Just Sitting Around Thinking: The Difference Between Philosophy and Theology

It's been a little while since I've formally studied philosophy, so please forgive me if I get some of this wrong (and of course, please correct me).

So if just sitting around thinking about stuff doesn't count as exploring the world, then what, if anything, is the value of philosophy?

The other day in my blog, I wrote an excoriation of the idea that the question of God's existence "should require further exploration." The essence of my excoriation: How, exactly, does this theologian propose that this exploration take place? What research does he propose doing? Does he plan to "explore" this question by doing anything at all other than sitting around in his living room thinking about it?

In response, Paul Crowley made a very fair point:

I think that there are ways in which the study of philosophy can be said to make progress, and in many ways there's not much more to philosophy than the activities you set out here.

A valid point, and one that deserves to be addressed. Especially since I have philosophers in my family, and to some extent consider myself one (albeit something of the armchair variety). And yes, I do think philosophy is a valid and important practice, one which can yield truth and insight. At least sometimes.

I had to think about this question for a bit, and this is definitely one of my "thinking out loud" pieces. But my initial, probably oversimplified response is this:

I think philosophers do have a responsibility to do more than just sit around and think.

I think philosophers have a responsibility, among other things, to keep up on the current science, and research in other fields of non- just- thinking- about- stuff investigation, that relates to their field.

If they're philosophers of epistemology or ethics, they should be keeping up with research in psychology, and sociology, and history. If they're philosophers of the mind and consciousness, they should be keeping up with research in psychology and biology. Philosophers of language need to stay current in the latest research and current thinking in linguistics. Political philosophers need to stay current in psychology and sociology (as well as history, of course). Etc.

And I think every philosopher, in just about every field of philosophy, needs to be paying attention to neuropsychology. Especially epistemologists, and ethicists, and philosophers of the mind and consciousness. But everybody, really. Aestheticians, logicians, political philosophers, philosophers of language -- everybody.

Why?

Because I think one of the main differences between philosophy and theology -- ideally, anyway -- is that philosophy deals with this world. The real world. The one we all live in and share. The one that we -- how shall I put this? -- know exists. (Or at least, the one that we know exists as well as we know anything.) It often deals with the real world in some rather abstract and arcane ways; it can often seem inaccessible and irrelevant (hell, it can often be inaccessible and irrelevant). But the basic idea is that it's meant to shed light on reality: human reality, and the reality of the world around us, and the relationship between the two.

Philosophy cares about the real world. And science is the best tool we've come up with so far for yielding accurate data and useful working theories about the real world. So philosophy should care about science. At the very least, it should be sure that it's not flatly contradicting the scientific consensus. And at the very best, it should be staying on top of the science, helping translate it to the layperson, putting it in context, and pointing to possible new fields of exploration and inquiry.

In other words: I think it's fine that philosophers largely just sit around and think... when what they're doing is thinking about reality as it's currently best perceived, informed by the best tools we have for perceiving it.

Which -- to bring it back to the main point -- is exactly what theologians don't do.

You can argue that theologians don't just sit around and think, either: they read, they study. But what do they read and study? Religious texts? Other theologians? History written by people who share their religious beliefs? Look at the theologians cited in my original piece on the weakness of modern theology. Their theologies reveal a blithe ignorance of (a) basic science that contradicts their theology, and (b) the lack of reliable historical support for their view of history. An ignorance that I frankly found shocking.

I'm sure that's not universal. I'm sure there are theologians who are reasonably well- versed in history and science and such. But again, I have to ask the question I asked yesterday, the question that I and every other atheist I know keeps asking again and again:

Is there anybody at all doing any sort of "exploration" into the field of theology, other than just sitting around thinking about it?

Is there any basic research being done to fuel the theologian's sedentary musings? Are there even any proposals on the table for how such basic research might be done? Is there any careful and rigorous observation of reality going on here at all? Or is it all simply a thoughtful, extensive, beautifully- worded exegesis on the state of one's navel?

And on the rare occasions that such reseach is being done -- such as the study on the efficacy of medical prayer, showing that prayer not only doesn't work but can be detrimental -- does any of it at all ever come out on the theologians' side?

