I’ve always thought that theology was unique because the number of people engaged in the discipline outnumbers the subject of study by N – 1, where N is the number of people engaged in the discipline. Richard Dawkins, however, makes the point (and I agree) that theology isn’t a discipline. Yes, Biblical scholarship is, but not theology.
This is five years old but still relevant; it’s from Dawkins’s 2006 piece, “The Emptiness of Theology” in Free Inquiry.
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?
I wish I had written that. If that, along with the constant demand for evidence, isn’t one of the unifying tenets of New Atheism, it should be.
And expect to see a number of theologians—and secular philosophers like Michel Ruse—rushing frantically to inform us of the many contributions of theology.
I posit, (and am quite open to cogent refutation), that the wilful act of publically espousing[1] theology is the act of supporting and hosting an hierarchy of parasites.
Knowingly or unintentionally.
(I know not how to distil my feelings to any lesser prolixity.)
___________________
[1] For if one neither expressed nor acted on theology, it would remain the private hidden infantile mental nightmare that it is, and not infect nor affect another “soul”.
Damn. Forgot to subscribe to further comments.
Doing so now…
Well Said, Michael.
i think Robert Sapolsky has an essay on the schizophrenia/ocd/religion connection, if i remember correctly. i think it’s in MonkeyLuv. great writing. great comment, here, too! good point!
There’s also a great series of lectures on Google video. You can watch them all or just the one on religion.
…aaaaaaand Michael wins the thread with the first post.
Religion is a confidence scam, nothing more nor less. This is trivially demonstrated by the fact that the bedrock of religion is faith, elsewhere phrased as, “Of course you can trust me!”
Theology is the scam’s window dressing. It’s the gilt business cards, the glossy prospectus, the (rented) board room in the penthouse suite. The best way to get people to give you money is to convince them that you’ve already got more than you know what to do with.
Theology is “useful” in the exact same sense that Bernie Madoff’s financial advisors were useful.
Cheers,
b&
The delightful phrase “platitudinously obvious” makes me think of C of E vicars and bushy-eyebrowed Archbishops. I wish I could say I await the Ruse-ian response with interest but I don’t – they will be platitudinously obvious.
In general, I agree with you that theology is pointless. This is especially obvious when it comes to theologians like Haught. Some years ago, when I had decided, finally, that religious faith was empty, I took my theology degree, snipped it into little pieces, and threw the fragments in the trash. The reason that I gave as I did it, with appropriately contemptuous ritual, was that theology is not a subject of critical study.
Of course, I still hold to that, and so that rules out a large number of theologians from my regular reading. However, there are theologians who address theology, or at least the concepts and propositions of religion, in a critical spirit, and they still have worthwhile things to say. I think here of people like Don Cupitt, Richard Holloway, Graham Shaw, Maurice Wiles, and a few others, who use the concepts of religion to attempt to understand the nature of being human.
Of course, those who have read me elsewhere on this topic, will recognise that this is one of my hobby-horses, but, for all that, since religion is a human creation, there is still something to be discovered about being human, and some of the aspects of human nature, by exploring theology in a critical spirit. You can see this, for example, in people like Hitchens and Michel Onfray, who, at the same time that they criticise religion heavily, recognise the fact that our cultures have been deeply penetrated by religion. In order to ferret out some of these hidden religious assets, which lurk in places we might least suspect them, we need to be aware that, useless as it is, theology still has much to teach us about the human project. And in the spirit of Terence’s “Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto” it is important to bear in mind that theology has had thousands of years to embed itself in culture. It will take more than saying that theology is useless actually to rid ourselves of its destructive influence — and only knowing what to look for (Onfray’s book An Atheist Manifesto is useful in this connexion) will help us to it.
It’s why I think the distinction between “theology” and “religion studies” is useful.
It is even more important to bear in mind that syphilis has had thousands of years to embed itself in culture.
Terrence was a writer of fiction. Theology is fiction. No wonder that you conflate the two.
Likewise: syphilis has deeply ‘penetrated’ our culture.
That pathological and parasitic penetration makes it no more benign nor welcome than your residual religion fetish.
As for “hidden religious assets”, you will discover only the assets of mammon and church, not “religion”. Category error fail there: big-time.
Until one admits to one’s-self that faith, religion, and superstition are less than worthless, but utterly destructive, then one has a long road to walk until one becomes a rounded adult.
“syphilis has had thousands of years to embed itself in culture”
Arguably only hundreds.
How charmingly Eurocentric!
I’m sure that several South American Civilizations could present a marvellous case for ‘millennia’ rather than ‘centuries’.
Onfrays’ “In Defense of Atheism” is another good read where he discusses the epistemological effects of religion.
Eric,
I am struggling to see what some of these hidden religious assets might be. Could you give an example or two?
I too often am told (occasionally even by some of my fellow atheists and freethinking skeptics of the CLAIMS of religion) that religion does have assets without which there could not have been societal evolution resulting in the arising of rational, ethical, humanistic cultures. And I too beg for examples (as does Hitch) of assets of religious belief without which humanity could not have reasoned its way to rational, ethical, humanistic cultures. I STILL AWAIT examples that can survive critical examination.
Quite a rational expectation.
And one for which I have been waiting for a life-time.
Perhaps Eric might finally reveal the gem for which I have longed for.
Perhaps not.
Any bets on the outcome?
I’ll hazard a guess, if not an outright bet: smoke, meet mirror. Mirror, meet smoke. Now, you two run off behind that screen over there and work this out for us.
Whatever you think of the quality of the poetry or the ham-handedness of the symbolism or the ridiculous historical revisionism, religion is the source of a lot of the stories that animate western civilization. You can’t understand European or American culture without knowing a few things about religion. I’m not sure it’s really necessary to dive deeply into theology itself, but being aware of it certainly can’t hurt you in terms of historical perspective.
Even then, I personally find some interesting stuff in there. The story of Joseph is surprisingly good. I like the interpretation of the garden of Eden story as the beginning of civilization (where “knowledge of good and evil” is the set of rules needed for people to start living in non-family groups, i.e. in cities).
