Yesterday I posted a reader’s beef from someone named “heavymetalvomitparty,” who said that my opinions on God, theology, and philosophy were worthless since I was neither monk, priest, nor philosopher. Be that as it may, we have a comment on the same thread by one “solnedgangman,” who wrote at length, and whose comment I decided to make into a post. It’s an appropriate reply because it’s by a theologian with at least some CREDENTIALS! This commenter also has a website, Tree of Talking:
Dear “heavymetalvomitparty,”
I am a credentialed theologian! At least, that is what I was told after graduating with my BA in theology from St. Gregory University, a Benedictine school in Shawnee, Oklahoma. Perhaps you will not accept me as an authority on theology on the basis of an undergraduate degree, given that I lack an M.Div. or the hilariously named STD (sacrae theologiae doctor, or doctor of sacred theology), though I do have two MAs and a Ph.D. in other fields. However, I can tell you that my few years at the undergraduate level was enough to divest me rather completely of the notion that theology was the study of anything solid, that there was an object to this subject. I went in a fairly faithful Catholic eager to uncover the workings of the divine and came out, on my graduation day, with an awareness that I had wasted my time completely. I enjoyed some classes. Studying scripture entailed the heady analysis of texts, while our classes on ethics and morality were headed by a knowledgable and passionate professor who was capable of taking us into some controversial territory. However, any truly challenging discussion always ended with “God said so” or “the Church said so” (both of which are simply restatements of “the Church said that God said so”). How can there be such a thing as a just war but not a just abortion? The Church said so.
What I ended up discovering is that there are no actual standards in theology. If there were, then there would be unity in the field, rather than division. Look at biology, chemistry, and physics. We consider them separate fields for the purposes of organizing a university, but they are mutually informative–in fact, we can’t really understand biology in its modern manifestation without tackling chemistry and physics. All are subject to the same universal laws because they are studying the same thing, if with different emphases–the universe itself, material reality. Contrast this with theology. Your progressive folk will claim that all religions are expressions of the same universal truth, but if so, why do they come to such different answers about the nature of that universal truth? Why, if theologians are approaching the same phenomenon, are there Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, etc.? These are not overlapping disciplines–these are mutually exclusive worldviews. Even in the “field” of Christianity, there are exclusive subsets. Your Catholic theologian believes that the bread and wine of the Eucharist become the literal (not figurative) body and blood of Christ, while the Protestant finds symbolism there. If both have open access to the same God, then that God is lying to one group or the other–or both. (And if you want my view on the Eucharist, check out this post on my own poorly maintained blog: http://treeoftalking.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/the-real-miracle-of-the-eucharist/)
My study of theology made me aware of the fact that there was no objective, empirical underpinning to the field. Nothing on which you could hang your hat. Just the promise of some hint at the divine through the contemplation of “mysteries”–or absurdities lent an air of sanctity by dint of tradition. Philosophy, on the other hand, I find very useful. My own academic work explores issues of racial violence, and I regularly reference several philosophers, such as racial theorist Charles W. Mills, or Claudia Card and Arne Johan Vetlesen, who have both done amazing work in fashioning secular theories of evil. But such philosophical work is based upon empirically derived evidence. These philosophers reference historians, scientists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, etc. Theology has no such grounding in the real world. Sure, some theologians have a concern for society, such as liberation theologians like James H. Cone, who provide genuine critiques of racism and inequality. But insofar as those critiques are based upon reference to some view of the divine, they are refutable by those outside that theological tradition, and thus such debates eventually devolve into arguments over some bit of scripture’s relevance to a modern issue rather than the nature of the issue itself, its real-world components. We can only solve problems we experience in this world by reference to the world, not to otherworldly spirits whose existence has never been verified.
I can add only this: QED.
QED and homo doctus in se semper divitias habet
That was excellent and far more than what’s his name deserves…
I think it was Dan Dennett who said that if you came out of seminary believing in god then you had not been paying attention. Glad this person was listening.
The inevitable aside here is that the writer was not hindered in moving past this experience and on to new things. Bright and inquisitive people can recover from these experiences and move on to better things.
“My study of theology made me aware of the fact that there was no objective, empirical underpinning to the field.”