Which brings me to another difference between philosophy and theology. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that honest non-theological philosophers don't cheat in their arguments by inserting "Then a miracle occurs" at a crucial point. They don't cheat in their arguments by devoting paragraphs, or chapters, or indeed entire books, to justifying why they can legitimately argue for the objective truth of a statement by saying, "I feel it in my heart."

Reality matters to philosophy... and therefore science matters to philosophy. And I think philosophy matters to science, too. Or sometimes it does. The philosophy of science has been a tremendous force in shaping and improving the scientific method. The idea that a theory has to be falsifiable to be useful; the idea that the scientific community is a culture with cultural biases that need to be acknowledged; the idea that scientists work with assumptions that they hold onto until the evidence against them becomes overwhelming... these come from philosophy. (I once read an old piece by Martin Gardner, a review of Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," seething with righteous outrage at the notion that the practice of science was anything less than perfectly objective and open- minded, and that scientists had any bias at all for old ideas over new ones. Kuhn's ideas are now not only not particularly controversial -- they've been folded into the scientific method.)

Yes, the activities of philosophy often don't amount to much more than sitting around thinking. But -- when it's done right -- it involves sitting around thinking about reality. Not just about stuff people have made up, but about the real world we live in. About things that we know, with a fair degree of certainty, to be true... and that we are willing to let go of if they later prove not to be true.

Which makes it very different from theology indeed.

(Note: The exception to this, I think, is the branches of philosophy that are less concerned with reality and more concerned with meaning, how we interpret the world and our experience of it. But (a) I think even those philosophers should probably be staying current with psychology and neuropsychology, and (2) unlike theology, those philosophies don't pretend to be about external reality while actually just being about the inside of the philosopher's head.)

Comments

[Rob~N]

As a philosopher myself, I would like to present as my answer, a question to your own. What is the difference between theology and philosophy? Well, what do we do when, in the course of our studies, we find a contradiction? If "God did it! its a miracle," then you are a thologian. If you attempt to solve the contradiction, then you are a philosopher.

Philosophers have very strict rules to follow when offering possible answers to the "big questions" we ask one another, and we are not afraid to be wrong. Theologians utilize a universal "get out of jail free" card when they run into an argument that they cannot work their way through, and any critique of their lack of solution is regarded as an unjust attack.

Another potential difference is that philosophy, like science, evolves and attempts to stay current as you suggested. Theology is static and unchanging.
(Just my two cents)

[Cannonball Jones]

As soon as I started reading I was about to jump in with my own answer but you hit the nail on the head. When I was studying philosophy two of my favourite classes were philosophy of science and philosophical psychology. The main reason for my enjoyment was that they were always informed by up to date research, they were so much more current and real than some other classes. I wasn't just arguing over abstract concepts or taking a glorified history class, I was actually learning about other subjects beyond the confines of my department.

I've had to defend my choice of degree from detractors (usually friendly enough) on many occasions and my first point is always pretty much exactly what you said in the post. Thanks for saying it more eloquently than I ever did though :)

[Susan B.]

Being a mathematician, I like to extend this to mathematics (which is attached to philosophy by way of logic, after all). Most mathematicians do just sit around and think all day, as well. But we don't kid ourselves into thinking that our mathematical theorems tell us anything about the real world until we've established by way of science that the real world satisfies our base axioms and assumptions.

Still, there are plenty of mathematicians, and mathematical publications, that don't concern themselves too much with practical applications and the real world. We do mathematics for other reasons than that, and some of those theorems are so far removed from the real world that the only way to verify them is to make sure the logic holds up in a rigorous proof.

This is the key difference, I think--except for those philosophers who are logicians (and therefore really mathematicians anyway), philosophical statements can get so fuzzy and ill-defined sometimes that they run the risk of being able to prove anything. When that happens, they're not expressing truth anymore, just nonsense.

[Christine]

I think philosophers do have a responsibility to do more than just sit around and think.

Is it a sign that I'm a political theory nerd when my first thought after reading this sentence was this quote:

"Philosophers have previously only sought to explain the world. The point, however, is to change it."

Internet cookies if you know who said it. :D

Fake prizes aside, this was a really interesting continuation of this on-going theologian/atheist debate. I'm trying not to feel too smug about how handily the atheosphere has put down the big-gun theologians, but it's admittedly a bit tough.

