Fides et Ratio

Another day, another theology lecture. Still smiling sagely on the outside, inside I range from fascinated to amused to bewildered to frustrated. Putting your own beliefs aside for a moment, imagine that you are like me and don't believe in the existence of God. What are you to make of a subject that defines itself as 'the study of God' or 'God's interactions with humankind'? I mean, really, what is it all about? What is it that we are studying. It is a signifier without a signified.

I have concluded that the only course of action is to approach God as you would a fictional character in any other literary context. Now, don't get me wrong, I love the Bible. It's a wonderful book, or collection of 'little books' (Gk ta biblia) and I think that a good knowledge of it is essential for an understanding of western culture. It has always intrigued me and it is packed full of great stories. Ironically, of all the units I will do this semester this is the one I will probably enjoy the most and certainly the one which I will do the most reading for. Jesus too was without doubt a wonderful fellow and, as my Dad says, a true socialist at heart. If only those that call themselves Christians followed him authentically then the world would surely be a better place. I believe that Christianity has a much higher tolerance of hypocrisy than most other religions. This may well be why it has endured so successfully, but this is a topic for another entry.
To return to my frustrations with this theology unit I am required to take; it is the flawed and foolish reasoning that pervades the particular approach to theology in this course that exasperates me. The lecturer tells us that we will be engaging in a dialogue between faith and reason. Faith, however, makes a virtue out of belief without reason. She also tells us that for the sake of this course we must assume that God exists. I can't see why this is necessary. Rational exegesis allows for the study of a text such as the Bible from the standpoint of assuming that the authorship is entirely from the mind of the author as opposed to revealed exegesis which assumes that the authors have been divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. Now, at a university such as Notre Dame that welcomes and even encourages enrolments from secular students or students of other faiths, why not stick with the former approach. Surely a Christian should be able to trust that the book will speak for itself and I question whether assuming divine revelation is actually feasible or possible for a non-believer such as myself or, for that matter, a Buddhist or any other non-Christian with the possible exception of a Jew in regards to the Hebrew Scriptures.
Our lecturer, Dr Johnson, gives dodgy examples to explain her approach. For example, she tells us that faith is the same thing we encounter within ourselves when we come to a set of traffic lights. If the lights are green then we move through on 'faith' that the cross traffic will stop at the red light. Clearly this is not faith but induction. We do not know that they will stop but assume that they will because they always (or usually) have in the past. We do accept the possibility that a car wont stop and will drive through the red light and cause a collision. Christians who have faith will not accept that it is a possibility that God does not exist.
Dr Johnson also gives the straw man extraordinaire when she says that scientists say you can't see God under a microscope therefore there must be no God. Well, she argues, you can't see gravity under a microscope so does that mean there is no such thing as gravity? I hardly know where to start with this one, except to say that this is when I moved from bewildered to frustrated in the last lecture. First of all I am not at all sure that you can't detect gravity under a microscope and pretty sure that throwing the nearest theologian out of the nearest window would prove a convincing argument for its existence. Secondly, I really don't think that you could cite a single scientist who based his/her disbelief in God on what they could or couldn't find under a microscope. This is plainly just silly.
Other things irked me as well.
The Old Testament was defined as the story of God's love and an exploration of who God is and how He unites the human family. OMG (as they say in the chat rooms)! Have they not read the OT? There is not a lot of uniting of the human family going on but rather much smiting of Israel's enemies. Indeed, peoples are smote willy-nilly. As for God's love, well He seems to me one angry, jealous and spiteful deity. Looking at the Big Fella as He is portrayed in the OT, it would seem that the authors did not intend him as a sympathetic character.
Anyway, all this said, I have a deep interest in religion as a profound anthropological phenomenon. I have been slotted in to give the first tutorial presentation which has the topic 'Science versus Religion". Jeesh! This will be a challenge as I am determined to get a good grade for this class but am troubled by how to do this from my atheistic perspective. I also have to write my first essay on this topic.

- M. L. Plumber