I'm on his tenth entry. It's a lecture given to young ministers and leaders of the Anglican and Welsh Church in 1945. The title is "Christian Apologetics" and I can't believe I hadn't read any of it yet. Part of it's beauty is that it is a rare time in which Lewis is lecturing to a group of priests and pastors. He was a popular lecturer at the time and a renown novelist, but rarely did he speak at conferences for the clergy. With this audience in front of him, Lewis' tone is rare and increasingly captivating for those of us who have read most of his work.
I also love it because he articulates something that I've been searching for (as usual).
His primary thesis is to stray away from defending or preaching Christianity just because "you like it or think it good for society or something of that sort." Rather, Lewis says, we are to preach and proclaim and defend Christianity because we know it to be true. There is a huge difference. Christians are not promoters of a good societal antidote, but we are heralds of the Truth, a greater reality.
Because we are heralds and defenders of what is true, what is actual reality, there exists no piece or aspect of Christianity that we should shy away from.
"Science progresses because scientists, instead of running away from such troublesome phenomena or hushing them up, are constantly seeking them out. In the same way, there will be progress in Christian knowledge only as long as we accept the challenge of the difficult or repellent doctrines."A scientist is good at what he does not because he only knows the new theories, but he is so strong in his conceptualization and knowledge of the foundations laws of nature that he knows exactly when a new one develops.
We must be completely solid in the ancient truth and proclamation of the Scriptures, that God in his infinite love and grace has revealed to the world who he is through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ the Lord, and whoever should place their life in his hands shall be redeemed. In our absolute rigidness of this Truth, let us boldly explore that which we do not know. For it will only more perfectly shape our love for the primary Truth.
Theology is more scientific than you might think. Christians tend to be afraid of launching into the mysteries of our faith. Yet this would eliminate one of our basic human functions: discovery.
You know the basic revelation, now go boldly into that which might be true. Answers are ahead.
6 comments:
There are manifest differences between theology and the scientific method. In particular, theology is inherently not falsifiable ("not even wrong") whereas falsifiability, as described by the philosophy of critical rationalism, is what drives scientific discovery.
References:
Falsifiability
Not Even Wrong
Critical Rationalism
Alas, I cannot use such big words as does "Anonymous," but should say here: completely agree with Lewis. Great quote and point.
That is how we have always made progress in the studies of both disciplines — Science and Religion (theology = words about God). Humility and curiosity are two essential virtues for the journey. In both theology and science, and as a science.
Anon-
The post was not about method.
-c
C,
You state that "Theology is more scientific than you might think."
According to Merriam Webster the word scientific means "of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science".
I am saying that theology is NOT scientific, both in a philosophical (see critical rationalism) nor methodological (see falsifiability) sense.
If you are not speaking towards the methods and/or principles of science, then what exactly are you claiming in your statement above?
I understand the sentiments, but I think science is a misleading term to use. Science and Theology are both driven by the same thing -- curiosity -- but that is where the similarities end. For anyone involved in the sciences, you can't separate the method (empirical discovery and repeatable results that result in new knowledge) from the idea. Theology, at its core, is not scientific because it operates on no new knowledge and no empirical, repeatable premises.
Consequently, Theology (unless its some sort of historical, applied theology), shares more with literature and philosophy and should be held in the same light. But I think Lewis' point (and it is no less powerful, even with this clarification) is that human curiosity should never be dampened in the face of challenging questions (which I suppose you could say about any intellectual pursuit).
Thanks, McG. I'm in agreement and that's all that Lewis was driving home anyways.
I see a separation between principles and methods. Lewis saw similarities in the principles of theology and science. Curiosity and discovery are basic propositions that serve as a foundation for each's chain of reasoning.
Some principles are shared, but not methods. Curiosity, discovery, humility, and the endless and relentless pursuit of knowledge are commonalities that both disciplines practice differently. Nonetheless, both are necessary.
Christian theology and the Bible are most commonly held under the evidentiary method (internal consistency, corroboration, and reliable sources) simply because Christianity does not rest on a set of beliefs but on a series of historical events.
-c
Post a Comment