The Deeps
Let’s talk a little more about this idea of ‘a deeper level of explanation than the laws of physics’ that Paul Davies refers to.
…belief in God is largely a matter of taste, to be judged by its explanatory value rather than logical compulsion. Personally I feel more comfortable with a deeper level of explanation than the laws of physics. Whether the use of “God” for that deeper level is appropriate is, of course, a matter of debate.
What’s interesting about that is the question of what the word ‘deeper’ is gesturing at. Well, what is it? What makes this putative deeper level of explanation deeper? Deeper than the laws of physics, and possibly to be identified with ‘God’. So it’s something outside nature, necessarily, because otherwise it can’t be ‘deeper’ than the laws of physics, it would be on the same level. So therefore the usual tools and methods for inquiry into nature (stars, dirt, humans, nematodes, bacteria, psychology, fire, weather) are irrelevant, because we’re after something different, and deeper. So…we have to avoid the usual methods of inquiry then. We have to use different methods. What other methods are there? The ones that are not useful and are not legitimate in inquiry into nature. Ones that don’t consult evidence or logic, ones that don’t submit to testing and peer review, ones that don’t have to produce replicable findings and checkable sources and evidence.
Unless I’m missing something, and there’s some third option? Something that is on a ‘deeper level’ than the law of physics, yet still relies on evidence and logic and peer review, but a somehow different kind of evidence and logic and peer review from the kind that the laws of physics rely on? But…what would that be? Do tell me, if anyone knows. We could call it The Third Way.
But meanwhile I have to operate on the assumption that there are only two options. There is rational inquiry carried on in the usual way – in history, forensic investigation, detective work, daily life, as well as in science – and there is the other thing. So it is the other thing that provides a deeper level of explanation. How? By not having any constraints. By being free as air, free as the wind blows, free as Emma Goldman on her best day. By floating free of any requirement to back up its assertions and truth claims.
Okay, so what I want to know is, why is that level deeper? Why is it not, rather, incomparably more shallow? Why is it not a mere thin layer of spit compared to the deepest part of the ocean?
Theology is an academic discipline, OB, where scholars have to pass comprehensives and satisfy thesis committees and get Ph.D.’s. Then many of them strive to win tenure by publishing in peer reviewed journals. It is “rational inquiry carried on in the usual way” while presupposing the existence of a deity.
This doesn’t answer your question, of course, and maybe you hold the rest of the humanities, archaeology and philology and history and philosophy (all fields that touch on theology), in equally low esteem. Yet theology survives, self-regulated like every other academic discipline, and without even any large infusions of cash from the weapons or drugs industries.
The fact that you can’t be bothered to learn or understand the intellectual standards in religious studies and theology, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I know theology is an academic discipline, Dix. But is rational inquiry that presupposes the existence of a deity really rational inquiry? (And a deity in what sense? Of what kind? A giant man in the sky who is all-powerful and all-good and heeds our prayers? Do you take that to be rational?)
Surely you’re not saying that archaeology and philology (I mentioned history myself) are not tethered to evidence? And that philosophy is not tethered to logic (and sometimes to evidence)? I don’t see why else you would think I hold them in low esteem.
Dix, I don’t ‘approve of’ history – history doesn’t need my approval!
“It’s not so clear to me what the basis is for approving of history and scorning theology. Both proceed via examination and interpretation of documentary evidence.”
But history does it without asserting the existence of an invisible inaudible supernatural all-powerful benevolent man in the sky. They’re not identical disciplines.
Are you perhaps confusing theology with comparative religion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology
“Both proceed via examination and interpretation of documentary evidence.”
But the analysis of the documentary evidence proceeds quite differently in each case. In fact both historians and theologians often study the same documents. Lets say that historians conclude that event (A) recounted in a religious text didn’t happen. Theologians instead might start by saying “Given event (A), what conclusions can we draw from this”. It doesn’t matter how reasonable and logical they are from then on, it don’t change the fact that (A) never happened. We might wonder why they bother.
I suspect that an investigation into the meaning of “deeper” is not for philosophers but rather for psychologists. We seem to find certain types of would-be explanations more emotionally satisfying than scientific theories, hence the widespread notion that science cannot “explain” anything while religion can.
I think PaulP has nailed this one. It’s the ‘surely there must be more to it than that?’ reaction, or, as an acquaitance said to me over a beer on Saturday, ‘But surely you can’t REALLY believe that when we die that’s the end?’
Well ‘yes’ and ‘believe’ doesn’t come into it.
The other possibility is that it’s ‘deep’ in the way people find Bob Dylan’s lyrics ‘deep’i.e inexplicable.
Dix, what is your point?
That wikipedia entry you point to says, for instance, this –
“Theology generally assumes the truth of at least some religious beliefs and is therefore often distinguished from the philosophy of religion, which does not presume the truth of any religious beliefs.”
