 Indeed, from the standpoint of some of the thinkers labled fideistic, modern natural theology, insofar as it adopts secular premises and treats God hypothetically, constitutes a theological error. The twentieth-century Protestant theologian Karl Barth suggested that Christian natural theology is plagued by an inner contradiction: “As a ‘Christian’ natural theology, it must really represent and affirm the standpoint of faith. Its true objective to which it really wants to lead unbelief is the knowability of the real God…. But as a ‘natural’ theology, its initial aim is to disguise this and therefore to pretend to share in the life-endeavour of natural man” (94). In other words, natural theology is either insincere – pretending to start from a standpoint of unbelief – or sinful, since, on Barth’s Protestant view, unbelief, even in the form of methodological agnosticism, is not theologically neutral but “active enmity against God” (94). Natural theology paradoxically requires abandoning the Christian perspective – at least methodologically – in a misguided effort to provide God with support God doesn’t, on a Christian view, need. This Protestant view is, of course, at odds with the official Catholic view noted earlier.