It’s not practicing the religion that has benefits, it’s knowing the history and what our culture owes to it. (Note that this is true for things other than religion, I’m just pointing out it’s true for religion as well.)
“religion is the source of a lot of the stories that animate western civilization.”
NO!!! This is silly.
Not since the Enlightenment a few centuries ago. Western civilization has outgrown talking snakes and angry Sky Fairies.
The religions still have influence but it isn’t animating western civilization. They are just baggage being dragged along behind society and occasionally trying to destroy it.
The vast majority of xians have never read the bible and have no idea what is in it.
Not silly at all — which is why Richard Dawkins says, correctly, that English culture would be seriously deprived if people were not taught the English Bible. English literature is simply marinated in it. Read Christopher Hitchens on the King James Bible — “When the King Saved God” in his new collection, Arguably.
While it’s true that English literature is “simply marinated in it” (nice turn of phrase), I question the long-term importance of understanding all the biblical references. There are many references to Greek/Roman mythology in English lit as well that are all but lost on modern readers, but we’re managing to cope.
We still tell each other silly stories. Terry Pratchett has a new book out. Neil Gaiman has made a career out of writing stories about gods that no one believes in any more. Just because I’m too old to believe in talking wolves doesn’t mean I can’t see the cultural value of a story like “Little Red Riding Hood.”
I’m not proposing taking the stories as histories or realistic in any way. I’m proposing to take them as what they are: mythological stories that can help us understand the perspectives of people who lived in the past.
Theology is the same sort of thing: stories that people in the past told themselves to make sense of their world. I find it interesting and useful to revisit those stories to try to understand the past.
In other words, I’m proposing that theology has some value as an object of study. I’m not trying to defend it as a subject of study.
BTW, “The Pied Piper of Hamlin” is supposedly based on actual events that occurred in the hamlet of Hamlin in Germany in the sixteenth century (IIRC). It’s not entirely clear what DID happen in Hamlin to inspire the story, but it does go to show you never know which silly stories might actually have some truth to them.
You’ve made a case for what religion has delivered.
Now make a case for theology.
“Theology” is an artifact of religion. You can’t understand religion in medieval Europe — and arguably you can’t understand the modern Christian religion — without understanding at least a little bit about theology.
Evidence? Well, notice how there’s Catholics AND Protestants? If you wanted to know why you’d have to understand a little about Catholic theology and why Luther and others objected to parts of it.
OK, now you’ve got why theology was important.
Here’s the kicker now – why IS it important. Not historically, but actually is now.
But studying the theology produced in the past, in order to more fully understand the phenomenon that is religion is <i
But studying the theology produced in the past, in order to more fully understand the phenomenon that is religion is not theology. That’s anthropology.
Nope.
Theology is an artefact of medieval, mainly scholastic, thinking, applied to the subject of religion.
Historians of religions — indeed, historians tout court — could give a pretty coherent account of the split between Catholics and Protestants. An ethnologist’s analysis of the same would likely provide additional and unusual insight (including the juicy bits about sexual taboos and practices, Malinowski-style). No need to toe the Party line in order to be clear about the Party.
“sexual taboos and practices, Malinowski-style” Huh? Malinowski was the kid who played right guard on our CYO* football team. (Come to think of it, the ancestry of the entire offensive line had been run off of eastern Prussia by successive hordes of Germans and Russians.) Mal was alright blockin’ on a sweep, but dude wasn’t much for practice, and nobody who saw him in that pair of double-knit bell-bottoms in the class of ’72 team picture would go so far as to accuse him of “style.” As for “sexual taboos,” his were the same as for the rest of the team: Don’t let the nuns and priests catch you jerkin’ off in the boys’ locker room.
(*That’s the initials of the “Catholic Youth Organization” for you lifelong heathens.)
Oh, if that wasn’t the Malinowski that you were referencing, Occam, then never mind. Sorry.
I think the study of history is important. Theology (of various religions) are a part of history. As should be obvious, I am only defending theology as the answer to certain historical questions. Rob, the dichotomy you’re trying to set up is a false one.
JS1685, it’s not anthropology except in a very loose sense. Much more precisely, it’s history. The subject of theology is a valid and useful object of study for the subject of history. Again, this is the only capacity in which I’m defending theology: not as a study in its own right but something to be studied.
Occam, historians trying to explain the schism routinely refer to theological documents including Luther’s theses. Like Rob, you’re trying to create a false dichotomy.
Nobody’s claimedthat theology shouldn’t be an object of study. But if it’s the object of your study, then whatever you’re doing isn’t theology. Everything people have cone up with in thus thread as a possible contribution if the practice if theology is more properly categorized as contributions of other disciplines. It’s just that the contributor might happento also call him/herself a theologian.
JS, that’s not what this subthread is about. This subthread is about whether theology is good for anything at all. Eric MacDonald argued that there is value in it, largely (I think anyway) for the same reasons I am.
Maybe an analogy to science would help you? Practicing alchemy is pointless in the 21st century, I think we’d agree. But the practice of alchemy was not always pointless and studying the practice of alchemy is important to the history of science. Alchemists DID contribute a lot of knowledge to modern chemistry, although the recognition of this required clearing away a lot of crap as well. Still, understanding why alchemists did what they did is important to understanding how chemistry ended up as it did.
I’m not claiming any more for theology, although technically I could probably make a pretty good case that modern analytical philosophy proceeds largely by using analytical tools inherited from the scholastics. (I’m not going to make that case because I don’t think modern analytical philosophy is itself a subject of unalloyed utility.)
I agree with everyone, it’s a dead field. It’s no use asking what’s on God’s mind. Every time I walk by the BU school of theology I sarcastically say to myself “Geez, bet some really important, exciting stuff is going on in there!” But nonetheless, there is value in studying it and understanding it as a historical phenomenon and as a set of narratives very deeply imbedded in our own culture.
As you’re writing yourself, Dan:
“The subject of theology is a valid and useful object of study for the subject of history.”
