Alexander Panchin's Answer to theses in Defense of Theology
We recently published ten theses in defense of theology as a science by Dmitry Uzlaner. The popularizer of science Alexander Panchin formulated the theses in reply about why theology, on the contrary, cannot be a science. …
Discussion on theology resumed, and the number of texts in defense of this discipline increased. However, the arguments of the theologians have not changed. Let me list their main arguments:
1. Theology is a humanities. Physicists do not understand lyricists;
2. Nobody has proved that there is no God;
3. Theology has been taught for centuries in some foreign universities;
4. We need a pluralism of opinions;
5. Theology is an inoculation against religious fundamentalism and obscurantism.
Promotional video:
Now let's figure it out
1. Theology is a humanities. Lyric physicists can't understand
The goal of science is to develop and systematize objective knowledge about the world around us. This knowledge not only describes the observed natural or social phenomena, but also makes it possible to understand cause-and-effect relationships and make predictions. It turns out that both science and its imitation are possible in various disciplines. Therefore, the dispute between "physicists and lyricists" is a false dichotomy, with the help of which unscrupulous representatives of the humanitarian disciplines hide behind the merits of the honest ones.
I can easily give examples of research carried out at a high scientific level in the framework of sociology, psychology, linguistics, philology, religious studies and history. Including those published in PNAS (Proceedings of the Naional Academy of Sciences, - approx. Indicator. Ru), Nature and Science, with hundreds of citations, experiments and observations, testable hypotheses and critical consideration of facts. These works help to understand how our thinking and society are arranged, how culture is changing.
No one in their right mind would call any of these areas in their entirety pseudoscience. Theology is another matter.
Yes, individual works or schools of thought within recognized humanities have been criticized, sometimes justly. However, this is also true for the natural sciences. Sadly, there is a group of biologists at Moscow State University that is developing the transfer of "medicinal radiation" to CDs. And homeopaths infiltrated the Academy of Sciences.
We see that knowledge of natural sciences does not provide complete protection from a dropping roof. This means that the point is not in physicists and lyricists, but in the fact that there are people who are intellectually honest and not so much.
In an amicable way, the term "pseudoscience" in general should be applied to individual works, not disciplines. But what to do when a certain area is completely and completely sterile, like homeopathy or theology? Shouldn't we call a spade a spade? Theology is the same humanitarian science as homeopathy is natural.
2. No one has proved that there is no God
The Commission Against Pseudoscience has declared homeopathy to be a pseudoscience. Is there 100% proof that homeopathy never works under any circumstances? Alas, we did not have divine revelation to assert this.
This is a simple fact: claims by homeopaths that their sugar balls are a cure are unfounded. If someone claims the opposite, then he is lying or mistaken. Scientific research cannot begin with the thesis that homeopathy works.
If anyone wants to do research looking for missing evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy, the flag is in their hands. Only please be honest and willing to admit negative test results.
God's position is even worse than homeopathy. There are not even bad jobs in favor of its existence. Not to mention the fact that no one can clearly formulate how the world in which God exists differs from the world where he does not exist. Scientific research cannot begin with the thesis that the Creator exists.
Until there is scientific evidence for the existence of God, claims of his deeds should be placed in the same pile with unconfirmed claims of psychics, astrologers, fortune-tellers and homeopaths.
If someone wants to study not God, but religion, then there are areas that do not require faith from a person: secular religious studies, history, anthropology. The phenomenon of blind faith is being studied by psychologists and neuroscientists.
3. Theology has been taught for centuries in some foreign universities
As the saying goes, "British scientists have proven." The appeal to tradition and "authority" is incorrect in the framework of a scientific discussion. But here, too, theology loses out to homeopathy. The latter is studied in many more places. Maybe not so long ago, but longer than many established sciences like genetics.
But can you imagine that a historian, linguist, geneticist, botanist or religious scholar, justifying the right of his discipline to exist, instead of giving examples of colleagues' research, would say: "Well, we have a department in Cambridge …"?
I have repeatedly asked theologians to show me scientific discoveries in the field of theology, but to no avail. Science is judged not by medals and orders, not by formal signs and orders of officials, but by the extent to which certain ideas are substantiated.