Which is what I said. So what’s your point?
Whatever it is, make it without putting quotation marks on things I haven’t said. (Or that anyone else hasn’t said, for that matter.) Don’t use attributive quotation marks on invented quotations – that’s a no-no.
A fairly vague point this, but re. theology, it seems to me that it is quite common for genuinely thoughtful theologians to end up not believing in the literal truth of ‘God’ at all — I base this shakily on recollection of sundry things read a while ago, but if true it would suggest there is at least some honest enquiry going on in schools of divinity…
And some atheists study theology. That’s perfectly possible, and it is the case. But that doesn’t mean that theology itself is an empirical inquiry in the way that history is.
“So what’s your point?”
Well, the immediate point was to answer your condescending suggestion that I was confused and was talking about comparative religion.
I didn’t invent, I paraphrased, and I don’t think I was unfair. But in the future I’ll refrain.
Dix,
Condescending?
‘The fact that you can’t be bothered to learn or understand the intellectual standards in religious studies and theology, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.’
How would you characterise that?
Well, Dix, I think you are confused. Sorry. But you replied to an argument about whether or not religion provides a deeper level of explanation – an epistemological issue – with the comment that love is deeper than sex and haute cuisine is deeper than calorie intake. You seem to have misinterpreted me as saying that careful inquiry and investigation are deeper than anything and everything – emotions, art, aesthetics, whatever. But I was talking only about explanation – as surely is pretty obvious if you read my comment. So, I do think you’re confused, or at least that you read carelessly and then answer hastily and irrelevantly.
“you replied to an argument about whether or not religion provides a deeper level of explanation”
Oh, come off it. I replied to four paragraphs of unrelieved sneering and coy, cutesy sarcastic bullshit. There was no argument in sight. Where have you engaged what in Davies’s view religion purports to explain? Where do you address the distinction he makes between explanation and logic?
You strongly implied that theology operates without peer review and “not having any restraints.” Theology is a branch of textual and critical scholarship, and it has as much rigor as any such field, including history or philosophy or any of the humanities. The Dead Sea Scrolls or the journals of John Wesley ARE the object of forensic investigation and detective work, same as the Magna Carta. If religious studies are “free as the wind blows,” then so is archaelogy or (secular) history. If any of the liberal arts is legitimate, then theology is legitimate. I made this point and your response was that I must be confused with some other subject.
This blog specializes in strawmen and the ‘yeah, right’ mode of argumentation.
Dix —
I don’t think the theologians’ ability to do rigorous analysis or use critical scholarship is being disputed. Certainly they do both.
But people can also examine astrology, scientology, or homeopathy with rigorous analysis and critical scholarship. We would then have a “deeper explanation” of astrology, scientology, or homeopathy. Do we now have a “deeper explanation” of how the world really is?
If theology is like astrology, then all that effort and all those volumes tell us only about ourselves.
Dix, the Paul Davies quotation I cited (via Susan Haack’s citation) doesn’t mention theology, it mentions belief in God. That passage is talking about theism, not theology. You’re simply confusing the issue.
Be civil in your comments, please.
Dix-
Please,
‘You strongly implied that theology operates without peer review and “not having any restraints.’
No but what value is peer review when you assume from the get go something that can’t be proven in the first place. It’s somewhat of a circle jerk.
” Theology is a branch of textual and critical scholarship, and it has as much rigor as any such field, including history or philosophy or any of the humanities.’
Thats comparative religion. Theology is basically you say your BS I’ll say mine and neither can prove any.
And it doesn’t have as much rigor as the premises of all of it are very shallow. Which makes it somewhat of an anything goes subject.
‘The Dead Sea Scrolls or the journals of John Wesley ARE the object of forensic investigation and detective work, same as the Magna Carta.’
Correct, but that doesn’t suppose any ‘supernatural’ leanings. That is science. Nor does a study of those items have anything to do with the supernatural. If you make it so you’ve entered the realm of BS.
‘If religious studies are “free as the wind blows,” then so is archaelogy or (secular) history.’
You poor soul. Archealogy uses evidence and doesn’t presume something prior unless it to has been proven. Theology presumes something first, a poor starting point. Which is why so many theologians say so many contracidtory things. The hard sciences use evidence which doesn’t just go away.
‘If any of the liberal arts is legitimate, then theology is legitimate. I made this point and your response was that I must be confused with some other subject’
It’s you who are confused there buddy. Theology is fun, but thats about the extent of it. I have always wondered why people enter a field where on the day they retire they have contributed no more than on the day they started.
You can say anything in theology, and they do. You can’t get away with this in other fields.
Otherwise I find it and alot of postmodernist writing kinda similiar. Neither say much but love to sound like they do.
Which makes it all the more appropriate that our old pal Dylan Evans calls himself a postmodern theologian. Appropriate and also quite amusing.