Nothing beats digging one’s own grave.
I suspect that a study of theology coupled with the proper attitude of faith will turn “there is no objective, empirical underpinning to the field” into an enthusiastic plus. Why, look at how open the Divine is to interpretation! Isn’t that even MORE wonderful than if it wasn’t??
Golly, yes!
The true marvelousness of the gods is not merely that all evidence actually points to their existence, but that all imaginable evidence would equally well point to their existence. Jesus raises the dead? Evidence of his existence! Kid dies from secondary infections from worms crawling out of his eye sockets? Evidence of Jesus’s lovingkindness!
It’s amazing what you can do with a god….
b&
Yes. In his book, Jerry calls it “making theological virtues out of scientific necessities.” Excellent phrase.
It’s not enough to reluctantly concede that science is driving your view of God into another direction. You have to find a way that this new version of God is so WONDERFUL that it’s not new at all, it always was that way — it has to be that way or it diminishes God.
In fact, it might even someday be seen as not outlandish, as perfectly proper to suggest that it’s kinda sorta as if it was the other way around and theology was leading the scientists by the nose. Religion got there first, and science confirmed it. They’re complements. I mean, they have so much to learn from each other!
Exactly. What do you mean, we haven’t always been at war with Eastasia? What sort of duckspeak is this nonsense of yours? Why, you might as well claim that our chocolate rations weren’t raised just this week to three grams, the most ever, from their all-time low of four grams last week. Just wait until I tell the Priest about this! He’ll set you straight in Confession; don’t you worry.
b&
It was Paine who wrote several years ago that theology as constituted is a study of nothing. I don’t think theology since the time of Tertullian has made any contribution to human knowledge.
Sounds a lot like my story, only I took longer to realize that theology was simply the study of conflicting opinions about a nonexistent deity. I received a Master of Divinity degree from a Protestant school, graduating with the intent of teaching the theology I was so certain was true. But life happened and moved me in a different direction where I was still involved in the Christian church using my knowledge to “teach” others. Finally after about 8 years I began to seriously question what I was taught and began to read widely in effort to see if my faith could survive an encounter with the real world. Ten years of study led me to the realization that there is no good evidence for the existence of a theistic god. It has been almost two years since I officially came out as an atheist, and sometimes I wonder how I believed all that god stuff for so long. It all seems so completely unbelievable to me now. But it was not a complete waste of time, for I have the credentials of “been there, done that.”
I am in constant amazement at the level of belief by so many of many friends and co-workers, people who are demonstrably smart. The biggest irony of my life has been my friend Greg who is a staunch Christian. He was the guy who taught me to be generally critical of events and statements. He also came to his faith as a young man in college after growing up in a family of casual faith. He bucks the norm as no one else I’ve known. I have lost touch with him lately, just as my knowledge of the trueness of things has grown thanks to Jerry, Richard Dawkins, The Hitch, and many others, but especially Jerry with this essential website, so I haven’t had the chance to discuss issues with Greg from a more knowledgeable stance. Perhaps someday.
Congratulations for having exercised enough wisdom to leave it behind and avoid falling victim to inertia engendered by your “sunk costs”. For all the “you’re not a theologian” bullshit I hear, I’ve never heard one who recommends that religious indoctrination of children be foregone until the child is mature enough to appreciate all the sophisticated insight theology has to offer. It is obvious, of course, that almost everyone would come to your current view, “it all seems so completely unbelievable”.
Excellent point.
Thanks. I must admit that the “sunk costs” fallacy was not a detriment to my deconversion; at the time I had nothing to loose. By the time my search started in earnest, we (my family and I) had moved to a new city and were no longer a part of the church where I had done my theological teaching and where I had served as a pastoral intern and elder on the church’s governing board. At that church we had many close friends and it felt like family. In our new city we attended several different churches but never developed any close ties or friendships with the people there, always feeling like we were outsiders. Added to that was the fact that my Christian parents had died many years previously and I was in a different city than my extended family, all of which helped to reduce the peer pressure to remain a Christian. I also was no longer thinking about making a living by teaching theology, my career had taken a different turn. So the personal costs of becoming an atheist were not that high for me. There are some close family members that have expressed dismay over my deconversion, but the relationship has not fallen apart.