Historians refer to Luther’s theses or Melanchthon’s disputes as historical documents: histoire des idées, histoire des mentalités. Just as they would about Arianism and the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople in the 4th century. Or about Akhenaten and the Aton hymns, if they were concerned with the history of Egypt and its religions. No Egyptologist pretends studying Egyptian theology, despite the presence of a vast corpus of Egyptian religious texts.
Studying theology as a manifestation of medieval, European religious and intellectual history is one thing. Studying theology from within the framework of an organised religious doctrine is quite another, for then it impinges upon articles of active faith. Not just a dichotomy there: it’s an abyss.
Occam, I’m referring to “reading, studying, and trying to understand the arguments of theologians” as “theology.” Yes, I understand that studying it as a historical phenomenon is different from studying it as a legitimate discipline in its own right, but at this point you’re just quibbling about the semantics.
And under the definition above, Egyptologists most certainly do study Egyptian theology. The mysteries of the cult of Osiris are one thing Egyptologists would study, and for me that would definitely qualify as Egyptian theology.
OK, shaving off unnecessary differences, we’ve ended up disagreeing about semantics. I suspect even Jan Assmann would not disagree with your definition of theology as applied to Egyptian religion. But how many mainstream theologians would?
“The story of Joseph is surprisingly good” — You talking about the cat with the crazy colored coat, or the one who made an honest woman of the Holy Ghost’s baby-mama?
“religion is the source of a lot of the stories that animate western civilization” — Yes, if by “animate” you mean “provides a rich source of allusion for one set of people, while muddling the thinking of a separate set.”
I can sort of agree with this. But I’d say if a theologian stumbles across some insight into the human condition, that bit doesn’t really represent theology, strictly speaking.
JS1685, I do not understand why anyone should say such a thing. Of course theology has to do with the human condition. One of the things that Christian theology devoted itself to was self-examination. To suppose that, say, spiritual self-examination cannot both be an aspect of theological understanding, and also a deep understanding of the nature of being human is a mere prejudice, not a considered position. Lots of theology is just making stuff up, as Jerry says. No argument from me there. But, since most thought before the modern age was deeply tinged with theology and religious belief, it seems a bit harsh to suggest that religious understanding contributed nothing to our understanding of ourselves.
See my reply to you below.
Many of you have gone to a great deal of trouble to misunderstand me, so I will just reply generally. First of all, the fact that human beings just do understand their lives in narrative form, and tend to link their own personal narratives with the wider narratives of peoples, religions, nations, etc., means that, whatever we say about religion, it is — unlike syphilis — an analogy which is about as pointless as most theology — a part of the fabric of being human, like it or not. That’s why, in fact, atheism itself will be, for the foreseeable future, a minority pursuit.
I take EO Wilson’s suggestion quite seriously, that, however far the spirits flee, “we cannot live without them. People need a sacred narrative. They must have a sense of larger purpose, in one form or another, however intellectualized. … If the sacred narrative cannot be in the form of a religious cosmology, it will be taken from the material history of the universe and the human species.” (Consilience, 264-5)
We may be on the way towards developing this “sacred narrative”. You can see shades of it in Dawkins’ new book for kids. The stories that science tell not only work, and are really true, but they are also in some sense continuous with the myth-making past. However, having said this, it would be foolish simply to dismiss the old myths are so much old lumber. They are part of the warp and woof of our culture, and our cultural memory consists largely of stories such as these. And there are literary and philosophical gems amidst much of the dross. The book of Job, for example, is a startlingly powerful expression of human suffering, and of the complexity of the human response to it. Ecclesiastes is very similar, in this way, though it rings the changes on the theme, by showing the impersonality of the universe, and the recognition that none of this was made with us in mind.
But the other side of this is this. When you consider how deeply embedded religion is in our culture — here is where Onfray is very helpful — we will recognise the extent to which, even when we least expect it, we are still governed by religious presuppositions. The only way to recognise what is and is not religious is to be thoroughly familiar with the way in which religion functions and has functioned within a society.
For example, I believe that the main reason that suicide has been held to be one of the most heinous crimes is simply that, in Christian theology, death is the enemy, death = chaos, and the acceptance of death, even the welcoming of it, threatens the established order. That’s why religious people see slippery slopes all over the place, because they think of the acceptance of death, or the welcoming of it, as welcoming chaos, as the repudiation of sacred order.
Without some awareness of theological modes of understanding the world, we will be simply ignorant of how deeply our own thoughts and actions are still bound by religious presuppositions. And while I do not recommend theology as a study, I do not think that ignorance of theology is a helpful way of establishing ourselves or our societies on secure foundations, free from religious assumptions from which we imagine, sometimes vainly, that we are free.
Well, I don’t think I misunderstood you. This:
is exactly what I meant. The useful bits are rightly categorized in other disciplines.
Aha! I’ve been wondering why some italics had serifs and some didn’t. The purdy ones are blockquotes. More fuel for the “old WP mobile format was better” fire.
Eric, isn’t pretty much everything you say here – the need for a narrative, the way religion acts out in individuals and in society, etc – already covered by anthropology, sociology and psychology? Or religion studies, literary criticism, etc? What is it specifically that theology adds that can’t be found in any of those disciplines?
Yup. Sir George Frazer, for example.
Hi,
You seem to be affected with the idea that wile the minority of intelligent atheists don’t need religion, the majority of (presumably dumb) people do. I think this is patronising and not true. I would argue that anyone with a reasonably functioning brain would be able to evaluate evidence and reach a logical view of the world if it were presented clearly.
What do you make of societies such as scandanavian countries or the UK, where the majority of people (depending on what survey you look at) describe themselves as ‘no religion’ and only a small minority regularly attend church? These societies seem to function without a ‘sacred narrative’ or religious impluse.
Sorry, to be clear this was meant as a reply to Eric McDonald’s post!
