Theology ... Deep Sophisticated Philosophy or Useless Mind-numbing Pablum?

Vocal atheism is often accused of superficiality when it comes to the sophistication of theological knowledge. We are often taken to task because our critique too often focuses on fundamentalist interpretations of biblical dogma without acknowledging the diversity of theological thought on the subject and ideas that have been put forth by deep thinkers that may have devoted their entire life to that particular problem.

That sounds like it could be a valid criticism. I have been trying to check it out. I've have now read several theology textbooks. I have read many internet papers of these "sophisticated arguments". And so far ... I don't see it. These "sophisticated arguments" don't deliver anything of substance. Let's look at Karen Armstrong.

Ms. Armstrong is a former Catholic Nun. She has distinguished herself in academia by becoming an expert on not only Christianity but Islam as well. She has recently written a book, The Case for God in response to books by atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

Ms. Armstrong is certainly no fundamentalist. She does not deny any premise of science that I know of, nor does she hold to the idea of biblical inerrancy. Indeed, it is her premise that religious fundamentalism is a distinctly unorthodox view of religion. It is a view that became popular only relatively recently, ironically due to the rise of modern science.

According to Ms. Armstrong it was Isaac Newton who provided the impetus for religious fundamentalism as we see it today. Newton work led him and others to see the world as mechanically complex. This caused God to be viewed as an intelligent being. Thus, God was the superscientist in the sky. He must be omnipotent and omniscient. Nature was seen as the proof of his existence.

The problem here, as Ms. Armstrong is not adverse to acknowledge, Nature doesn't reveal an omnipotent and omniscient God who intelligently designed the place. It is very much of a haphazard contraption filled with jerry-rigged "Rube Goldberg machines" that often do not appear intelligently designed. Modern science has shown this to be true to Ms. Armstrong (and my) satisfaction. Hence, for Ms. Armstrong, not only did Newton's view of God form the roots of religious fundamentalism, it also formed the roots of atheism. When God is pictured as this superbeing, he can be proved wrong and falsified.

But don't give up on God, says Ms. Armstrong. What is needed is to return to a more traditional view of God. According to Ms. Armstrong, early religionists did not view God necessarily as a person at all. They certainly did not view the scriptures as the inerrant word of God. No, they viewed their religion much as we do good music, poetry, or a play.

A person in a church, synagogue, temple, or mosque 500 to a thousand years ago would have been read scripture in the context of sacred ceremonies that were being performed for the occasion. The idea was that the person would be caught up in the moment. Like good music, poetry or a meaningful story, the person could be taken to a different mental plane. The sensations could be ecstatic. That was the purpose of religion ... and not only Christianity, but all religions. Or so says Ms. Armstrong.

For her, the essence of God is his ineffability. Nothing about God is such that can be put into words. God is completely incomprehensible. Thus, it makes no sense to ask even if God exists. All aspects of God are indefinable. If you say he does or doesn't exist, you've defined that aspect. Thus this question, indeed ... ANY question concerning God's nature is a meaningless question.

First, let me say that if all the other 85% of Americans who label themselves as theists believed as Ms. Armstrong does, I would not be writing this blog. I would not have devoted nearly as much of my time trying to understand religion and religious beliefs as I have. I simply wouldn't care. Her theology is not a theology that intrudes itself into the everyday workings of the world. The belief would not affect my life one way or the other.

However, the other 85% don't believe the way Ms. Armstrong believes. In fact, I don't think I would be far off saying virtually no one believes as she does. So one of the first complaints I would have is that no one has time to respond to all potential arguments that no one really believes in the first place. So vocal atheism's failure to address her particular argument represents pragmatism more so than ignorance.

But let's do address her argument. I am a firm believer that the person making the argument should be allowed to define terms. But those terms need to mean something in order for the argument to be useful. Ms. Armstrong's definition of God is that which is ineffable or indefinable. That doesn't mean anything ... almost by definition (intentional irony). God is completely non-understandable so there cannot be an argument for it or against it logically.

But Ms. Armstrong sees virtue in this ... Kenosis. The word "Kenosis" is derived from the Greek word for emptiness or emptying. The theological concept of Kenosis that I am familiar with is one that has been used to explain why things like evil exists in the world: why Jesus, even though God-incarnate, seems at times by Gospel accounts to be unaware of his divinity, etc. The idea is that in order for God to experience the human condition that God being all-powerful chose to limit himself. He in effect emptied himself of his powers.

However, Ms. Armstrong uses the term in a different way. Individual humans can undergo Kenosis. They empty themselves. Of what? One's thoughts, emotions, will ... any mental phenomenon you can think of. I suppose the idea is that by doing so the ineffable God fills the void. In Ms Armstrong's words, "It's a perpetual discipline – kenosis – going outside yourself into sort of disciplined unknowing . And that can bring a great satisfaction if you work at it."

How does it bring one satisfaction? A "disciplined unknowing" doesn't tell us how the universe got here in the first place. It doesn't give us a moral code by which to live our life. It doesn't tell us what happens to our consciousness after we die. In short, it gives us no information to the hard questions that religion has traditionally claimed to provide.

To me Ms. Armstrong's religion is nothing more than Buddhistic-like meditation. I see nothing wrong with that. I've tried it. Meditation can lead to that "gooey good" feeling one gets from a sense that the universe/world/one's personal existence/whatever is more mysterious than one can possibly imagine. I suspect that is where Ms. Armstrong's satisfaction comes from.

But this is nothing more than a "sense of wonder". Many things can give us that. For me the thing that works the best is not the unsolvable mystery, it is the fascination in the process of understanding how the natural world works. For me that has nothing to do with God. And the fact is, nothing Ms. Armstrong is advocating necessarily has anything to do with God either. In fact, one could make the logical argument that it can't. If it did have something to do with God then we would have defined some aspect of God and this is what she says we explicitly can't do.

Her theological concept doesn't lead to understanding. It leads to obscuration. It is not a deep philosophical concept. It is useless pablum.