This is in contrast to a number of my former classmates who have gone on to become pastors, making their living by preaching and teaching the bible. I am in contact with a number of them on F*ceb**k, debating with them from time to time, but under no illusion that it will change their minds. Their entire identities as well as their livelihoods are wrapped up in maintaining that they have found the “Truth”. Their personal cost of leaving the faith would be much higher than mine was. I just hope that those who are beginning to question their faith might be encouraged to continue the process by reading my story.
While your experience makes you a most valuable voice to have in the atheist community, I wonder if you’ve ever wondered what you might have taken in college were you not so wrapped up in theology?
If you’ve never read Godless by Dan Barker, I think you’d greatly enjoy it. He was a pastor till he could no longer ignore his doubts, and he’s a wonderful writer.
When I was in high school astronomy appealed to me and I had brief thoughts of studying it in university, if not right after graduating then maybe after a year of Bible college. Somehow that year of Bible school turned into a Master’s degree, as well as being the place where I met my wife of 29 years. They don’t call them “Bridal Schools” for nothing.
I still enjoy reading about cosmology as well as quantum physics and basically any science presented at an educated lay person’s level. I also enjoy biology as it ties into my hobbies of bird watching and insect collecting. Field biology would probably be my area of choice if I was able to go back to university and retrain.
I bought Dan Barker’s book a couple of months ago and found it to be an encouraging read; there is hope that even pastors that are completely immersed in Christianity can find their way out of it.
Ooh, field biology. My favorite as well! 🙂
You beat me to it…I was thinking along the same lines. How much theology must a person read before he or she accepts a religion? If there’s any consistency, religion would disappear for lack of adherents.
“STD”
One of few times I can write “lol” and actually mean it.
I remember Guy’s comment from the other thread. Well written and quite deserving of above-the-fold treatment.
b&
I love these rare moments when someone from Oklahoma adds clarity to the argument. This past week Jerry was a guest on “The Thinking Atheist” which is hosted out of Tulsa by Seth Andrews. It’s a banner week for my home state.
What with the wind that always comes sweeping down the plains, I’d think that you’ve got lots of banner weeks there. It’s how you know the waving wheat sure smells sweet after the rain, right?
b&
Sorry to disappoint, gunnerkee19, but I’m not quite from Oklahoma. Took a degree there, but through a distance-learning program that required my physical presence only a handful of times. But we are neighbors! In fact, we’re currently getting all your Arkansas River floodwaters!
Haha, that’s alright, you highlighted Oklahoma with your post. I’ll take that. It was a whole lot better than the focus on Oklahoma during the Hobby Lobby nonsense.
Really, really excellent comment. I’m glad Jerry highlighted it. I’d have missed it otherwise.
I agree, excellent comment!
I’m not from Oklahoma myself, and never even been there, although I’ve been within five miles while visiting relatives near Paris, TX, and my maternal grandmother and paternal grandfather were both born in Oklahoma. Glad there is some evidence that not everyone in the state is a braindead fundie, even if a majority of voters have been sending an ignoramus to the U.S. Senate for too many years. Amazingly, one of Oklahoma’s first Senators, Thomas Gore, was blind but also, according to his grandson, Gore Vidal, an atheist, although I’m sure he didn’t publicize that tidbit to his constituents.
As Sam Harris put it, “If religion is ever right about anything, it is right by accident.”
Another germane point Sam makes is that religion regularly has to cede ground to science: geocentrism to heliocentrism, demonic possession to epilepsy, etc. You never see this happen in the other direction.
I think, I have two things to say to that. (1) That is not only an excellent response to heavywhatever’s post but a very appropriate argument against religions. I mean, let’s compare what useful facts the last 200 years of theological studies have turned up versus what science has produced in that time. (2) I disagree with Jerry that he stands there without any “CREDENTIALS” – I’m sure there’s a significant percentage of theologians with degree who you probably could “talk against the wall” (is that a proper expression in English at all?) about Theology.
It is ironic that the word Theology means “the study of god(s)” and yet that is one thing that theologians never study.