I’ve often seen the argument from “modern theologians” that theology is useful because it studies religion and its history. But I’ve never heard a good answer to why theology shouldn’t just continue under the name of “religion studies”, or what theology offers that religion studies doesn’t.
Conservative and sectarian theologians, on the other hand, actually have an answer to that: God. And apologetics.
In a way, it comes down to branding. Some theologians want to jettison the apologetics and god-talk, and re-brand “theology” as a reputable, secular, academic discipline – while still benefiting from the respect the “theology” brand would get in the past. But apologists will happily use the reputation of the updated brand to support their own agenda. Besides, conservatives have no less claim to the brand of “theology” than the progressive theologians. I don’t think the progressive theologians can win this, so I think they should just cut their losses, drop the “theology” label and become “religion studies” instead.
And of course, “theology” (almost) always means “Christian theology,” as though no other religions existed.
Yep, I don’t see folks like Haught doing a lot of deep discussion of the Vedas or the Heart Sutra.
In my mind, that is a relief!
Theology is empty because its supposed subject, god(s), is nonexistent.
Religious studies are useful because they study humans and how they deal with religion.
Well, the issue is that I’ve had theologians try and convince me that while theology used to be about god, “modern theology” isn’t about that anymore. But when asked what it is about, I get an answer that to me seems indistinguishable from religion studies. So then why label it “theology”?
Precisely.
The term “theology” must be retained so that its quack practitioners can equivocate, claiming all the “useful work” they do as arguments for god’s existence.
“I’ll agree with those observations. But you’re only really studying human psychology and interaction.” “But it’s called theology. God exists. You agree. I win.”
At a theologian friend’s recommendation, I once tried reading The Analogical Imagination, by David Tracy (who teaches theology at the University of Chicago).
In the intro, Prof Tracy says something like, “A theologian is someone who had bet his academic career on the notion that organised religion has something valuable to say about the human condition.”
He lost me there. Organised religion has nothing valuable to say about the human condition that is not obvious to the non-religious as well. In fact, most of what religion says about the human condition is demonstrably wrong.
Bad bet, Prof Tracy. Try the lottery next time — you’ll get better odds.
Well, the very fact that humans organize into religions does say something about the human condition. It’s just that you don’t need theologians to study that, you need sociologists, psychologists and anthropologists.
+1
It is TRIBAL
Bullseye.
+2
And then, of course, you need psychologists to investigate what precisely went wrong in a person’s life to make theology an attractive career choice.
Well, Tracy may have lost an academic career, but he gained a job! I guess it just depends on what your intellectual integrity is worth to you.
How to do theology in two easy steps:
1. Make stuff up.
2. Earnestly treat it as though it were real.
Who knew you could turn this into a career!
[In proofing what I wrote, it looked a whole lot like schizophrenia or some other disorder in which reality cannot be distinguished from fantasy.]
Matt, it seems like there ought to be a third step here, something to the effect of couching your ruminations in the murkiest, most obfuscatory language possible.
That’s only necessary when atheists can read or hear it.
I would’ve thought you need opaque postmodernist crap that sounds important to convince those in the pews that you know what you’re on about. In my experience, theological obfuscation is like blood in the water to an atheist.
Sir Peter Medawar (The Hope of Progress, 1974), found in one of Dawkins’s books.
Oh, that is too true!
One need only compare the recent crystal-clarity of Coyne versus the obvious-obfuscation of his disappointingly lame opponent.
Theology for beginners –
(1) Make up a bunch of stuff.
(2) ???.
(3) Publication!
I wonder about the existential terror that theists like Haught must feel. If you go to the casino and lose a few bucks… oh well.. life goes on.
These people have bet their lives, their very existence on a losing number.
What a wonderfully evocative analogy!
Thank you! 🙂
I shall have to remember that.
I must admit that my first thought was a bit snide – theology is a place for many of the folks who could not pass organic chemistry. And while Eric makes some very good points, it appears to me that the scholars he mentions are not theologians in the most narrow sense, but rather are examining the impact of theology and religion on societies – a worthwhile endeavor. I also had to think about my contemporaries who pursued science and those who went elsewhere toward psychology, philosophy and theology – they seemed to be the ones who had the most problems dealing with reality.
Totally unrelated “I Love Cats” has over 17 million views. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTTwcCVajAc
I do wish I hadn’t clicked on the “I love cats” link, but on reflection, at least it was better than reading theology.
I have not only seen the video but I am forced to listen to my teenaged daughter sing the song quite often. But it is much better than reading theology!
Douglas E wrote:
Ha! Great comment!
I literally laughed out loud, as I personally know more than a dozen pastors and theologians who, in telling me their life story, commented that they had started out on a more scientific route but had to change course when they could not pass organic chemistry!
I think it denies the beauty that theology can bring us. Vladimir Lossky an Orthodox Theologian in a beautiful book described the ultimate experience with God is when you find nothing. That god is just an experience once you know it it dissipates – At least when I read it that is what I got. Look at the beauty of Religion. The mad bombers and funeral protesters the tv evangelists and creationists and are just the nuclear bombs and whaling ships and Microsoft Windows that science give us.
without Theology – we are only left with superstition.
That describes a drug-addled high to a “T”.
Look at the beauty of Religion
=
Look at the beauty of Herion
Without theology, we are left with chemistry!
…Heroin
I like “Herion” better. That, and “heroine”.
(I’ve worked extensively in HIV epidemiology with drug treatment program personnel — it’s a running joke. In my mind, they’re all interchangeable now.)
True, but that doesn’t mean that superstition + theology is that much better.
Theology is the beautifully painted sarcophagus which encases the rotting corpse of religion. It is there to make superstition look respectable. It is a con.
You might want to try to allocate some brain cells to grokking the difference between science and engineering.
Also, your post seems to have had at least one grammar hiccup. Could you rephrase your post? I am not sure that my understanding of your words is correct.
Finally: “without Theology – we are only left with superstition.” Huh? Theology is the study of superstition within the context of said superstition. Your statement makes no sense. Without superstition we are left without theology, is true. Theology is apologetics for religion, which IS itself a subset of superstition.
