Positive science, negative theology
The essay Positive science, negative theology is temporarily down for a major reworking. Sorry.
psnt.net | science & religion for the perplexed
|
|
|
The essay Positive science, negative theology is temporarily down for a major reworking. Sorry.
There are 7 Comments to "Positive science, negative theology"
I’ve been very interested in negative theology lately so I really appreciated reading this. I had never read of a dichotomy between ‘positive science’ and ‘negative theology’ before, so that was especially interesting.
Thanks for the good word, Tom. And thanks for reading!
Paul, I became aware of your blog after reading the article about you in the latest Furman Magazine (“Leap of Faith”) I’m an ’89 alum and I have a few comments and questions:
• I believe your distinction between positive science and negative theology is unnecessary and that perhaps the Taoist/Buddhist, one-hand-clapping anti-descriptions are clouding your thinking.
To say that “God is beyond our categories of good and not-good,” or that “God does not not exist” is to say something Positive about him. You still must use analogical language to refute the significance of analogical language.
This is not a paradox, it is self-defeating and absurd.
Further, the Bible assumes the positive existence of God (“In the beginning God…Gen. 1:1). Without asserting a positive first cause nothing else follows. Hopefully you find this first verse of the Bible trustworthy as well.
• You describe yourself as a “Christian with a Buddhist resonance” and say that you sometimes feel as if you’re “sleeping around” on Christianity. I do quite a bit of comparative religious study, yet I don’t feel like I’m cheating on Christianity b/c my faith is not invested in the other religions that pale in comparison to the proven supernatural, authoritative nature of the Bible. Please describe your Christianity (in positive, analogical language if possible).
• The Furman article suggested you believe in evolution. Why? The inability of mutations to create new genetic information and the subtractive, streamlining nature of natural selection rather than an additive one preclude the possibility that speciation could occur. Even the 16 rock-star scientists at the Altenburg Austria summit a couple of years ago came together b/c they admitted they needed something more adequate to account for the complexity of life that Darwinian evolution. (http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/features/03-08/features948.htm)
• Although I appreciate your scientific and spiritual inquiry, your condescension toward creationists is off-putting. You disagree with creationists–fine. But consider that creation scientists in a range of disciplines are as credentialed as you are, and that their investigations are sincere and Bible-centered. Painting them as politically motivated seems unfair.
Hi Bill. Thank you for your remarks.
My attraction to Buddhism is honest, I think. For me it has gone beyond mere study, in the sense of intellect alone. I have not gone searching for this “resonance,” because I have never been dissatisfied with Christianity. And as far as it clouding my thinking, I’m not sure what you mean by that. I have struggled with my relationship with Buddhism but I can’t see that my interest in it has suppressed my ability to think.
Yes, one always has to use analogical or positive language. That is what we have been given. Theology does not end in silence and emptiness, because there are ways to work with theological language that go beyond the strictly negative way. I never intended to say, in the essay above, that all language is futile.
The point of negative theology is to highlight the rather severe limits of God-talk, not to shut down the theological enterprise. I just don’t think that God exists in the same way the Moon exists, or in the same way I exist.
One place where you and I differ is in our understanding of other faith traditions and of the Bible. I cannot agree with you that “other religions… pale in comparison to the proven supernatural, authoritative nature of the Bible.” I do not think other traditions pose a true threat to Christianity, nor do I understand the Bible to be inerrant. These are a couple of nice long discussions in themselves, and I’m happy to have those discussions another day, but I think it’s a point that central to the present dialogue.
I think the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. As far as the Attenburg Austria summit goes, I don’t know anything more about it than is in the link you provided. It doesn’t look to me like a wholesale rejection of evolution, but a critique of natural selection as the dominant mechanism of evolution (as you know, “evolution” is the fact that life today is not the same as it was, say, 50 million years ago; natural selection is an explanation for how those changes occurred). I suspect that whatever theory of origins we have in a thousand years will carry some clear marks of our current theory. I wouldn’t say that “I believe in evolution,” because that language is overblown. I would say instead that it’s by far the best theory we have going, and it will almost certainly not ever be wholly overthrown.
And I do think that a number of top creationists are more motivated by politics than by science. I really do. These are smart people, and they say things like, “Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions. The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design” (see source here). This last sentence is simply not true. It is a shockingly naive conclusion. To say things like this after successfully completing a PhD in physics seems disingenuous at best, and downright dishonest and manipulative at worst.
I would end by saying that credentials mean very little. It is always possible to find a group of PhD’s that will support any idea imaginable, especially when there are political interests involved.
We obviously have a lot of differences, Bill, but I will tell you what I have told others: I value the presence of more conservative-minded readers on this website. I aim to make psnt.net a place where all viewpoints can be shared. Thanks for your contribution, and for reading my work. It always means a lot to me when people read my writing, and even more when they care enough to join in the conversation.
Yours,
Paul
Brilliant writing – you are a very good communicator. Thank you for taking the time and effort to write this essay!
I have do have a question for you, and please forgive me if I’ve misunderstood you -
I don’t quite follow you at this point:
“It [negative theology] pulls us toward a place where images and words do not apply. This place is silent and empty and free…”
I follow what you are saying in the first sentence, but I don’t follow the second one. It seemed as I was reading this portion that you suddenly changed course and started labeling the “place” with words like silent, empty, and free, which are positive.
Could you clarify this?
Thanks again,
Matt Scott
Hi Matt. Thanks so much for your kind words.
Your question is a wonderful one and indicates that you have really thought about what I wrote. Not even the most apophatic theologian escapes form positive language! Unless you count monastics who have sworn vows of silence, I suppose.
I will take the first two words — silent and empty — first. They are about as apophatic as words come. So while they convey positive infornation, they do point — as well as individual words can — toward true apophasis, which in the Christian tradition is sometimes called “the negation of the negation.” That is, “emptiness” and “silence” are not good enough. Those denials carry information and must themselves be denied. No images are good enough. Images do not apply.
This piece right here may help you to see what I’m getting at. In it I refer to this second-order negation as “the inversion of the inversion.”
As to the word “free,” well, I’m afraid were stuck with language. A fact that Augustine addressed quite a long time ago. (I mention his treatment of this problem here.) And “free” is a good word to describe the psychological effect of having one’s labels relativized by a nice dunk in the pool of apophasis.
Thanks again for reading.
P.
Fantastic…those resources were very helpful. Thanks again. I look forward to reading more and being challenged.
Matt Scott