(This ended up being a much longer rant than I thought it would be…)
If you don’t already know, I have neither a philosophy, theology nor history degree. I do admin work in an office. So, I have no academic credibility to speak from about anything.
Awhile back, Jon Stewart interviewed Neil Degrasse Tyson and basically said that if scientists didn’t tell us what was going on, we dum-dums would have no idea. We non-scientists are dependent upon scientists to tell us how the universe works (obviously, to the best of their knowledge – by means of experimentation, theories, peer review, etc.).
This is where most people are at. A position of dependency, if we want to ask questions and get approximate answers.
But, any reasonable person in any field will tell you that we cannot have certainty about almost anything. It actually seems to be the opposite of the spirit of science to shut the process down because we have arrived at “Knowledge.”
If I want to know about astrophysics, I need to know what astrophysicists have discovered. If I want to know about biology, math, and so on.
If I want to know about history, I need to know what – and how – historians think.
I love philosophy and theology because they, at their best, accept what all the other fields have discovered as “the best knowledge we can have” about the given subject, but are able to bring all of that together and speculate beyond each of them individually.
But, sadly, much of philosophy and theology tries to speak for the experts. Philosophers and theologians have a tendency to overreach.
This past few days, I’ve tried to keep up with a debate that was sparked by Tony Jones in response to a blog post by James McGrath. I, and several others, have repeatedly commented that Tony is overreaching, that he cannot say what is or is not historically accurate.
Tony, like all of us non-historians, is dependent upon historians for history.
Now, of course, there is overlap between theology and history. But, my assumption is that theology should never try to speak for history – or biology, or anything else.
This became a huge problem for me when looking into whether or not the resurrection of Jesus actually happened. As a skeptical person, I couldn’t simply take the text for what it says – or I interpret it to say. If the resurrection is claimed to be an historical event, then I need to ask historians what they think. And – surprise! – the only historians (if it’s even fair to the discipline to call them that) who believe that it actually happened are themselves orthodox Christians.
So, Tony’s main criticism with James’ original post seems to be the following:
Like many liberals, he brushes off the deeper implications of the text in order to assuage his modern sensibilities.
In one of my comments, I said that I think Tony had created a straw man, and was actually responding to a misunderstanding of what James was and was not saying in his original post. To which Tony said, “Fair enough, Rob… But I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic about his post.”
But, I also think he misses James’ approach with his main criticism. From my reading of James’ “texts,” he seems to be saying, “Here is what is historically reasonable, and I’m glad because ____” He’s not saying, “I wish this weren’t historically reasonable, because ____.” The latter would, I think, be James actually doing what Tony criticizes him for.
In another comment, I said the following:
I, for one, greatly value the hard work of historians, and appreciate the theological dialogue between historians and those who accept the texts at face value. I think a lot can be learned from all sides…
Another commenter, Bill, seems to share my appreciation:
It seems to me we should assess the historicity and theological issues independently, letting those assessments inform one another…
But, I’m not sure how much mutually beneficial dialogue is possible when theologians aren’t playing by the rules. If Tony was really committed to this perspective, he could spend his life trying to discount the entire discipline of history.
Count me a fan of history. I’ve read and studied a lot of it, and I continue to. But history has its limits.
I agree, everything has its limits. But, the historical consensus should be consulted when you’re asking historical questions.
There is, of course, a way to approach the text that completely ignores historical questions. But, when you use historical language to speculate about theology, you should expect to get owned by historians. Just like if you get into a debate with a (legitimate) biologist, and your only argumentation is to quote from Genesis 1-3 as historical fact, good luck!
Could this be one reason – among many others – that so many people are finding religion in general to be completely irrelevant?
I, for one, have no problem with seeing the entirety of the Bible as myth rather than as history. Myth, to me, does not mean “lie” or “false.” As Peter Enns defines it, myth “is an ancient, pre-modern, pre-scientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories.” Myth, in many ways, is more important than history.
Tony is right, history was done differently “back then.” But, people also didn’t have the same categories that we do. It doesn’t seem like most people would have asked, “Did it really happen? Can we prove it???” Maybe they would have been more concerned with questions of meaning, or with how a story shapes a person individually and socially?
Tony seems to be saying that historical questions are irrelevant. He says “Wrong question!” and agrees with a commenter who says “I don’t care what you believe!” regarding whether the virgin birth is an historical fact. But, then again, he seems bent on defending the historicity of (certain, not all, events in) the Bible, using historical language.
I – with zero credibility to do so, as Tony helpfully pointed out – call FOUL.
What do you think?
