Another Topic from Skribit: Theology

I am trying to work my way through the suggestions that have been made on Skribit, along with Susan’s suggestion for posts on using Web Apps and Capo’s suggestion on how to get the most out of WordPress. Some of these suggestions will require a good bit of thought on my part and will take time to develop, so I am tackling the easier suggestions first, as I am doing in this article.

Someone had used Skribit (on the sidebar) to suggest that I write about theology, and noted that

You’ve done a lot of reading on theology and philosophy. I want to know what you’ve learned.

Because writing about religion or politics is kinda like the kiss of death, I was initially inclined to just blow this one off. But, I have always been one to speak my mind, regardless of the consequences, and this is a subject area that has interested me a lot ever since Vickie passed away. So, I’ll make a few remarks about it.

First off, I think the key thing I have learned in studying theology is already stated on my Big Picture web page, which I last updated on September 9, 2003, two years to the day after we laid Vickie’s body to rest:

There are many fine authors who can present reasonable arguments for just about any belief that you want to have, and human nature is such that we have a remarkable ability to find evidence to support our beliefs, while discrediting contradictory evidence. It is not always easy to discern the real truths.

Today, more than 4 years later, after a lot more reading, I can only add emphasis to that statement: it is most certainly true.

But, it is not the only truth. I think another one that needs to be said is a proper study of theology or philosophy requires a structured approach. And, I suspect that a proper study also requires a lifetime. The subjects are that big. And that complicated.

Sure, you can take a simplified view of religion, as the popular book-writing “New Atheists” have (Dawkins, Dennett, Stenger), and you can tear it apart piece by piece. And, you could present scientific arguments that purport to indicate there is no need for a God, such as Stenger’s discussion of entropy. In discussing entropy, he notes that the entropy of the universe is such as to allow the type of order to evolve that we have seen in the evolution of life on our planet. What he does not tell you is that we do not know why the entropy is what it is. It started out low, unbelievably low some would say, and grew, whereas (being a statistical measure) it could have been the other way around (this relates to the arrow of time problem).

The thing that has irked me the most in reading pro and con arguments in this area is the clear bias that so many authors have. For example, in an article on the now-defunct Science & Theology News a couple of years ago, Dennett noted the following:

… Here’s one that you might encounter yourself. You’re out in a field and you see an ant climbing up a blade of grass. It climbs up to the top of the grass and falls, repeatedly, like Sisyphus pushing his rock. You think, “Why is it doing this? What benefit accrues to the ant for this expenditure of energy?

But you’d be asking the wrong question. No benefit accrues to the ant at all. What then? Is it just a fluke? It is a fluke, in fact — a brain fluke. A little parasite, Dicrocoelium dendriticum, has crawled into the ant’s brain. That fluke has to get into the belly of a cow or a sheep in order to reproduce. Its chances are enhanced if it can get into the brain of an ant and force the ant to climb up high on the stalk of grass where it’s more likely to be eaten.

Are we supposed to believe that the parasite knows it’s inside an ant and that it needs to be inside a cow/sheep and that the best way for it to do that is to keep tricking the ant into climbing a blade of grass until a cow/sheep eats it? That is patently stupid. Dennett is so eager to turn everything into an argument for evolution that it has impacted his reasoning ability.

(By the way, it should be noted that I believe there is considerable evidence for evolution. As far as I am concerned, it is fact. But, that belief sure wasn’t influenced by the likes of Dennett.)

An example of this sort of thinking in the religious camp was given on pages 25 and 26 of Lee Smolin’s The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. There he discusses a talk he had with some young earth creationists, and it is absolutely remarkable the lengths they go to in preserving their belief that the earth is young and that dinosaurs still exist.

