[232] It is a fact, and it is not a question whether it should be or shouldn't be. Since EVERY culture has religious substance, it simply IS. The other is the intention to make a Christian philosophy, ^aand there we must say UNAMBIGUOUSLY: THIS SHOULD NOT BE! But another question arises here. Cannot philosophy directly contribute to the theological truth, to the truth of religion? ^bThis problem is the very old and very important problem of natural theology. ^cNatural theology would mean philosophical arguments which, as merely philosophical arguments, confirm the truth of faith^d. The endeavor of natural theology has been carried through since the Greeks, the whole Middle Ages, in Protestant Orthodoxy, and even in anti-metaphysical liberal theology of the 19th century. Nevertheless, there always was a RESISTANCE against it, a feeling that such an enterprise is impossible. The concrete discussion in which these two attitudes came up are the so called "arguments" for the so-called "existence" of God. Now with these two "so-called's," I have already implied my attitude toward them. It is very interesting that in the discussion of these arguments, or a special [one] of them, not lower-degreed philosophers, but the very HIGHEST-quality philosophers disagreed; that there was always one group fighting for the arguments---including the ontological argument for the existence of God---and another group trying to show the impossibility of these arguments. Now I have the dogmatic presupposition that the greatest philosophers in the history of human thought---whose names are known to all of us---are not less intelligent than we are, and that the one group which works