Simplistic criticisms of Theology

O.K. This post covers some thoughts I've been musing on recently. If the title leads you to groan, feel free to skip the post. No-one's likely to change their thinking on these topics under any circumstance. I'll return to the normal level of flipancy soon. I just like to share these things with you, is all.

Challenge 1. Under common theological conclusions, the study of Theology can have no important results.

If you believe in a god who is benevolent, omnipotent and that the meaning of life is to gain greater undertsanding of his personality, then it seems to follow that He can't have been so negligent as to leave it to proffesional theologians to discover his nature- it should be self-evident. That is, theology can only discover facts that aren't important enough for a loving father to tell us, like what his faourite breakfast cereal is.

Challenge 2. If God is ineffable, Theology is impossible to perform.

I don't know who first came up with this doozy of an idea, but I'm guessing they didn't run it by the Theological Trade Union first. On the other hand, it is a nice 'get out clause' whenever the questioning gets too tough.

Challenge 3. Theology is prone to compound errors.

To explain what I mean, I'll compare and contrast theology with science.

Science tests idea by consistency and experiment. One mark of a great scientist is what historical figure he can delimit, clarify, correct or disprove. Einstein did these things to Isaac Newton, and the founders of Quantum mechanics did it to our basic ideas of what things are. As such, mistakes that are made in science are progressively weeded out.

In Theology, however, the only test of truth is consitency. The aim of a great modern theologian is not to show that Saint Augustine was wrong, but that he was right. If he's a truly great Theologian, he might even manage to show that two authorities who say the opposite are actually consistent. What this means is that is someone makes a mistake, the next generation will repeat it, refine it, build on it, make it an integral part of the structure and add mistakes of their own. This has been going on for thousands of years.
Consistency is also an insufficient test of truth. Go to any bookshop and you'll see plenty of examples of stories that are consistent but fictional. I like to imagine a 'story space' that holds an infinite number of stories, like strings tied to reality at certain points, curling and twisting in an infinite number of consistent theories.
To be consistent, it just has to be a line. To be science, it has to pass through all the data points. In science, too, it's acceptble to tentatively assume that the story passes through the simplest possible curve. This has been an idea likely to make you unpopular for a long time.

Experiment is not possible in theology. It would be impossible to distinguish a miracle that happened two thousand years ago and fantasy dreamt up since. If it were, and the evidence was collected, can you imagine any theological journal carrying a paper that demonstrates that a doctrine has no basis in fact? That Exodus never happened? That Pilate was never stationed to Jerusalem? That the Turin Shroud is a tacky souvenir of 14th century Avignon? Before the investigation starts, certain conclusions are sacrosant- literally.

It is my contention that in terms of it's benefit to society and it's intelectual worth, the practice of proffesional academic theology is as valuble as watching daytime television.

If that makes you want to reply, then please do! There's an email link just over there to your right. I await your response.

Song in my head: "Throw away your television" by Red Hot Chilli Peppers