Greg and Amy discuss why people treat beliefs about God as merely personal and explain that if God exists, claims about his nature must be objectively true or false.
Transcript
Question: Please respond to “Theology is personal and interpersonal work. Don’t believe claims that any theology is objective. It’s all personal and interpersonal and contextual.” I saw this posted in “Rules for Doing Theology.” Seems to indicate theology is subjective. Am I off base?
Greg: Yeah. It’s interesting that such a relativistic statement would be in an article or whatever called “Rules for Interpreting Theology.” Notice how here is the objective standard by which you assess these kinds of things, and of course, it’s not really a contradiction if the person holds that there are some objective standards, but when you’re dealing with certain kinds of things, you only can come up with subjective kinds of conclusions. I guess you could say, “Here are the standards for assessing different people’s tastes in dessert,” or something like that. You know? Not insulin but ice cream sort of thing.
When I see statements like this, it sounds like a broken record, but I want to find out, what exactly do they mean? I want them to cash that out. Now, that is a relatively clear statement. Okay? But getting more information about it would be helpful to get. First of all, buys you time, like I said. But it’s the second tactical question that is going to be key here. Why should anybody believe that’s the case? Why should anybody believe that statement? How did you come to that conclusion? All right?
Now, what’s interesting about this claim about theology is the word “theology” means “knowledge of God”—that is, God is an external element about which we are learning. It’s like entomology. Entomology is about insects. You know? And so, it’s an “ology” about insects. It’s a collection of facts, presumably, about insects, and there may be debate about what those facts are. And if one view prevails over another, then they change the content of their entomological beliefs.
The point I’m making here is ologies are about objective objects of knowledge. Okay? So, theology is about God. If there is a God, then he is one way and not another. He’s not all kinds of different ways that contradict with each other. He’s an individual.
Now, if there is no God, then there’s no theology at all. There’s no basis for theology. That’d be like, what is theology for unicorns? Oh, they got a horn on their head. They look like horses with horns, and that’s about it. You know? But they’re fictitious characters, obviously. And so, you don’t have an ology about that. But if you have a theology, that’s about truths about God—facts about God. So, what are those facts?
Now, if somebody says, “Oh, the facts about God are utterly personal,” that means one of two things. There is no God, and that’s why there’s no way that he is. There’s no body of knowledge about a nonexistent being, and you can make up whatever you want. It’s just a game you play, and it makes you feel better. You know? Marx said—and this would be Karl, not Groucho—not that many people know who either one is anymore—that religion is the opiate of the people. It’s what you take. You do that because it makes you feel good. Okay? And that’s one option here. But, of course, to say that there is no God and you could make up whatever your own so-called theology however you want, that’s a pretty strong statement that needs to be defended, seems to me.
Or you could say that there is a God, but no one can know what he’s like, so everybody’s take on what God is like is utterly personal. It’s just your view, and your view is as good as anybody else’s. Your view could be that God is good. Somebody else’s view could be that God is evil. And it’s all on par. But that also is a pretty strong statement and needs to be defended, it seems to me.
So, this is why, you know, when I’m asking for clarification on this point, I’m listening closely. The biggest thing is, I want to know why would anybody think that all statements about theology, alleged knowledge of God, are completely personal—they’re just up to you, or they have no relevance to other people? Because that could only be the case if you’re only speaking subjectively and are not making, in principle, any—either you’re not making any statements about God himself, or you’re making statements that can never be verified, and therefore you’re stuck with your subjective views. Once again, those are strong claims that I’m curious why people would think that.
Do you have any reason to think that God is good or that God is love? I mean, most people, when they think about God or talk about God, at least include that. Where’d you get that idea? Is that just purely subjective? Maybe God is evil and hateful, and I should be like God—evil and hateful. I mean, it sounds corny. You just kind of chuckle at it, but it just shows that people make statements all the time for which they have no legitimate justification. These are statements that comport with the way the wind is blowing at the time. And we had a question like this in another show about—I can’t remember exactly how it was worded—but it was, “That’s your religious rules. It’s not my religious rules.” You know? And these are just ways to relativize the claims being made about God—and, therefore, about the nature of reality—and to relativize the moral claims that are attached to that.
And, by the way, that’s the biggie. It isn’t just that you believe that God is real and that’s an objective truth. That’s not controversial. It’s what about God you believe is the case. And generally, a belief in God comes with a package of morality that is offensive to people. I get it. And they don’t want to do that. So, they’re going to try to relativize everything. They’re going to essentially try to silence you, and this is another example of trying to silence. You keep your views to yourself. Or at least, if you’re going to tell other people about it, just make sure you’re letting them know that it has nothing to do with the way the world actually is.
Amy: What’s interesting—I looked this up, and I found a t-shirt that had these lists of rules, and it doesn’t appear to be created by somebody who is a naturalist. So, it’s not just written for Christians to be against Christians. So, it’s so odd to me, and I think you hit the nail on the head perfectly, Greg. I think it’s helpful to make this clear to people and just sum up and say, “Look, if God is objective, then statements about him will either be objectively true or objectively false. So, are you saying God doesn’t really exist, or are you saying that we just can’t know about him?” Because, you’re right, those are the two options, and then you can go from there. But the reality is, true theology, true statements about God, are objective. They could be objectively wrong, but they’re objective. They’re not subjective.
Greg: Well, they wouldn’t be true then either.
Amy: Right They wouldn’t be true, but it’s an objective claim. It could be objectively true. It could be objectively false. What it can’t be is personal.
Greg: In a sense, by definition. And that’s what they’re doing here.
Now, of course, there’s a personal element. All of these truths—I mean, it could be true or false that my wife loves me. Okay? And both of them have personal ramifications for me. But we’re not talking about the ramifications. We are talking about the claims themselves.