A Heuristic Interrogative Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main aim of this paper is to introduce a heuristic interrogative approach to natural theology. This approach has real potential to provide an original contribution to natural theology and philosophy of religion.

However, there is simply too much happening in this article (analysis of Paul, of Aquinas, of Kant, and of natural theology, all before a heuristic interrogative approach). Instead, begin with the articulation of a heuristic interrogative approach because that is what has potential. Indeed, the value of sections 4 & 5 are overshadowed by sections 1-3. The use of Aquinas and Kant as strawmen with few references to any secondary literature distracts from the quality of the approach as articulated in section 5. Starting the article with an articulation of a heuristic interrogative approach will allow you argue for its potential contribution to natural theology in a much more convincing way than the current structure of this article. 

I recommended a major revision that focuses on sections 4 & 5 because 'a heuristic interrogative approach' has the potential to provide a valuable contribution to natural theology. 

Author Response

   I am pleased that the two reviewers like my original heuristic approach to natural theology. The first reviewer reports that my 'approach has real potential to provide an original contribution to natural theology and philosophy of religion'. I agree. This reviewer recommended a re-ordering of the article's sections, so that my heuristic approach comes early in the article. As a result, I have moved the key section to the beginning, now as Section 2. That is very helpful advice. I did not move any other section to an earlier place, because the other sections make sense only after previous sections. I don't want to confuse readers with further re-ordering.

    The revised version also clarifies, in the light of suggestions of both reviewers, my misgivings about Aquinas and Kant on natural theology. I make it clear that my heuristic approach does not oppose variations on Aquinas's natural theological arguments. My approach finds heuristic value in some natural theological arguments regardless of their rational cogency. I make this clear in the revised article. I also indicate that this consideration excuses me from digressing to the many variations on Aquinas's arguments. As for Kant, I make it clear that he did not consider the kind of heuristic approach I defend, and he therefore does not pose a challenge to my approach. Even if his skepticism about natural theological arguments holds, my heuristic approach can be correct and fruitful. So. Kant is not a threat. I also have clarified how I use the approach of the apostle Paul as an illustration of how a resilient natural theology might proceed. This will help readers to see how an alternative to Aquinas and Kant might be developed.

     Again, I am grateful to the two referees. Their input has enabled me to improve my article. Please let me know if I should comment further on the referees' reports.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The first half of the paper addresses well-known issues with Aquinas's arguments for God, but without the detail and nuance of the current literature in natural theology or philosophy of religion.

The second half of the paper lacks the focus on Kant that was promised in the abstract and introduction. Much more detail on Aquinas' and Kant's views is required in order for the author's positive contribution to the literature to be comprehensible.

Author Response

    I am pleased that the two reviewers like my original heuristic approach to natural theology. The first reviewer reports that my 'approach has real potential to provide an original contribution to natural theology and philosophy of religion'. I agree. This reviewer recommended a re-ordering of the article's sections, so that my heuristic approach comes early in the article. As a result, I have moved the key section to the beginning, now as Section 2. That is very helpful advice. I did not move any other section to an earlier place, because the other sections make sense only after previous sections. I don't want to confuse readers with further re-ordering.

    The revised version also clarifies, in the light of suggestions of both reviewers, my misgivings about Aquinas and Kant on natural theology. I make it clear that my heuristic approach does not oppose variations on Aquinas's natural theological arguments. My approach finds heuristic value in some natural theological arguments regardless of their rational cogency. I make this clear in the revised article. I also indicate that this consideration excuses me from digressing to the many variations on Aquinas's arguments. As for Kant, I make it clear that he did not consider the kind of heuristic approach I defend, and he therefore does not pose a challenge to my approach. Even if his skepticism about natural theological arguments holds, my heuristic approach can be correct and fruitful. So. Kant is not a threat. I also have clarified how I use the approach of the apostle Paul as an illustration of how a resilient natural theology might proceed. This will help readers to see how an alternative to Aquinas and Kant might be developed.

     Again, I am grateful to the two referees. Their input has enabled me to improve my article. Please let me know if I should comment further on the referees' reports.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for these revisions, I think that moving the key section earlier (now section 2) has made the article much stronger. The author’s response and revisions are very good. The re-ordering of the article sections, the clarifications of the argument and the clearer articulation of the scope of the criticisms of Aquinas and Kant are well done.  
The new version of the article easy to read, engaging and thought-provoking.