A pet hate of mine is when some people define theology well beyond its bounds and try to take credit from other respectable disciplines such as history, and as mentioned biblical scholarship.
Usually this takes the form of ‘I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, theology says that is true, archaeologists have studied the Temple Mount therefore theology and Jesus is true’
Actually, the number studying the discipline outnumbers the subject of the discipline by N, not N-1, because the subject doesn’t exist.
+1
I was thinking N-i myself.
Imaginative!
/@
The number studying the discipline is in fact equal to the number of subjects of the discipline, since each theologian studies their own god. Everyone, not just theologians has their own god who agrees with them about everything. Every theologian studies a different god.
Number of theologians = number of gods studied.
Actually, the gods will always outnumber the theologians. One may safely assume that each theologian has at least one god, and there’s certainly at least one theologian with more than one god. (Hindu theologians have too many gods for me to count).
Considering that damned few theists, including theologians, are monotheists (even if they profess otherwise)*, it’s safe to say that there are many, many, many times as many gods as there are theologians.
Cheers,
b&
—
* Every Christian is a polytheist. I don’t give a damn your position on Trinitarianism, Jesus and YHWH are clearly different gods. And if Hades and Set are gods, then so too is Satan. If Semele is a goddess, then so too is Mary. If the Olympians are gods, then the Cherubim and Seraphim and what-not are gods. If Romulus and Remus are gods, then Abraham is a god. If Prometheus and Pandora are gods, then Adam and Eve are gods. If Roman, Japanese, and other ancestor gods are gods, then saints and guardian angels are gods. Indeed, Christianity is as polytheistic as they get. b&
Not to mention Borborigmus, god of intestinal rumblings.
I’ve also seen a lot of arguments along the lines of “theology is useful because it gave us textual analysis” or some other practice that is generally useful. But that’s not that different from saying that astrology is useful because it gave us tables of planetary motion, or alchemy is useful because it gave us distillation. That hasn’t stopped us from downgrading them to pseudo-sciences, leaving them to the mystics and charlatans. Instead, we’ve replaced them with the rigorous disciplines of astronomy and chemistry. When will we do the same for theology?
To tell you the truth, I always thought ‘theology’ to be a completely different field from biblical studies or religious history. Until recently I didn’t realise that many people conflated them.
Me too. And while I can understand why conservatives would conflate them (so they can steal some of the legitimacy of those disciplines), I just can’t understand why supposed “secular” theologians would.
See my comment #10, regarding people trying to conflate respectable disciplines with theology. Reading and writing gave textual analysis, not theology. Textual analysis of the bible is doing literature, not theology.
Hear, hear!
I think that’s true if you replace “is” with “was”. Astrology was useful because it gave rise to astronomy. You have to crawl before you can walk, after all. But once you learn to walk, crawling loses its value.
“But once you learn to walk, crawling loses its value.”
…unless you’re swimming.
Or commuting between pubs, an activity often entailing the transient unlearning of walking, and a commensurate regression to crawling.
Come to think of it, both theology and pub crawling involve a measure of infantile regression, although one is considerably less fun than the other. Also, there exist a number of charitable institutions dedicated to the relief of noxious after-effects of pub crawling. But are there any Theologians Anonymous?
Unitarian-Universalist Sunday meetings?
😉
Maybe Dan Dennet will set one up. “Hello, my name’s Karen and I’m a theologian”. Much clapping. “I haven’t written a word of nonsense in 7 weeks!” Enthusiastic clapping.
Contributions of theology? There are many and most contribute to blind faith, bigotry, genocide, inquisitions, crusades, war, etc. The positive contributions are few but are nothing that cannot be achieved by science and reason.
Michael Kingsford Gray (at #1.) is quite right about the parasitical nature of theology.
I cannot think of any worthwhile activity associated with theology that does not have its roots elsewhere, is not more properly exercised elsewhere, or is not debased when polluted with theology. All that remains is empty speculation, verbiage, and power-mongering.
“The Art of Interpreting Nonexistent Inscriptions Written in Invisible Ink on a Blank Page”
This, I think, best describes the essence of theology.
But there is a twist to this quote: it is the title of a review, by sinologist Simon Leys in the NY Review of Books, of a compilation of canonical texts of the Chinese Communist Party by the eminent China watcher, editor of China News Analysis (and Hungarian Jesuit) László Ladány.
A few more quotes from the Simon Leys review:
What made China News Analysis so infuriatingly indispensable was the very simple and original principle on which it was run (true originality is usually simple): all the information selected and examined in China News Analysis was drawn exclusively from official Chinese sources (press and radio). This austere rule sometimes deprived Ladány’s newsletter of the life and color that could have been provided by less orthodox sources, but it enabled him to build his devastating conclusions on unimpeachable grounds.
What inspired his method was the observation that even the most mendacious propaganda must necessarily entertain some sort of relation with the truth; even as it manipulates and distorts the truth, it still needs originally to feed on it. Therefore, the untwisting of official lies, if skilfully effected, should yield a certain amount of straight facts.
Religions and totalitarian parties have a great deal in common. Maybe it takes a solid dose of theological training to see through the waft and web of ideologically motivated lying and deceit. I have no quarrel with that — just as I have no quarrel with the fact that Simon Leys still considers himself a Christian, indeed a Catholic (and even has wittily taken Christopher Hitchens to task for an under-informed attack on Mother Teresa). I don’t need anyone to share my beliefs, or rather lack thereof, in order to give fair consideration to their arguments. (I’m adding this in respect to the thoughtful objection raised by Eric MacDonald.)
At any rate, Jerry Coyne is proving surprisingly apt (surprisingly for a scientist, that is) at sinking theologians with their own arsenal. When he lets theologians speak for themselves, he is hardly doing them any favour: the account they give of themselves is self-defeating. They are frantically pasting layer over layer of duct tape over the essential nothingness at the core of their business. But the nothingness shines through.
I hope Jerry isn’t in the process of inventing a new discipline – “scientific theology”!