[Frozen Summers]

I'm quite sure that there are theologians that do look to reality and science and history as part of their thinking....

But those would be theologians that the evangelicals would say aren't true Scotsmen, oops christians.

I'm sure if you looked at liberal/queer/feminist theology you'd see alot of reality.... but I'm sure that people like John Shelby Spong are considered as bad or even worse than atheists by most evangelicals....

[Steve Caldwell]

The theologians described in this post and the "The Big Guns: Greta Answers Some Theologians" post seem very typical of the traditional Christian apologetics genre.

However, there are some folks who study theology that probably don't fit this mold.

One of my favorite Unitarian Universalist theologians is Dr. Rebecca Parker (President - Starr King School for the Ministry in Berkley CA).

She has written some very critical pieces on the traditional understanding of Jesus' death and the role that redemptive suffering has taken in Christianity:

"Can violence save?
Challenging the theology of redemptive suffering."
http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/3290.shtml

I've heard her speak at a conference and she talked about how the Unitarian Universalist view of "salvation" started out in a traditional Christian framework but changed. Here is a brief summary of these changes:

1770's - God is too good and loving to condemn anyone to hell (classic universalism from John Murray and others)

Early 1800's - God is too good and loving to demand a barbaric human sacrifice through the death of Jesus -- Jesus' salvational message isn't from his death but rather from the ethical example he provided in his life.

Early 20th century - As a religious group, we're not sure that God exists (Humanist Manifesto and all that) - furthermore, the ethical examples found in religion are not confined to Jesus alone - Buddha and other teachers are also explored.

Current day understanding of "salvation in Unitarian Universalism as described by Rebecca Parker - We offer salvation from those things that deny life or make life less whole.

This reframing of "salvation" moves it from a "god - Jesus - afterlife -supernatural" thing to a concept that isn't supernatural and applies in this life instead of the afterlife.

I use the "salvation from those things that deny life or make life less whole" idea to explain why Unitarian Universalists promote comprehensive sexuality education that affirms both sexual pleasure and sexual health.

In this sense, this sexuality education work is "salvational" and the historical roots for it can be traced back to a more traditional theology.

[ErinM]

Theology is like writing fanfiction -- it doesn't matter what "innovations" you come up with, you're always working in the confines of someone else's invented world.

[Greta Christina]

Steve: You make an interesting point. I agree that it's not really the case that theology is static and doesn't evolve. (The very existence of Protestantism puts the kibosh on that.)

But I would argue that what you're describing as modern UU theology isn't really theology at all. It's philosophy. It doesn't posit the existence of God or an afterlife; it's a philosophy about how to live this life.

The degree to which UU has cred is the degree to which it has removed itself from Christianity, from the Bible, and ultimately from religion itself. It's the degree to which it shapes its morality and philosophy on this world instead of the next; on the world we can see instead of the one we can't.

[Maria]

"The degree to which UU has cred is the degree to which it has removed itself from Christianity, from the Bible, and ultimately from religion itself. It's the degree to which it shapes its morality and philosophy on this world instead of the next; on the world we can see instead of the one we can't."

I don't know anything about UU, so I was just going to ask that, after reading Steve's post, if it is actually a religion at all, and if they say they are, why they say this? *confused*

I have to go read up on the UU I think...

[Indigo]

The most accurate description of UUians I've ever heard is "a church without a religion".

[skepticscott]

It's undeniable that the tenets of theology (or theologies) change, and it may even be possible to say that they "evolve", as opposed to just jumping all over the place at random, but the important question is why. Are theologians really gaining a better and better understanding as time goes by of how their god thinks and what he means and wants? Do they get closer and closer to some objective truth, the way that science does? Or are they simply moving towards particular positions as a result of internal or external politics, PR, or the needs of their customers?

[Steve Caldwell]

skepticscott asked:
-snip-
"Do they [theologians] get closer and closer to some objective truth, the way that science does? Or are they simply moving towards particular positions as a result of internal or external politics, PR, or the needs of their customers?"

I'm thinking that "theological evolution" is just another example of mimetic evolution.

Religions change over time and often these responses are due to external secular pressures (e.g. the past disputes over ordination of women and the current dispute over inclusion of BGLT folks are simply examples of religions trying to adapt in response to changes in the surrounding secular environment).