I’m waiting for someone to say that solnedgangmam was never really a theologian.
But somehow this argument doesn’t work that well with degrees.
Speaking of cognitive dissonance, I found that at the same time the most condemning, the most hilarious, and the most profound one can say on the academical study of theology.
Checkmate, heavymetalvomitparty!
What a great piece.
Yes, being a theologian/apologist is like being a professional air-guitartist.
LOL!
Chuckle…
Ah, that explains all the hand-waving explanations.
It Suso explains why I bang my head on my desk when I read theology.
Suso = also
No idea wtf suso is.
I looked it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suso_(footballer)
Why on earth would that be in anyone’s autocorrect?
Least of all mine. You can’t find a person less interested in sportsball.
I’ll bet it balked at “sportsball.” 🙂
You’d win that bet. 🙂
Actually…theologians wave their hands even more than Merilee’s favorite dancer.
b&
I imagine theologians as playing the Theramin. Maybe we can call it the Theolomarin.
I actually rather like the Theremin as a musical instrument…much more listenable than any theologian I’ve ever heard — though, granted, that’s not exactly high praise….
b&
At least air guitar can be modestly entertaining. I’m not sure that reading Heidegger and Aquinas put through a blender and sprinked with weird shavings of Whitehead – what a lot of theology these days seems to be – is …
Heavymetalvomitparty got pwned.
For me, this line takes the cake:
Just the promise of some hint at the divine through the contemplation of “mysteries”–or absurdities lent an air of sanctity by dint of tradition.
Love it!
I think a see a “deepity”!
Growing up surrounded by multiple religious sects and their non-questioning followers, and finding “no objective, empirical underpinning to the field…” is exactly why I didn’t “hang my hat”.
Spot on and all around excellent response solnedgangman – well said, thank-you!
Great response solnedgangman! Thanks Jerry for making sure we all get to enjoy it.
When younger, my first introduction into Theology was by an instructor whose first words were: “Theology, the Queen of all Sciences?”
What I subsequently learned was the Christian religion was not a monolithic one, but split into numerous competing factions and absolutely not interested in learning any fact through the scientific method if it contradicted church dogma.
The introductory ruse was purposefully employed to blur the line between theological myth and science, a fact I subsequently learned to resent.
STD for a sacred theology doctorate is the most apt accidental initials since Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President got tagged with the acronym “CREEP.”
As a comic-reading geek in the ’70s, I recall reading a multi-issue Captain America story published in 1973-’74 featuring a not-so-subtle parody of CREEP, mainly a sinister group called the Committee to Regain America’s Principles. The author of that storyline managed to avoid ever using the appropriate acronym for that group — the Comics Code Authority had loosened up a bit in the early ’70s but probably not so much as to approve of a comic with that sort of CRAP (only family friendly authorized crap allowed!).
So, thank you Dr. Coyne for the generous reposting of my comment, and thank you everyone else for the kind feedback. I really appreciate it all. Long-time reader, first-time commenter, and look what happens! I have truly enjoyed this blog, and not just for introducing me to the phenomenal Philomena Cunk.
“the phenomenal Philomena Cunk.”
I’ll bet you can’t say that quickly three times in a row and get it right 😉
It’s not really a tongue twister once the brain and tongue figures it out. Try saying “here girl” five times…the tongue brain has a hard time with that. At least mine does.
Since theolgy has been given the vomit treatment many times here and in my head, I conclude that theolgy can fool some of us some of the time but not all of us all of the time.
“heavymetalvomitparty,” must be fair slipping and a sliding trying to get of this room.
Sorry about the mess Professor.
Theology is a non-subject. You no more need a degree in theology to see through its nonsense than one needs a degree in Harry Potter to conclude that wizards don’t exist.
That is not correct. I am entirely atheist, but I have found very many meaningful insights into human nature in theology. Not all of it, granted. Much I read is awful and painful to read. But some is quite penetrating. Try Don Cupitt or Moltmann for starters. If you disregard the “divine” bits, they are very interesting. The insights of Pascal are very interesting when contrasted with, say, Schopenhauer.