Then again, I regard progress in theology the same way I regard progress in smallpox or polio – so don’t let up with the anti-theism vaccination program.
Science has been described as organized common sense. Theology is organized nonsense.
“the number of people engaged in the discipline outnumbers the subject of study by N – 1, where N is the number of people engaged in the discipline.”
Now that should convince Lawrence Krauss that biologists can do math!
(The YouTube link was coded to jump to 5:48. If it doesn’t, please fast-forward to 5:48.)
Though, see my comment above (#11). 🙂
Can we please have a similar thread soon on philosophy?
I agree, but let poor Jerry get his stride before tackling and conquering a new frontier!
Well, again I have to say that scientific endeavors are great friends with philosophy.
In particular the philosophy of model-dependent methodologic naturalism.
The critique of scientists from “professional” philosophers seems to boil down to the fact that scientists don’t consider every aspect of every branch of philosophy in order to reject those branches in favor of what works — that being model-dependent methodological naturalism. Dr. Dr. Dr. Pigliucci being a case in point. Or Michael Ruse.
And, of course, one can make the case that they’re angry at fact that all of the heavy lifting has already been done, leaving their discipline to be — in common with theology — more anthropological and historical.
But science doesn’t reject philosophy. Science uses a bright shining beacon of philosophy in order to make things work.
Yes well I am biased against the jargon. I’m not sure that it adds clarity & precision ~ BUT that could easily be a failure of my intellect
Everything we think or do or believe relates back to a field of philosophy. Science & how it’s done is a subset of philosophy. You call it “the philosophy of model-dependent methodologic(al) naturalism” & I will simply call it the scientific method.
When philosophers can rein in the long words I will try & pay it more attention. I’m interested in philosophy as used by say Singer on animal ethics, but I have a cloth ear for most of it ~ it feels like bunk & it reads like bunk
Examples?
Or simply the best example, please…
Concerning “Yes, Biblical scholarship is, but not theology”, you should read Hector Avalos’s The End of Biblical Studies.
http://www.amazon.com/End-Biblical-Studies-Hector-Avalos/dp/1591025362
No, in fact, what theology is good for is emotional soothing. It’s a bit like chanting and hymns. Magical thinking is hyper-immediate and visceral. Chopra is the same as are all ideology-based speakers.
Scientific conferences and speakers, on the other hand, are extreme deferred gratification and mind numbingly unemotionally satisfying.
Heh. I’m heading to Chicago tomorrow for the American College of Rheumatology meeting. I get you, I really do.
But sometimes, there’s a lot to be gleaned, and some of it is damned interesting and exciting. You just have to understand the language of the priesthood.
You also have to be in love with incrementalism. Small steps beget giant leaps.
Pat Condell (check out his fantastic rants against religion on You Tube) said it best: “What’s the difference between a doctor of medicine and a doctor of theology?”-
-“One prescribes drugs, the other one may as well be on drugs.”
Maybe we should not be too `whiggish’ in interpreting what theology
might have contributed in the past. For Nicholas of Cusa (Kues) (1401 – 1464), his speculations about infinite space arose not from what we would call scientific arguments, but from general metaphysical arguments which he would not have separated from his theology. Giordano Bruno was directly influenced by his speculations. He was also influential on Galileo and Kepler. Without that last great phenomenologist,
to build a bridge from Tycho’s measurements, where would Newton have been?
But theology today … empty, empty, empty.
Agree on the Whig interpretation of history. Good point, and should be brought up in these discussions many times over. Agree on Nikolaus von Kues.
Emphatically disagree on Galileo, Kepler, Newton. I have yet to see a shred of evidence that the history of astronomy and physics would have changed one iota had Giordano Bruno never existed.
Tycho Brahe – Kepler – Newton: that lineage is established. I would need solid evidence before counting Giordano Bruno among the ‘giants’ on whose shoulders Newton stood.
The huge, bitter, sinister irony of Giordano Bruno’s fate may be that here, a theologian was burnt at the stake by other theologians – for being different as a theologian. I suspect that many theologians today are secretly longing for similarly incendiary means of confutation. Their tough luck that we should be living in ever so slightly more civilised times (here at least, a meager vindication of Steven Pinker).
lol. Theology is sophisticated homeopathy. Or is it the other way around?
Theologians should just try to fuse themselves with homeopaths! I’m sure they’d get the bargain of respect and honor there! Both don’t require any evidence at all!
So homeopaths can just say that what is left from an infinite dilution of evidence and reason is God or Maxwell’s demon! lol.
God exists in the homeopathic solution tweaking each molecule of water so that it always “remembers” the active ingredient that has been infinitely diluted.
It’s a perfect explanation for the homeopaths! There they have their mechanism and the theologians now have a job for God!
It’s a perfect union.
lol.
I disagree with your analogy. At least homeopathy can be falsified (and has of course), even without a plausible mechanism. Theology doesn’t even have that virtue of being testable.
lol. Exactly! That’s why it’s a perfect union! Once they fuse God into their explanation of how water molecules can remember the active ingredient then it no longer will be falsifiable and so Science can “no longer” have a go at them. They will be in a different Magisterium. They’ll gain an ally and the theologians can get God out of the unemployment line! It’s a Win-Win for those two sophisticated fields!
Jerry posted a while back asking whether theology had produced anything useful, and said in the Haught debate that no one had come up with anything.
I said then, and I say again: Occam’s Razor. Occam was a theologian and applied his famous Razor to defend his thesis that God’s will is sufficient “Whatever might be performed by secondary causes might be performed directly by God. So, in a particular case of combustion, an assumption that it was caused by fire might be ill founded if God had directly intervened. Causal relations could be established, therefore, only by experience, not by reason, and even then our experiences might be mistaken.” (quoting a secondary source John Henry writing in Science & Religion JHU press 2002 p138)
If this isn’t a clear example of theology producing useful “knowledge” per se, the principle of parsimony is certainly a vital cognitive tool in whose origin theology played a central role.
wikipedia:Occam’s razor is attributed to the 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar Father William of Ockham (d’Okham)…
although the principle was familiar long before.[4]”
Wikipedia says the principle behind Occam’s razor had already been thought up.
