On the hypothesis of God, pseudoscience and a rational approach to religion
Recently, a dissertation on theology was first reviewed in Russia. The question of whether theology is a science is rather controversial. Specially for Indicator. Ru Dmitry Uzlaner, the candidate of philosophical sciences, director of the Center for the Study of Religion of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration and the editor-in-chief of the journal "State, Religion, Church in Russia and Abroad", stated his position on it in ten theses.
I understand the civil concern of the opponents of theology: its institutionalization in Russia may raise questions in terms of compliance with the Constitution and the principles of the secular state of the state. However, this concern must be viewed separately from speculation about the pseudoscientific nature of theology as such. A specific reason for writing these theses was the recent mention of theology in the context of the activities of the RAS Commission on Pseudoscience.
1. The problem of pseudoscience is extremely delicate. It is very easy to make a mistake here and completely discredit the whole undertaking as a whole. In particular, it does not seem correct to me to attempt to “hit the squares” and blame entire disciplines, no matter how dubious they may seem to someone, for their pseudoscientific nature. Each individual author or even a group of authors, of course, has the right to any opinion, but in the case when we have an official body of the Russian Academy of Sciences, such statements by its members, alas, split the academic community, especially when the accusation comes on behalf of representatives of the natural science discipline. discipline close to humanitarian.
2. No less strange is the conversation about a certain "science in general", with an attempt to proclaim a single definition as self-evident. A special discipline is engaged in the study of what science as such is - the philosophy of science. From the philosophy of science, we know that there exist, have existed and will exist different approaches to understanding both scientificness as a whole and its components: scientific truth, scientific method, scientific goals and objectives, etc. Finally, no one has canceled the old division between nature sciences; and spirit / cultural sciences. Between empirical (explanatory) and hermeneutic (understanding) sciences. Between science and humanities. Breaking wood in the case of "science in general" is as easy as in the case of pseudoscience.
3. Even more worrisome is the situation when, after accusations of pseudoscience theology is followed by accusations of pseudoscience or nonscience of all humanitarian knowledge as such. You can often hear talk about the fact that history is not science, philosophy is not science, psychology is not science and in general everything is not science, except for a few reference exact and natural disciplines. These kinds of conversations, firstly, raise doubts about the adequacy of the speakers, and secondly, they lead to nothing but new rounds of disciplinary wars and a split in the academic community. In the context of such conversations, the struggle against pseudoscience turns into something reminiscent of an attempt at the "imperialist" expansion of some sciences into the camp of others, or the imposition of one correct and supposedly scientific worldview on everyone. It seems to me more and more that, defending theology,we protect the entire space of humanitarian knowledge as such.
4. I do not believe that science at this stage of its development can unequivocally answer the question of whether there is a God or not. It cannot yet and unequivocally prove the truth of the naturalistic worldview (in the sense of metaphysical naturalism). For this reason, in the academic space, there should be a place, albeit the most minimal, for representatives of non-naturalistic worldviews (if they use rational methods in their research). For example, religious naturalism (see Dawkins, Richard (2000) Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder. Mariner Books.), Theism, etc. These can be departments and centers in philosophy departments, or individual departments … Specific institutionalization is certainly up for debate. There may be atheism departments at the university. For example,at the University of Miami in 2016, it was first established. In any case, the academic space should be a space of free rational discussion, where there is a place for representatives of different worldviews.
One of the offices of the Theology Department of NRNU "MEPhI"
Promotional video:
Wikimedia Commons
5. Theology is an academic discipline that has existed for centuries in leading European and American universities. Within theology, there are specific disciplines (biblical studies, patrology, liturgy, etc.) that differ little from other humanitarian disciplines and in which qualifying scientific degrees may well be awarded. There is also a space for free thinking and searching associated with creative comprehension of the religious tradition to which a particular theologian relates himself. Within theology there are schools, internal contradictions, real intellectual breakthroughs, and so on. In short, this is a living and vibrating space.