From what I've read of Rev. Michael Dowd's book Thank God for Evolution, it's an attempt to reframe religion where it appears to be compatible with what we know about evolutionary biology and other sciences.

Dowd's web site
http://thankgodforevolution.com/

In a strictly pragmatic political sense, this "benefits" science by attempting to deflect an objection that some folks have to evolution. Science depends largely on public funding and this means that science needs public support.

But I would suggest that an attempt to portray science and religion as compatible really benefits religion more.

It's not a good long-term survival strategy for religion to be perceived as "anti-science." And Dowd's book looks like an attempt to change the religious memes and thereby change the public perception that religion is anti-science.

Science is just too pragmatically useful to ignore.

I blogged about this "memetic evolution" aspect in Dowd's book here:

http://liberalfaith.blogspot.com/2009/02/thank-god-for-evolution-example-of.html

[Valhar2000]

Susan B.:

Actually, there are a few mathematicians who believe that their insights translate to the real world: creationists, numerologists, etc.

Usually they simply create a model based on assumptions, and somehow don't seem to realize that they made up the assumptions. When others point out that there is no particular reason to accept those assumptions, these mathematicians give deer-in-the-headlights looks.

At least the ones I've heard of.

I do not mean this to be a criticism of your field. There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone with an IQ or more than 1 digit that, whatever it is that mathematicians do, it gives results, so at least some of you must be doing something right. ;)

[G Felis]

Theologians attempt to claim the legitimacy (well, quasi-respectability) of philosophy with the same motives as American Creationists and alt-med woo peddlers attempting to claim the legitimacy of science - and with the same integrity. Thank you, Greta Christina, for not letting them get away with it.

My own take on goes something like this: Philosophy, like science, proceeds by reasoned argumentation. In science, the premises are grounded in empirical evidence and the reasoning is usually mathematical, but it's still reasoning from premises which we have good reasons to accept as true or plausible towards conclusions which require such support. In theology, the conclusion - God - is always affirmed and embraced in advance of any argument, so the "premises" and "reasoning" offered are mere rationalizations, pseudo-arguments which never had the slightest chance of doing anything but reaching the "conclusion" already determined well in advance of any evidence or reasoning. Like Intelligent Design creationists, they are engaged in a fundamentally dishonest attempt to make their phony rationalizations look like the real deal, reasoned arguments - but they never are.

Also like creationists, you can best spot them by how they literally never, ever learn. Where are the geologists still fighting Wegener's once-radical theory of continental drift? There are none. When the evidence showed that the arguments for fixed continents and against drift were shown to be bunk, geologists abandoned those arguments. (There are similar examples of abandoned positions in philosophy, although fewer than in science - but most people wouldn't be familiar with them anyway, so they wouldn't be good illustrations.)

In contrast, each and every one of the famous so-called philosophical arguments for the existence of God has been exposed as a fallacy-ridden travesty - bad arguments, one and all, and demonstrably so. Yet theologians ranging from the sophisticated Alving Plantinga and William Lane Craig to the cheesiest two-bit apologist you could imagine keep trotting out these same old tired arguments as if they were interesting or important, completely ignoring the fact that the arguments have been thoroughly refuted by any reasonable standard centuries ago. Maybe someone should put together an index to theological claims just like the TalkOrigins index to creationist claims... or maybe someone already has, and I just didn't notice.

[Steve Caldwell]

G Felis wrote:
-snip-
"Yet theologians ranging from the sophisticated Alving Plantinga and William Lane Craig to the cheesiest two-bit apologist you could imagine keep trotting out these same old tired arguments as if they were interesting or important, completely ignoring the fact that the arguments have been thoroughly refuted by any reasonable standard centuries ago. Maybe someone should put together an index to theological claims just like the TalkOrigins index to creationist claims... or maybe someone already has, and I just didn't notice."

"Ask and you shall receive."

:^)

A member of the Minnesota Atheists group has done this - the most current version of the list can be found on their web site and on Hemant Mehta's "Friendly Atheist" blog:

34 Unconvincing Arguments for God
http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/11/30/34-unconvincing-arguments-for-god/

34 Unconvincing Arguments for God (Minnesota Atheists Link)
http://mnatheists.org/content/view/64/34/