I think I agree with you that Tony is conflating the question of the theological meaning of the biblical narrative with the question of the historicity of the narrative, which makes his argument confusing. The theological meaning of a narrative does not entail that narrative itself has any grounding in historical reality. (Sort of like the theological question of Jesus’ resurrection vs. the “scientific/historical” question of Jesus’ resurrection: the theological “truth” of resurrection does not entail the historical “fact” of an empty tomb.)
On the other hand, I think Tony is trying to reject the Enlightenment notion that what is established by historical methods is somehow more “true” than literary (or theological) “truth.” In other words, historians may correctly establish the “fact” that innocents were not slaughtered as was depicted in the one gospel account. It just didn’t “happen;” however, the narrative may be reflecting the larger “fact” that other innocents have been killed, and somehow God was involved. So this “fictional” narrative (from a “historical” frame of reference) may actualy be expressing a more general historical truth.
Thanks for the comment, Scot. I see your point.
I’m definitely not the most careful with my words, but I try to be. Maybe that’s my overall criticism of Tony’s approach.
I find your question about whether this is the reason people are finding religion increasingly irrelevant to be an intriguing one. Perhaps it’s simply the overreaching that’s done by theologians and philosophers that is causing the perceived irrelevance? Perhaps if theologians and philosophers stopped trying to reach past their own disciplines, allowed for experts in other fields to speak and accept their conclusions, theology and philosophy would once again retain its relevance in the general populace.
It’s my opinion that the historical and scientific evidence we are presented may present a type of objective truth, but it is theology and philosophy that render that truth meaningful.
Thanks for the feedback!
That’s exactly where I was going with this. The challenge against religion as “anti-intellectual” is, to me, a very serious one, that every religious person needs to consider.
But, I am hesitant to believe there is “objectivity” in anything…
To paraphrase a quote by Einstein: Theology without science is blind. Theology at its worst does not accept the “the best knowledge we can have” offered by the sciences. Unfortunately, this seems to be an apt description of the general theology most people subscribe to, and/or is what is typically offered in religious institutions.
All that being said, thanks for being a voice of reason and advocating for an illuminated & informed theology!
Thanks for your feedback!
It is a pleasure to read a thoughtful dialog like this. A couple of thoughts come to mind. First, the sacred texts were written for believers by believers before there was any modern sense of history. Research regarding the historical Jesus is limited to the fact that there is reasonable evidence that he was indeed an historical person. The claim of Jesus’ Resurrection is something which his followers saw as a reality but I don’t see how such a thing could have been documented by today’s historical standards. If it were an objective fact it the core musterion of Christianity, the resurrection would not be part of religious belief. It is only by entering into this sacred transforming grace – musterion – that we die and rise with Christ. St. Paul put it succinctly in Romans, if Christ is not risen then we are still dead in our sins.
Faith is the opposite of certainty. Faith offers a revealed numinous reality – the light shining through – the epi-phania. By definition it cannot offer any scientific approximation of truth because it deals with the significance of our lives. The meaning, purpose, and goal of our lives is not the purpose of post-Einsteinian science.
The field of phenomenology within philosophy deals with how we construct reality and that objectivity is illusory. Neuroscience, physics, and psychology all concur that everyday “objects” are constructs or models.
It doesn’t seem to be a question of overreach by theologians but a basic difference in the intellectual enterprise. Theologians are creating language to frame and objectify religious experience and reflection. Scientists are engaged in a poetry of a different kind – one that develops models to logically explain and predict our interaction with other structures within space-time and the multi-verse.
It is easy to create a rationale for being a skeptic but it seems like an unwillingness to play and have fun with the limited days allotted to us. Being in love, involved, doing art in poetry or quantum mechanics is all very messy. Believing, hoping, striving in the face of the doubt is what living is all about. There is a great truth in it with no objective certainty. If we had the type of naive objectivity “scientism” is based on our quantum universe in all of its paradoxes would be closed and could not exist nor would the consciousness that creates, destroys, and holds all things in the flux and certainty of chaos.
As someone trained in philosophy, theology, anthropology, and biology, with a lot of alphabet soup after my name, I would encourage you to remember that to the extent “facts” get in the way of experiencing the mystery and wonder of a dew drop, great sex, or the wonder of galactic structures, all of this so called learning is objective ignorance. Carpe Diem.
Hey Randy, thanks for the comments. I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say, though I think I agree with most of what you wrote here. To get a better sense of where I’m coming from, you should definitely check out a few of my older posts.
Thanks so much for taking the time to chime in – and to try to ensure that my post is not misinterpreted!
No problem!
Pingback: Funnier and Wronger?