A starting point for theology
Theology used to be known as the queen of the sciences. Theology was dethroned several centuries ago because
of the growing recognition of the scientific method’s inapplicability to theology.
In general, theologians have begun their work from one of
two starting points, either implicitly or explicitly.
One of those starting points was God. Theologians working from this starting point presumed
that humans could directly apprehend God.
For example, the classical arguments for the existence of God – the
ontological, cosmological, and so forth – all rest on this presumption.
This starting point requires assuming that humans are able
to know God. Consequently, some
religious traditions posit that humans have a soul that is similar in nature to
God. The Roman Catholic Church, for
example, teaches that at conception a human receives an immortal soul. Many other traditions have similar teachings
about humans having an immortal or eternal soul. Since the soul is immortal, there is no
physical evidence of its existence. Nor
does any evidence exist that supports ensoulment. Belief in such a soul is non-rational and therefore
not subject to scientific study.
Indeed, the via negativa in the Christian tradition, Theravadan
Buddhism and approaches to God in other traditions premised upon God’s unknowability
all reject the idea that finite humans can accurately describe the infinite God
in finite human words. These approaches to
God invariably point or lead to mysticism, which presumes that while humans may
experience God they lack any specific knowledge of God that they can
communicate to another person. Unsurprisingly,
mystics have often been branded heretics and mysticism rejected as providing a
solid foundation for theology.
The other starting point for theology is scripture. A theologian would presume that the scriptures
of his or her tradition were authoritative.
Sometimes, these theologians argue that their scriptures are
authoritative using their scriptures to prove that God had revealed those
scriptures. Protestants who subscribe to
a solo scriptura approach to their faith have adopted the presumption that the
Christian Bible is authoritative. Similarly,
Muslims who believe that the Koran was dictated by God to Mohammad and Mormons
who believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from two golden
tablets, which the angel Moroni showed him, all presume that their scriptures
are authoritative. From a rhetorical perspective, these theologians use their
conclusion to prove their initial predicate.
Awareness of other religions and the claim of multiple,
conflicting scriptures to be the authoritative revelation of God undercut the
claim that any one scripture is authoritative.
How is one to choose which scripture to accept as authoritative? In the past, the vast majority of people
simply adopted the religious tradition of their family and culture. In a global world with multiple religions and
many more people aware of at least several of those religions, fewer people
find the practice of mindlessly following in parental or cultural footsteps satisfying. People now want to choose which if any
religion they will practice.
Simply positing that one particular scripture is
authoritative no longer works, nor is that approach amenable to scientific
study. The essence of the difficulty is
the claim that God dictated or otherwise revealed the scripture through a
supernatural process. The word supernatural
itself highlights that religion claims not to be natural and therefore not
subject to scientific study.
If God, should God exist, be entirely natural as some
theologians now claim, then scientific analysis may lead to signs of God’s
presence and activity in the cosmos.
This presumption of a natural God calls for a new starting point for
theology.
Perhaps humans do not have an immortal soul. Perhaps humans have an entirely natural spirit
comprised of those aspects of human existence that are quintessentially human
although evident in other species to a lesser degree. For more on this idea, read my article “Making the Ethereal Earthly: A
New Definition of the Human Spirit,” in the Journal for the Study of Spirituality
(a link to this article is also found on the right hand side of the Ethical Musings webpage).
One major advantage of this approach to theology is that it moves
theology from the realm of speculation and grounds it in in the physical world
amenable to scientific study.
A second major advantage of this approach to theology is
that it begins to construct a believable, more factually based understanding of
God and spirit. This approach builds on the deconstructive work of Bishop Spong,
Bishop Robinson and others who identified the reasons why theism in all of its
forms lacks credibility in the third millennium. Sadly, most of the
deconstructionists failed to offer a post-theism theology.
Comments
Mysticism emphasizes spiritual knowing, which is not rational and is independent of reason, logic or images. Da`at is Hebrew for “the secret sphere of knowledge on the cosmic tree.” Gnosis is Greek for the “intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths.” Jnana is Sanskrit for “knowledge of the way” to approach Brahman. Ma`rifa in Arabic is “knowledge of the inner truth.” Panna in Pali is “direct awareness”; perfect wisdom. These modes of suprarational knowing, perhaps described as complete intuitive insight, are not divine oneness; they are actualizing our inherent abilities to come closer to the goal.