4. Pluralism of opinions is needed
The variety of views is great. Someone wants to believe in God, someone wants to believe in a flying pasta monster, and someone wants to believe in homeopathy and astrology. So believe in health. Just do not meddle in science. And do not try to hide behind her honestly deserved authority in order to hang people on the ears. Science is not built on faith and opinions, but on knowledge and facts. As Jesus said, "Caesar is Caesar, but God's to God." Science - objective, proven.
5. Theology is an inoculation against religious fundamentalism and obscurantism
The same as homeopathy - the urine therapy vaccine. I have never seen a link to any research that supports this thesis. Are the defenders of theology wishful thinking here too?
The available scanty data from sociological studies conducted in Russia testify rather in the opposite direction: among Orthodox Christians, people who believe in astrology, aircraft of extraterrestrial origin and psychics are much more common than among non-believers (Vorontsova, Filatov, Furman 1995). Moreover, such convictions are most pronounced among the Orthodox Christians (Sinelina, 2005).
Religion is a teaching about God, the existence of which has not been proven. Astrology is the doctrine of the influence of planets on the fate of people, the existence of which has not been proven. From the point of view of argumentation, there is no difference. So they are friends in the minds of people.
Theology is not the same as religion, but they are based on the same unfounded assumption.
It is interesting to ask a rhetorical question to those who make such an argument. If there is credible research that the study of theology promotes both religious fundamentalism and other forms of obscurantism, will they advocate the closure of theology chairs? I wish I could see it.
Vorontsova L. M., Filatov S. B., Furman D. E., Sinelina Yu. Yu., compilation - Alexander Panchin
Why should a doctor become a candidate
Archpriest Pavel Khondzinsky plans to become the first holder of a state-approved PhD in theology (he is already a Doctor of Theology, but the VAK does not recognize this degree). Why does he need this degree, if he is already recognized in a narrow church circle?
In Russia, by law, religion is separated from the state. But if you are a theologian, and theology is a state-recognized science, then you can receive state grants and open theological institutions. In other words, preach at the expense of taxpayers, both atheists and believers. And we will have holy water and correct prayer instead of innovation and fundamental research. So do not be surprised by the increase in the "budget for science" in the future - we will know where the money will go.
What is theology?
Professor of the Department of Religious Studies at the Russian Academy of State Service under the President of the Russian Federation (RAGS) Friedrich Ovsienko explained the difference between theology and religious studies.
“Theology is a teaching about God, about his attributes and about the world created by the Lord God, and religious studies is the knowledge about religion. The task of theology is to establish a person in the faith, the task of religious studies is to give knowledge about religion. A religious scholar can be both secular and spiritual. But a religious scholar does not prove the existence of God, he analyzes religion. Scientific knowledge about religion is "neither religious nor anti-religious." It is objective. Worldview conclusions can be different."
In his dissertation, Pavel Khondzinsky writes that “the scientific and theological method is determined by: 1. specific (unique) subject and source of theological knowledge; 2. their own personal experience of faith and the life of the theologian; 3. a set of rational operations inherent in all humanities”.
Should I write a review?
And here are examples of theological ideas that the author refers to (and with which, judging by the context, agrees):
"The main argument, from which all the others follow, is the following: no one by himself can cognize the things Divine, unless God himself reveals them to him, therefore, only the word of God can be the beginning of theology."
“After establishing the“objective”divinity of Scripture (which is the main prerequisite for the existence of“scientific theology”), scientific methods of working with it, that is, the rules for its interpretation, are also established. The latter should be based on four preconditions, of which “two - as if earthly” - natural and scientific, and “two - given by heaven … the catechetical foundations of the Christian faith and a deep understanding of the Divine Scripture based on the fear of God”.
“… There are two theologies: Divine - given in Scripture - and human - studying Scripture. There is a sharp line between them. The first is the word of God, "taught sometimes in a supernatural, sometimes naturally" way. The supernatural in this case refers to various extraordinary revelations (for example, dreams and voices); naturally God speaks in Scripture."
Now imagine if physicists start designing nuclear reactors based on voices in their heads, dreams, and a book that no one knows who wrote.
Alexander Panchin