contact(at)onbelief.orgList of Articles Internal Logic and Observation in Theology
Internal Logic is not a pejorative term
The term 'internal logic' is not used here in the pejorative sense used by some cynics to mean 'limiting'. Mathematics and physics for example have their own internal logic. Mathematics as most would agree, is a valuable language for science and has very wide applicability in many domains of human thinking such as economics. In mathematics the descriptive properties ascribed to number and the logical relationship between numbers of various kinds are starting points on which everything else is based. In that sense some systems with fundamental propositions that have an internal logic are highly valuable. These systems are valuable because they provide coherence of understanding have predictive power and so have have utility in our lives.
Nevertheless some systems of belief that have internal logic cannot be said to have the explanatory power of physics. 'Alternative Medicine' (such as Homeopathy) is an example of such systems. As most schools of 'alternative medicine' lack validated observations and even run counter to our scientific methods and theoretical understanding of the physical world we can be extremely confident that they can have no demonstrable practical value beyond the placebo effect. However it is not simply enough to ask is there some fundamental logical proposition missing or untested within these systems. Like the scientist, we should ask is there any verifiable observational basis whatsoever. If we neglect to do this we not only risk physical impoverishment but intellectual progress of the kind that can be made in our institutions of learning.
Where does theology fit?
Not every subject, which is taught in our Universities and posses an internal logic could be said to form a cohesive part of present day thinking however. One of the best examples of a subject with it own distinct and almost irrefutable internal logic is the historically well established topic of Christian Theology. Unlike Richard Dawkins I no longer assert that theology departments of Universities should be scrapped. This is in part due to the eloquent Gifford lectures of the theologist Professor David Fergusson, from the University of Edinburgh, which at the time of writing are yet to be published. He demonstrates that it is possible to have strong religious convictions and yet adopt a rational acceptance of science and its contribution to our culture and even embrace or at least be prepared to consider the emerging discipline of evolutionary psychology. In addition he points out that the contemplative tradition of theology within a University environment can have a moderating as well as an explanatory role in religious matters that is at arms length from those who act as religious instructors and leaders to the community at large. Interestingly he has argued that religion is like science in the sense that it changes over time. No doubt Prof. Fergusson has been educated in this mater by his knowledge of the history of the Church of Scotland, which seems to have an evolving narrative of splits and mergers that really need to be read about to be believed. It would seem that adherents to the many Churches of Scotland, when liberated form authoritarian hierarchical structures, discovered the phenomenon of 'ongoing revolution'. This continual reorganisation or internal revolution in part masquerades as a paradoxical conservative in-group strategy for the puritanical maintenance of existing belief interpretations. It seems more likely that, as David Fergusson more generally argues, it is do with the fact that religious beliefs change or evolve over time.
It seems that the remaining validity and legitimacy of theology is largely related to its historical, structural and moral analysis, and consideration of the non-supernatural driving forces behind the development of religious thought and action. To be fair, theology with all of its inherent redundancy and backwardness, has scope, in principle, for human betterment through moral theology or social teaching. Or as John Polkinghorne has argued, religion can address the 'why' questions whilst science addresses the 'how' questions. Clearly some, although not all, 'why' questions are worth asking. In that limited sense theology could, despite its lack of a rational observational basis, have some utility. It might be argued that utility is not the exclusive power of ideas based on repeatable observations of the world and resulting predictive theories. However there must be some doubt about any such claims, as systems of morality, for example, are experience-based and relate to our observations of the real world. In other words to have practical or philosophical significance moral codes need to be based on repeatable occurrences.
The question of a role for theology in modern thinking and modern educational institutions is perhaps best centred on a comparison between religion and secular analytical philosophy. Ask yourself is there any question concerning the legitimacy of social, ethical, medical, scientific, or mathematical thought that is not more meaningfully considered from the perspective the non-religious empirical philosopher rather than that of the religious contemplative.
Despite its potential utility the fact that the supernatural component of Christian Theology, like 'alternative medicine', has an internal logic but no body of well tested repeatable observations for the description of the physical world should immediately arouse our suspicions. Some might ask why should this be the case if religion and science are distinct and separate domains of thought as John Polkinghorne has eloquently argued or as Stephen Jay Gould did when elaborating his NOMA ( Non-overlapping magisteria) hypothesis. To me that is like asking why would you consider one person to have greater worth or legal privilege than another. I see no reason why cherished religious beliefs that involve descriptions of the world should not have to pass the observational tests required in science except that if in pursuance of those tests we would have to act in a morally reprehensible fashion. Is there some moral law that prevents us from questioning present day interpretations of the words of Moses, Buddha, Jesus, the Prophet Muhammad, or that modern Moses Joseph Smith. Perhaps it would be equally deviant of me to want repeatable observations to examine the evidence of the Babs's declaration at 2 hours 11 minutes after sunset on 22 May 1844.
Dawkins' attacks on Theology
Richard Dawkins has been reported as saying less charitably 'The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content.' (If you have worked in British Universities you will be aware that many academics hold similar, if perhaps less strident views, but will only whisper that to trusted colleagues for fear of causing offence.) At a superficial level Dawkins remark is akin to saying that the telephone directory is vacuous. Theology clearly has content. We can however assume that he is implying the fundamental explanatory or theoretical principles on which it is based are wrong. Presumably he, like me and many non-religious, reject or question at least four of the basic supernatural premises of Christian Theology. 1) God exists. 2) God has the power of creation. 3) God can communicate with humans. 4) We have reliable and verifiable evidence that God can communicate with humans.
