Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
"Atheism is an absence of belief. in other words its vacuous, its meaningless,
it doesn't mean anything."
Hmm. Well actually my atheism isn't "an absence of belief ". Consequently, I get to think
about all kinds of cool stuff that other atheists don't. Like theological reduction, for example.
Roughly, reduction is talking about things in terms of other things. Like liquids in
terms of gases: about water as two atoms of hydrogen to an oxygen atom. Doing this helps
us understand the world and to solve problems in it.
However, people who are afraid of scientific truth, sometimes on ideological sometimes
on theological grounds, often speak ill of "reductionism" -- well into the old age that
is secured for them by its fruits.
A popular philosophical approach to reduction is the 'Ramsey-Lewis Method'. It's got nothing
to do with keeping score in cricket; or playing jazz-piano. Rather, it's a technique for inter-theoretical
reduction: whereby things talked about in the context of one theory are talked about
in terms of another.
It starts by harvesting the statements used in commonplace talk. Then it maps the significant
relations, such as causal relations, that are presumed to hold between the things thus
discussed. This is the first, or folk-theory. It then posits matching realta within more
refined, more testable theories. Such as a well supported scientific one. These are the
mature, or second-theory. In establishing these relations, the terms of the first theory
are thereby reduced to those of the second.
For the purposes of stimulating discussion, I'd like to propose that this technique can
be applied to theology.
Firstly, we could harvest the platitudes of folk-theology. Then we could map the relations
between its various posits; its "deities" and "graces", and the 'religious experiences'
of those who appeal to such things. Next we could detail matching relata amongst the posits
of our best empirical theories. Having done so, and having made the relevant ..er.. revisions,
we'd have opened up theology to an enlightening scientific scrutiny.
So, everyone, do you think this is plausible? If not, why not? And if you do think it's
plausible, is it desirable?
Please use the shiny new comments section, including links to any video responses, to
let me know.
Thank you for listening.