I have found the works of John Polkinghorne to be most helpful in my understanding of theology. FRS, KBE, Rev Polkinghorne was a widely recognized physicist for about 25 years, very well established and highly regarded in the particle physics community, and then he became an Anglican priest. What I find most enlightening in his work is that (1) he appears interested in the truth, regardless of where it leads him, and (2) he does not over-simplify religion. He is a deep thinker, both scientifically and theologically, and really goes to the heart of the matter in his discussions. His The Faith of a Physicist: Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker is one of the most enlightening books I have ever read. When I think of some scientific fact and have doubts about the existence of God, I can generally find where he has covered the science and corresponding theology in sufficient depth to convince me I jumped too hastily to a conclusion.

I would do well to immerse myself in Polkinghorne’s and NT Wright’s works for several hours a week. Instead, over the past couple of years, I have not had a structured approach to studying theology, and this has resulted in me having a sporadic approach that is inefficient. For example:

• I read something like Tom Wright’s Appendix B to Anthony Flew’s There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, and I am reminded that one can look at the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ and conclude that he was resurrected, and that one can do this without intellectual compromise. His discussion does not offer proof. There is none, one way or the other. But, one can believe in the resurrection on an intellectually-sound basis. I then decide that I should pour all of my study of theology into Christianity, because the resurrection of Jesus indicates “God’s backing” of what Jesus taught.
• Then I read something like John Hick’s Who or What Is God?, and see that there are some commonalities among the world’s religions. I learn that Buddhism, for example, seeks to describe the Ultimate as “emptiness,” and then I learn that emptiness is not the right word at all, but is just one more attempt to describe the indescribable, the ineffable. So, I go out and buy a bunch of books on Buddhism.

Then, sometimes, like just about everyone does at some point:

• I consider the world around me and the fact that there are countless child molestations, murders, and human and animal deaths through natural disasters. And every time I stand in front of Vickie’s tomb, I am reminded so clearly that the dead stay dead. Forever. Hence, I say to myself, there is no God. QED.

Given this state of affairs, I am not a very good source of wisdom on theological matters. I will offer one more thought, though:

• A study of theology should ultimately lead one to being a better person. Just expanding your mind helps you be a better person, so you can do as I have done and read your way to being better. But, ultimately you have to be involved with people to make your theology purposeful.

I’ll give you an example. I mentioned Buddhism earlier, and I must say one thing that has always appealed to me about this particular philosophy is its focus on compassion (and the sanctity of all sentient life). I am not a consistently compassionate person, at all, so I had hoped that reading books on Buddhism would help me become more compassionate.

Well, it hasn’t worked. I don’t think you can read yourself into a fit of compassion. When I just set around at home, I am not a particularly compassionate person. If you were a fly on the wall, you might catch me saying out loud to a TV news commentator “who cares what you think, loser” as I reach for the remote. Yet, after I spend time around people, particular those who are not as fortunate, you could well see me giving money to help them and saying a silent prayer for them and genuinely feeling compassionate. But, after a couple of days of setting around at home, the feeling is gone.

So, to all who wish to spend time studying theology, I offer the reminder that it is not just about developing a better understanding of God, it is about being a better servant of God and humanity.

Ultimately I will have to immerse myself in a structured study of theology if I want to make my studies worthwhile. If I want to. And, I haven’t decided that I want to commit that fully just yet.

Before I retired one of the things I thought I might do in retirement would be to get a degree in theology. I thought Vickie would be pleased with that, because she was so pleased when I once took a Bible Study course. And I thought it would be nice way to put my lingering doubts to bed.

But, I have since come to believe Vickie would most want me to do what I want to do. And I think that what I have always had the most passion for is not teaching people what to think, but reminding them of their responsibility to think for themselves. And, I have a bit of an opportunity to do that through this blog. So, for now at least, you will see me write the occasional article that reminds you to think about things a little differently. There may come a time when I write an article that says “So long folks. Thanks for all the fish. I am going to get a degree in theology.” In the mean time, don’t expect any deep philosophical or theological wisdom from me.

To the person who suggested this topic via Skribit, I am sorry that this probably wasn’t very satisfying to you. I wish you the best in your own studies of this deep, and important, subject.

Tagged as: life