Dawkins dismissal of religion would be like arguing that if the additive properties of number are false there is no validity in the internal logic of mathematics and everything that springs from it. Although pointing to some errors in detail, he seems to be implying is that the whole content is valueless in a theoretical sense because the basis on which it is founded is wrong. There is a strange step in his argument which might be expressed as 'if the fundamental premises are not based on repeatable observations there is no value contained within the whole'. Thou shalt not kill", perhaps better translated from the Hebrew as "Thou shalt not murder"; thou shalt not bear false witness etc are presumably to be dismissed as well. The obvious answer is that although theology has an ancient and now redundant narrative about our origins it has more to say besides. The modern bible has for example a narrative account of history, albeit a highly dubious one, and a conflicting moral code of a kind that appears to have changed during the course of writing. The catholic church presently has an evolving social teaching at odds with political parties. In some cases that could be to our good as well as our detriment. If you were a European Jew during the 20th century you had little to thank the catholic church for. Similarly if you are an African suffering form HIV-Aids you are unlikely to support the the ill-judged stance of this church on matters of contraception. On the other hand Pope John Paul II argued strongly against nuclear weapons and political totalitarianism from a religious perspective, as have other prominent religionists.
Theologians are therefore understandably incensed by Dawkins implied insistence on theology as being a domain like physics or maths, which is clearly not the case. We know that it can be either be bad or good for your health depending on which fallable human being is giving or interpreting religious instructions in a particular situation. This by any analysis would seem to render theology less than vacuous. Nevertheless, Dawkins makes a very important point about coherence. One aspect of long established religions that makes theological study apparently compulsive for some is the obvious incoherence of ancient religious documents, written by many authors over a long period of time, all of whom lacked a modern perspective on the world despite the wisdom that they might once have contributed.
Repeatability, unique events and interpretation of supernatural claims
If in the future there were to be a great declaration 2 hours 11 minutes after sunset on 22 May 2144 and every 300 years thereafter would it be unreasonable to seek repeatable observations to back those claims be they either moral or scientifically descriptive? If we do not seek a repeatable observational basis to beliefs of this kind how are we to distinguish between them or assess their value? Furthermore in the absence of repeatable and testable observations how are we to distinguish between delusion and non-delusional ideas?
Why not ask yourself some questions about the repeatability of fundamentalist theological claims in your own lifetime? Take the important issue of life and death as one example. How many miracles have you personally witnessed? Assuming you are not Christian, how many ascensions to heaven have you observed? How many dead people have you seen come back to life recently? Do you seriously belief that a dead person can come back to life tomorrow morning anywhere on the planet? If a scientist were to make such claims on the basis of laboratory experiments in the absence of such religious beliefs it is extremely unlikely that you would consider them true. Why then should anyone take the irrational literal beliefs of theological fundamentalists seriously? For those who see some non-realist importance in such stories it must be asked why should they even be considered metaphorically valuable ?. I will argue on another page that it not legitimate to award the descriptive claims special to religion any from of literal of figurative truth.
Religious literalists have tried to circumvent the need for repeatable observation by claiming that one-off extremely important historical events described in their sacred texts have occurred and will not be repeated. They have also claimed that events of a highly unusual nature will occur in future. We must object to the legitimacy of this approach because anyone can, by this method, make ridiculous and unverifiable claims. If that tactic is not challenged it opens us up to plethora of absolute nonsense. Indeed throughout history this has happened on a frequent basis. You would be foolish, for example, if you were to believe that I had received divine revelations from an Angel as I strolled along Princess Street in Edinburgh on the 21st of March 2007. Do you even have any evidence that I was there? Even if you had been holding my hand at the time or taking my pulse or my EEG how would you know that this was the case? However there are hundreds of millions of people today that believe the equivalent. Perhaps the most bizare belief sytem of modern time was the cargo cult (for further reading click here)
Even more surprising is the Rastafarian belief that Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia was divine even although he himself did not belief that to be the case. If Selassie had believed in his own divinity would that have made a difference? If there were ancient books predicting that he would appear in the form of a god would that have made it more justifiable? What possible observations could have made the proposition of Haile Selassie's divinity real?
In science there are also claims of one-off important events. The 'big-bang' and cosmic inflation are the the most obvious of these. The difference between the religious and the scientific approach is highly significant in these circumstances. Scientists seek physical evidence that can be interpreted to support the theory where as the religious will by faith hold it to be true without the need for physical verification. Although faith rewards it holders with satisfaction it does not take the analysis further in a physical sense. Indeed when the faithful refuse to accept the need for physical observations one can only despair of their desire to see advancement of knowledge. In terms of biology rapid extinction of the dinosaurs has been postulated to have occurred by the climactic change following the collision of a large asteroid. However that event must be placed amongst the context of evidence for other mass extinctions. In addition the scientist as well as the religious should seek observational evidence to either support or refute the idea.
A Future Fundamentalist Ascendancy
More alarmingly, is there any reason to argue that if a new generation fundamentalist 'believers' of a political or religious kind gain absolute political or religious power in the future they will not abuse others or their own kind ? Can we be sure that given a future ascendancy of religion 'The Inquisition' would not be upon us again? On those pragmatic historical grounds alone should we not be willing to question received wisdom from our neighbour's God or from anyone else?
Surely systematic examination of the behaviour and motivations of the religious and political throughout history and in the present time is a legitimate way in which to approach an understanding of religion. If it is not legitimate to analyse religion through observing the lives of the religious how can any real-world value be claimed by its adherents?
Further Reading
Has science made religion redundant? Lectures from John Polkinghorne
On the Philosophy of Belief
www.onbelief.org
Scotland, 12th October 2007 and thereafter
Copyright 2007 onwardscontact (at) onbelief.org