“Theology is a thing of unreason altogether, an edifice of assumptions and dreams, a superstructure without a substructure.” (Ambrose Bierce)
The study of religion and theology as manmade construct can be insightful and fascinating — of a piece with anthropology and archeology, philosophy and history. It’s the supernatural beliefs themselves that have never demonstrated any value.
“thus such debates eventually devolve into arguments over some bit of scripture’s relevance to a modern issue rather than the nature of the issue itself, its real-world components. We can only solve problems we experience in this world by reference to the world, not to otherworldly spirits whose existence has never been verified.”
As someone with the same “credentials” as the commentator, I agree with most of the post. However, I would question the above quote because I’m not sure it is right. It seems to me religion is, frankly, entirely anthropology. References to the the divine are really references to ourselves. If one takes a Feuerbachian approach, humans aren’t really referencing spirits, but our own ambitions. Therefore I am not sure the debates are about scripture’s relevance to modern issues (though I think that in some conservative groups this very well may be the case!). I may be provincial here as I live in England, and very few C of E types really have these types of debates. And I’m fine with that objection. But in my experience with modern theology, I’m not sure it really references the “divine” as much as it traditionally has, these days. And we have Continental Philosophy to thank for that. (Which on a side note, I think it is shocking that very few (UK) university philosophy course teaches Continental Philosophy in their philosophy degrees. They seem to be almost entirely analytic.)
You’d be hard pressed to find a church in America whose sermon this morning wasn’t in some way devoted to the “surprising” relevance of the chosen scripture reading to modernity. That’s basically all you get from the pulpit here, regardless of denomination or political leanings or demographics or whatever…the liturgical calendar determines the week’s passage, of course, and the job of the one writing the sermon is to make it relevant to current events in some form or another.
And I’m not kidding about the universality of that practice…I don’t do church gigs much any more, but I’ve played Sunday services at a large Jesuit-run Catholic church that’s home to the area’s leading private high school; an United Methodist church where the audience is a sea of blue hair and reflections off bifocals; a small and very liberal United Church of Christ congregation in the heart of downtown; an happy clappy non-denominational all-are-welcome church that rents space in the cafeteria of another church; and so on. Every single one followed the same pattern of using the liturgical calendar to set the scripture and “interpreting it in light of recent events” or whatever.
For that matter, the Rabbi at Hillel when I went to Arizona State University even did the same thing for his Rosh Hashanah sermons, come to think of it….
Cheers,
b&
This superb comment makes my year. I can’t praise the writer enough.
It confirms not only my longstanding suspicions of religion as being crafted on delusion and indoctrination, confirmation bias, etc, but that it manages to thrive as a type of “busy work”.
It also grates that so very many people make a living from it.
So true. That’s one of the reasons it’s so difficult for many people to hear the truth about religion – fear of losing their livelihood and way of life.
The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful.
– Robert A. Heinlein
(italics mine)
So apt!
As discussed in the open thread the other day, it seems objective, intellectual honesty in studying one’s faith inevitably makes it fall apart. I can’t see how anyone can dive into theology and come out a theist without already accepting a presupposition that it is true and then refusing to critically assess the claims.
Its the basic underpinning of any Theistic Religion ,either God did it ,or God said it, end of Argument.
🐾
The message of all Read-More theists seems to be this: Either one believes, or one must keep reading until he or she, too, becomes a believer. If one doesn’t believe, it can only mean she or he stopped reading too soon.
Naturally, this mentality refers to reading “the right books and materials”, the ones created for the purpose of believing.
Yep I tend to agree. That is why it’s a fallacy rather than a legitimate counter; because there isn’t any acceptable end-state, no body of work that the apologist will accept as meeting the requirement. Whatever number of theological documents you’ve read, N, the amount you need to read before you can criticize it is always N+1.
Which stands in sharp contrast to the NT’s claims itself, which is that you don’t need any document to see the truth; God is clearly seen and apparent. Romans 1:20.
Good point.
Hmmm… Maybe PCC can use this, the next time a Q&A bloviator tells him he hasn’t read enough to be qualified…
PCC is lucky this guy didn’t try to write Faith vs Fact first. He a pretty good writer! He might have created some serious competition.