But whatever. So theology has come up with one good idea in the last 700 years. Whoopee.
wikipedia: “The origins of what has come to be known as Occam’s razor are traceable to the works of earlier philosophers such as Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, 1138–1204), John Duns Scotus (1265–1308), and even Aristotle (384–322 BC) (Charlesworth 1956).”
Occam may have been a theologian but the principle of parsimony isn’t a religious idea.
It belongs to philosophy, logic and common sense.
If Occam had invented the lawn mower, you could credit that to theology using the same reasoning you used.
Good point, raven, even if I say so myself…
(Pause to exit the Strange Loop…)
“Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate”, one of two or three phrases actually by William of Ockham which can be construed to infer what Occam’s Razor is generally held to mean, was popularised by William Hamilton in the 19th century.
Let’s get rid of the canard: Occam’s Razor in its current acceptance as the epitome of the principle of parsimony has precious little to do with the medieval William of Ockham. It’s a modern heuristic construct, made respectable by the tagging of a medieval sobriquet.
Occam’s Curse is that so many who quote Occam’s Razor today have never actually read anything by the real William of Ockham. Having undertaken the chore myself, I defy anyone not actually funded by the Templeton Foundation (except perhaps Umberto Eco) to delve into William of Ockham’s prose and retrieve anything of other than historical interest. Certainly the few laws of logic attributed to William of Ockham were known to Greek and Arab authors long before him. Indeed, the principle of parsimony is not a result of theology. It is a heuristic method applied to a (rather absurd) theological question. Once again, theology on its own has nothing original to contribute.
Theology doesn’t create ideas, theologians do? Seems like equivocation to me.
If a theologian invented a lawnmower to solve a theological problem then theology would rightly be credited for the invention.
Many of these replies strike me as question begging of the no true Scotsman variety: Ockham’s work has useful implications outside of theology, so it can’t have been theology itself. What is to be proved is that theology can’t have general, useful implications.
The idea behind Occam’s razor is more or less self-evident. Whether or not such an idea can be “invented” at all is in question, and I don’t claim that he was the first to use the idea.
However, Occam clearly had a role in popularizing parsimony (the idea does appear explicitly in his writing: “For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture” quoted in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/ ). The mere fact of the phrase “Occam’s Razor” is evidence to this effect — probably not decisive in itself, but evidence enough that claims to the contrary seem to demand contrary evidence.
I had only the Latin texts (online @ logicmuseum.com) at my disposal, and frankly, after an evening with them, I’m more than a little fed up with translating Oxonian medieval Latin. The only relevant loci I could find were the classic Secunda radix est multiplicare entia secundum multitudinem terminorum, et quod quilibet terminus habet quid rei; quod tamen abusivum est et a veritate maxime abducens. at the end of Summa Logicae, I/51, and the equally classic Sed contra istud est illa propositio quod ‘pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate’. at the end of the Prologue (Sent.).
Hardly conclusive evidence, one way or the other.
Fortunately, you provided the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link. Which is, I must say, a treat:
Ockham’s Razor, in the senses in which it can be found in Ockham himself, never allows us to deny putative entities; at best it allows us to refrain from positing them in the absence of known compelling reasons for doing so. In part, this is because human beings can never be sure they know what is and what is not “beyond necessity”; the necessities are not always clear to us. But even if we did know them, Ockham would still not allow that his Razor allows us to deny entities that are unnecessary. For Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything else, the whole of creation, is radically contingent through and through. In short, Ockham does not accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
Nevertheless, we do sometimes have sufficient methodological grounds for positively affirming the existence of certain things. Ockham acknowledges three sources for such grounds (three sources of positive knowledge). As he says in Sent. I, dist. 30, q. 1: “For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”
And furthermore:
Ockham removes all need for entities in seven of the traditional Aristotelian ten categories; all that remain are entities in the categories of substance and quality, and a few entities in the category of relation, which Ockham thinks are required for theological reasons pertaining to the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Eucharist, even though our natural cognitive powers would see no reason for them at all.
My emphasis, to underline the following points:
Not only, it appears, does the historical William of Ockham not apply the Razor misattributed to him with anything like logical consistency; he also stops short of applying logic when confronted with scriptural authority, or with dogma. In summa, pure theology!
QED
Occam definitely was being a theologian when he applied Occam’s Razor. But was he doing theology when he formulated the principle of parsimony? Or was he doing philosophy (epistemology, logic)? Assuming he invented the principle of parsimony to begin with, which we have no reason to assume in the first place.
The question wasn’t whether theologians have produced anything useful, but has theologoy. Otherwise, I could’ve just pointed to a theologian making a sandwich.
Nice coincidence: you were posting while I was typing (I’m a very slow typer, and currently have the use of my left hand only). See above.
Love your typo ‘theologoy’. Most apt, and I’m sure Jerry will appreciate the (involuntary?) joke.
No, Deen. If Occam has applied his Razor to his theology, he would have become either an atheist or an agnostic. He clearly did NOT apply it to his theology.
The idea was that he was not using theology when he formulated anything useful. If the pope carved a block of wood, it would not be due to his catholicism/christianity. Merely because someone is a theologian does not mean that anything they did not directly related to theology was as a result of their theology.
Correlation is not causation.
I don’t know that that he didn’t apply the razor to his theology.
Given the level of scientific knowledge, is “science is it” a use of the principle at that point in time?
Rob, it is patently obvious that Occam didn’t apply it to his theology. He clearly started with the premise that god exists, violating his “Razor” in the process.
He knew there were contradictory religions in his day — so they can’t all be right (although they could all be wrong). He suffered imprisonment for disagreeing with the pope, so he was no stranger to controversy.
No, it is obvious that he had significant cognitive dissonance with respect to analyzing the reality of his own beliefs. He espoused “For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.” — blind to the fact that the last part violates the first part.
