The Aims of “Reading Religion Rationally”

In the online edition of the October 31st Times Literary Supplement there is a brief review by John Polkinghorne of two books that, in his words, “aim to make a more temperate contribution to the debate” than do the recent books “by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others [which] tell us that religion is a corrupting delusion.” He complains:

Despite their assertions of the rationality of atheism, the style of their onslaughts has been strongly polemical and rhetorical, rather than reasonably argued. Historical evidence is selectively surveyed. Attention is focused on inquisitions and crusades, while the significance of Hitler and Stalin is downplayed. Believers in young-earth creationism are presented as if they were typical of religious people in general.

My proximate aim in this blog is to review religious beliefs, both in general and in particular, from the point of view of philosophical rationalism; there will be no need for and no reliance upon “strongly polemical and rhetorical onslaughts.” My ultimate aim is to persuade those readers who might be needing persuasion to adopt the point of view of philosophical rationalism and so to abandon fideism and indeed all forms of willingness to adhere to beliefs out of proportion to the evidence in their favor.

To begin with an easy illustration of the approach that my philosophical rationalism takes: orthodox Catholic Christianity holds, in the words of John A. Hardon, S.J., that “Jesus Christ is not either God or man; he is God and man.” Distilling it a bit, we have the thesis:

The man Jesus is also God.

The philosophical rationalism that I espouse cannot simply accept that thesis as true without argument, for it is surely not evident in the way that tautologies like the following are:

The Definition of “Two”: For any entity x and any entity y, if x is not identical with y, then x and y are two (distinct) entities.

The Principle of the Transitivity of Identity: For any entity x, any entity y, and any entity z, if x is identical with y and y is identical with z, then x is identical with z.

The Definition of “Three”: For any entity x, any entity y, and any entity z, if x is not identical with y, y is not identical with z, and x is not identical with z, then x, y, and z are three (distinct) entities.

Nor is it empirically evident in the way that “My desk is laden with books” and “Some of my chairs are laden with books” are. Given the lack of evidence ready to hand, it is surely not surprising that a good number of people not only do not believe the thesis about Jesus to be true, they in fact believe it to be false; thus mainstream Jews and Muslims, along with atheists and rationalists.

But, on the other hand, the philosophical rationalism that I espouse cannot simply deny that thesis as false, for, taken by itself, it is not immediately absurd in the way that contradictions like the following are:

For some entity x and some entity y, x is identical with y and x is not identical with y.

Though God the Father is identical with the one and only God, God the Son is identical with the one and only God, and God the Holy Spirit is identical with the one and only God, yet God the Father is not identical with God the Son, God the Father is not identical with God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son is not identical with God the Holy Spirit.

This latter directly contravenes the principle, companion to that of the transitivity of identity, that:

For any entity x, any entity y, and any entity z, if x is identical with z and y is identical with z, then x is identical with y.

So, if God the Father is identical with the one and only God and God the Son is identical with the one and only God, then God the Father is identical with God the Son. And so too for God the Father and God the Holy Spirit and for God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Yes, I have just made the claim that the Christian Trinitarian doctrine, at least as thus straightforwardly expressed, is absurd and contradictory. But I hope I will be granted that in making that claim I was not guilty of any “strongly polemical and rhetorical onslaught.”

I said above that the thesis that the man Jesus is also God, taken by itself, it is not immediately absurd in the way that contradictions are. But it is not generally taken by itself, but as embedded in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Hardon sees the same contradictions here as philosophical rationalism does, but believes he has an escape.

     Part of the genius of the Catholic Church, reflected in these pages, is her ability to maintain a careful balance between extremes. Instead of taking one side of a radical “either, or,” she remains faithful to God’s eternal “and,” which spans both sides of what the natural man is inclined to call a contradiction, but which the spiritual man knows is simply a mirror of divine mystery.

     Christianity is therefore full of paradoxes, or apparent contradictions, which the Holy Spirit has successfully proclaimed for two millennia through the Church, which he animates as the soul of her corporate existence.

On the contrary: it is not just that the “natural man” is inclined to call the above contradictions contradictions or that they are but apparent contradictions; they just are contradictions, real contradictions.

I found Polkinghorne’s article at:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article2778493.ece.

I quote Hardon from:

John A. Hardon, The Catholic Catechism. A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1975), pp. 24, 23-24.