I have noticed a big difference in the way I think about the way I think about theology, compared with almost everyone else.
Which is: that I think like a scientist - whereas they think like theologians!
I state this as a matter of observation, rather than trying to assert the superiority of the way that I think - after all, very few people are, or ever have been "a scientist"...
Indeed extremely-few "scientists" - i.e. professional researchers and scholars in self-styled science subjects - are or ever have been scientists.
Modern professional and accredited "scientists" do not (with very rare exceptions) think like scientists - for instance, they do not seek and speak the truth - but instead they think like the careerist bureaucrats that they ultimately are.
Anyway, what I mean is that theologians clearly feel the weight of authority and tradition so heavily that they believe that it would be a ridiculous presumption if they, as an individual person, was to critique, confront, or overturn that inertial mass on the basis of the thoughts of "little old me".
I don't feel that way.
As a scientist (especially the kind of theoretical scientist that I was) it is perfectly normal, indeed it is expected and necessary, that "I" am prepared to critique, confront, or overturn decades, hundreds or thousands of years of authority and tradition.
That is now just allowable - it the job of a real scientist - if possible. That is what the very best scientists of history, the ones we are taught to admire and emulate, have always done.
Furthermore; the way that science works is by making different (and perhaps new) assumptions, or "hypotheses" and then... trying them out.
Unless we do this, then we will not make any qualitative difference to science - unless we do this, we will just be extrapolating or interpolating on already-existing science (potentially worthwhile, but an activity that comes almost automatically for competent technicians of science).
In other words; to do significant science entails being able creatively (and creativity is always and necessarily personal) to select from and reframe existing "evidence" in the making of new "theories".
Then... taking that new theory and exploring reality on that basis - to see if it holds-up, to see if it has any advantages.
This is pretty much what I do with theology - i.e. I approach it in a manner analogous to that of the kind of creative scientist that I aspired to be.
I seek truth in a scientist's kind of way; but that truth is much bigger than the truths of science...
Theological truth is, indeed, as big a truth as I can imagine and express.
This reminds me of the Book of Mormon scripture, "awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words,...compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed... it will begin to swell within your breast... ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me."
ReplyDeleteI suppose the difficulty is the conflict between generational build-up of capital versus the need for individual experimentation. I would think that the former has the advantage in this life, which is why so many more instinctively value the authoritative approach. Whereas the latter approach works better for an individual from the spiritual perspective, but it doesn't line up reliably with an advantage in this life.
Thinking about the command to honor parents, for instance: Surely this is just a matter of generational functionality, and seems to work well enough when forced. But one who is free to choose will likely fumble the generational benefits, even though he has more spiritual potential to really understand it for himself.
@Lucinda - "the command to honor parents, for instance"
ReplyDeleteHonouring parents is largely spontaneous and instinctive, and the modern dysfunctionality of Not honouring parents is something that has been deliberately created and encouraged by coordinated actions of the ruling classes over the past several generations.
I find the ideas and concepts of Michael Polanyi, author of Personal Knowledge and The Study of Man, to be helpful in this regard. He distinguishes explicit from tacit knowledge and describes how our knowledge and understanding increase in the interplay of these two. In Theology, tradition and orthodoxy would be explicit, personal and direct knowledge would be tacit. Theological orthodoxy would, of course, be harder to shift than scientific theory, as rigor mortis set in a long time ago, but not impossible for an individual whose mission is to get to the truth for himself, to establish a coherent body of knowledge based on personal understanding. If he can convince others of his findings then we either have a new cult or real progress in objective truth or a bit of both.
ReplyDeleteMostly, I find elements of truth in the writings of most men but much filtering is often necessary. It is, of course, indispensable to put Christ at the centre of all of this and to learn directly from Him but there is so much error closely associated by the language and form of tradition that it’s really hard to shake it off and easier, sometimes, to read up on others who have similarly struggled and shared their own thoughts. It’s even instructive to read up on those who profess to be atheists, eg Jean Paul Sartre et al, to observe and learn from their intellectual wrigglings trying to make sense out of a World without a creator and redeemer.