6. Theology is based on a theistic (in the broadest sense) worldview, it starts from the hypothesis of God. Academic theology is the development (or apology) of this hypothesis, as well as the picture of the world in the light of this hypothesis - by rational means. The theologian can work with this hypothesis directly (for example, analytical theology) or, which is most often the case, through the mediation of a corpus of texts and interpretations that is significant for a particular theological context. The development of theology can be both free (and then we are talking about non-confessional, and now also non-religious, theology), and existing within the framework of established intellectual traditions (and then we are talking about confessional theology: Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, for example). It is this view from within the theistic worldview that makes theology unique not only in its object-subject (the hypothesis of God and the world in the light of this hypothesis), but also in its attitude. This is a rational reflection of one's own faith, one's own worldview foundations. Can a religious scholar study theology? Yes. But a religious scholar studies theology from the outside, the theologian creates theology from within. To solve its goals and objectives, theology can use a very different arsenal of methods, such as the means of analytical philosophy (Richard Swinburne and the Oxford School of Theology in general), the phenomenological approach (John Caputo, John Manussakis, Jean-Luc Marion), anthropology and literary criticism (René Girard), archeology and the genealogy of ideas (John Milbank), etc. This is a rational reflection of one's own faith, one's own worldview foundations. Can a religious scholar study theology? Yes. But a religious scholar studies theology from the outside, the theologian creates theology from within. To solve its goals and objectives, theology can use a very different arsenal of methods, such as the means of analytical philosophy (Richard Swinburne and the Oxford School of Theology in general), the phenomenological approach (John Caputo, John Manussakis, Jean-Luc Marion), anthropology and literary criticism (René Girard), archeology and the genealogy of ideas (John Milbank), etc. This is a rational reflection of one's own faith, one's own worldview foundations. Can a religious scholar study theology? Yes. But a religious scholar studies theology from the outside, the theologian creates theology from within. To solve its goals and objectives, theology can use a very different arsenal of methods, such as the means of analytical philosophy (Richard Swinburne and the Oxford School of Theology in general), the phenomenological approach (John Caputo, John Manussakis, Jean-Luc Marion), anthropology and literary criticism (René Girard), archeology and the genealogy of ideas (John Milbank), etc.such as the means of analytical philosophy (Richard Swinburne and the Oxford School of Theology in general), the phenomenological approach (John Caputo, John Manoussakis, Jean-Luc Marion), anthropology and literary criticism (René Girard), archeology and the genealogy of ideas (John Milbank), etc. etc.such as the means of analytical philosophy (Richard Swinburne and the Oxford School of Theology in general), the phenomenological approach (John Caputo, John Manoussakis, Jean-Luc Marion), anthropology and literary criticism (René Girard), archeology and the genealogy of ideas (John Milbank), etc. etc.
7. Can theology be / become pseudoscientific? Yes, absolutely. If it is proved that the specific provisions of a particular theological work contradict reliably established facts. But this will not be a refutation of theology as such, but just a specific theological concept that claims to exist within the academy. In this sense, the situation with theology is not much different from the situation in other disciplines: some physical / biological theories may disappear from the field of science if they are reliably proven to be false.
8. Those who believe that the existence of theology is an unnecessary atavism or a tribute to the past should substantiate their thesis: for example, analyze the activities of the leading theological faculties and Divinity Schools (Princeton University, Yale University, University of Chicago, etc.), see the latest issues of leading theological journals, see theological publications of the largest university publishers (Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press, etc.). Only on the basis of such an analysis will it be possible to make a categorical verdict. Sometimes one gets the impression that the opponents of theology have never had a single serious theological study in their hands.
9. Theology is the outpost of reason in religious traditions. In a situation where fundamentalism and obscurantism are flourishing, we, more than ever, are interested in this outpost expanding, in increasing the toolkit of rational reflection, so that achievements from other natural or humanitarian disciplines would penetrate into these religious traditions as quickly as possible. I do not really understand how the desire of a part of the academic community to oust theology from the academy, to lock theologians in their isolated institutions, to brand their discipline as a pseudoscience contributes to this. Such a strategy of isolation does not and cannot lead to anything other than mutual anger. Do not condemn theology to stewing in its own juice.
ten. Theology today, among other things, is also an extremely applied discipline. The 21st century throws a number of challenges to religious traditions, internal, from religious radicals and fundamentalists, and external, from the rapid development of science, rapid changes in socio-political realities (the rights of minorities, women, challenges to authoritarian power, religious and ideological pluralism). Only theology is empowered to give answers to these burning questions from within religious traditions, only it has the keys to those religious ideas on which in some cases the questions of peace and war depend. The university space can become the space where theological responses to these challenges will be developed in an active dialogue with representatives of other academic disciplines. An example of this kind of activity is, for example, the Harvard Divinity School research program.
Dmitry Uzlaner