To say that “he didn’t apply it to his theology” is mostly false. What’s true is that he didn’t apply the razor to his theology as a whole.
The reason the razor bears his name is that he used it repeatedly in his theology.
George Locke, I would have to disagee. It appears obvious to me that he only applied the razor to the smallest part of his theology: everything that wasn’t the foundation or built on the foundation.
Though it is easy for anybody who doesn’t accept the priori ‘god exists’ can see theology is useless. This is not the same for theists though as I have a friend who has a degree in biochemistry from Manchester university no less, yet doesn’t accept the theory of evolution:-( He started doing a theology course and you won’t believe how happy this made him, he kept going on about the wonderful arguments for god. Guess what book he was getting so excited about.
‘Christian Theology: An Introduction.’ When I ask for all these great arguments they simply turned out to be the usual apologetics which I easily refuted but still he was having none of it. To the theist this is really sophisticated stuff that shores up their belief. The pernicious influence of the said priori is its negating effect of one’s critical thinking ability.
Sorry I missed out the author of the book ‘Christian Theology: An Introduction by Alister E McGrath.’
The qualifier of “in theology” would seem a more exacting addition to “If all the achievements of theologians”, as a few theologians made pretty fundamental discoveries in science and mathematics.
“Yes, Biblical scholarship is, but not theology”. Hector Avalos might have something to say about that (re: his book “The end of biblical studies”). Once upon a time, maybe it was a real discipline, today it simply acts to attempt to prop up religion and is not a “real subject” at all any more
Christian theology is an old five-tier marketing scheme after which many contemporary ones are patterned:
ONE: Tell all happy people that unknown to them they do have a dreadful problem. (There is something wrong with them. It is called “original sin.” Because of it, they are all at risk of hellfire for eternity.)
TWO: Instil a proper mixture of greed and fear so that the people won’t exercise their critical faculties. (Who are you to contest the sacred word of God? Don’t dare disbelieve or you will go to hell. Some very intelligent people have been devout Christian. You would be a fool not to follow their example. Your pride will bring upon you perdition while heaven could be waiting if only you had some humility.)
THREE: Once the people are suitably destabilized joyfully announce the good news. (There exists a narrow escape. They must “freely” accept Jesus in their hearts as their personal saviour.)
FOUR: Move for the kill. Close the deal at once or the preys will run away and all will have been in vain. Point out how utterly urgent it is to embrace the faith. (Armageddon is just around the corner. Convert now or it will be too late, etc.)
FIVE: Cynically enjoy money, power and a crowd of adoring fans.
Psychoanalysis and scientology are but a few modern examples of this well honed and ever successful stratagem.
This is what theology is good at.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this blog. I can’t comment too much b/c I’m at work. I am greatful you wrote it. Thanks again!
The usual suspects will probably say (haven’t read the entire thread, so maybe they already have) that we owe Occam’s Razor to theology. While that idea was indeed motivated by disputes over goddy issues, this was merely an example of a theologian doing epistemology. It is like people who have “professor of theology” written on their office door doing critical bible studies – nothing wrong with that, but that is because it isn’t really theology.
Quoting Coyne …
“I wish I had written that.”
You do, every day. And the world is a better place because of it.
Dennett once asked a similar question to theologians:
“I’m Dan Dennett, one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and we are forever being told that we should do our homework and consult with the best theologians. I’ve heard two of you talk now, and you keep saying this is an interdisciplinary effort–evolutionary theology–but I am still waiting to be told what theology has to contribute to the effort. You’ve clearly adjusted your theology considerably in the wake of Darwin, which I applaud, but what traffic, if any, goes in the other direction? Is there something I’m missing? What questions does theology ask or answer that aren’t already being dealt with by science or secular philosophy? What can you clarify for this interdisciplinary project?” (Words to that effect) Neither speaker had anything to offer, but van Huyssteen blathered on for a bit without, however, offering any instances of theological wisdom that every scientist interested in the Big Questions should have in his kit.
[…]
After the second set of two talks, which I was obliged to listen to since the moderator promised more responses to my “challenge” and I had to stay around to hear them out, there was another half hour of discussion. I did my duty: I listened attentively, I asked questions, and the theologians were embarrassingly short on answers, though one recommended David Chalmers on panpsychism–a philosopher, not a theologian, and second, nobody, not even Chalmers, takes panpsychism seriously, to the best of my knowledge. Do theologians?
That was a fun write-up of the Darwin event! I was there at the ‘evolutionary Christology talk’ and can confirm it was, indeed, all bafflegab and nonsense. Also, the ‘Fraser Watts’ Dennett mentions, was one of my old Theology profs at Cambridge.
Yes, I did theology for four years there and am now an atheist. I completely agree that theology has no substance and contributes nothing to our understanding of ourselves or the universe(What it may have contributed in the past is irrelevant, we have moved on). Theology only works if you first assume a priori that God (the Christian one, of course!) exists. The rest is post-hoc rationalisation designed to make the assumption seem reasonable. Essentially, it assumes its conclusion then scrabbles around to try to find ‘evidence’, however vague and intentionally misinterpreted, to support it. God is simply assumed ‘on faith’.
It is also bafflingly dishonest. I myself have heard theologians give lectures on Friday where they say that of course the Bible is not literally true, and an anthropomorphic God is a primitive idea, and talk about God as a ‘ground of being’ or some other such impersonal abstraction. The same theologians will then get up in the pulpit on Sunday and teach literalism and the very ‘primitive’ anthropomorphic sky-god to the congregation. It’s as if they think that while they don’t need the myths, other people (less educated people) do. They can’t handle the truth. Which is patronising, paternalistic rubbish. I say anyone can reach their own conclusion if given evidence and logic. Why hide things from them unless you’re running a scam? Which is all theology is really. A scam to make stupid religion sound intelligent and keep the clergy and theologians in business.
Oh, and quick clarification: its ‘Watts’ not ‘Watt’ and he isn’t Catholic, he’s Anglican. Not that it matters much, but there you go!