I said just now that the way people decide on truth tells us about how they relate to each other. But, I only cashed a small part of this check – I only discussed the role of authority figures. Let me settle the rest of my tab before moving on.
Recall Popper’s first question. Is truth easy to recognize, or difficult? I have suggested that graduate theological schools figure truth is easy for well-trained theologians to recognize. By implication, theological truth must be difficult for the unschooled to spot, otherwise there would be no need for the schools.
Many people, like me, doubt the idea that faith leaders are uniquely positioned to recognize theological truth. Even many faith leaders would agree. But, there are two ways to doubt this idea. The most common is to believe that theological truth is easy for anyone to recognize, not just leaders. The less common doubt is to believe that theological truth is difficult for anyone to recognize, even – perhaps especially – for leaders.
I believe the second doubt is the better one. To see why, let us go with the first doubt and see what happens. Let us grant for a moment that some people can recognize theological truth easily, whether a well-trained leader or even an untrained follower. Then we must ask Popper’s second question: how do they do it?
Popper suggests that if you believe truth is easy to recognize, you must choose whether inward insight or outward observation is the better way to recognize it. While the choice is not a straight either-or, people do have preferences.
Some people believe that theological truth is best recognized with inward insight, using tools like conscience, moral perception, imagination, and unconscious intuition. In the natural sciences, Popper points to Descartes as one who preferred inward insight, because all outward appearances can be deceiving.
Speaking generally, the theological beliefs of progressive Christianity are founded on one or more of these tools of inward insight.
On the other hand, some people believe that theological truth is best recognized in the results of outward experiment. Popper points to Francis Bacon as one who saw Nature as an open book. Anyone can read it, if only people would set their personal beliefs and biases aside first.
Conservative theologians today cluster in this camp. They demand that all theological beliefs be grounded in evidence, such as a Biblical witness or a dependable creed. They hold all their own theological thoughts suspect. They treat their ideas as guilty until proven innocent.
So, the choice of method is the main rift between theologians working in progressive and conservative veins.
Popper’s first question – whether truth is easy to recognize – practically everyone answers ‘yes,’ at least some people can easily recognize truth. Popper’s second question – how to recognize truth – divides us into loosely progressive (inward) and conservative (outward) bands. And we have added this third question: if truth is easy to recognize, are only some people, or all people, equipped to recognize it? This question divides authoritarian faith practice from a more chaotic individuality.
I do not have a team to back in this race. Many people feel the same way. I hope to offer some insight into why.
The reason I back neither team is that both teams take for granted that theological truth is easy to recognize for somebody, by some method. Popper suggests that there is no surefire method to recognize truth, so no one can easily recognize it.
Recognizing truth is difficult for anyone. That is not to deny that ‘the truth is out there’ – it is not relativism. Nor does Popper want to disparage any particular source of information. What Popper means is that no specific method is 100% guaranteed to work. Again, Popper has the natural sciences in mind. In the theological academy, a Popper-like idea would sound like Jesus’ teaching that his sheep follow the voice of their shepherd. Voice recognition is not an easy problem, and people cannot exactly explain how they recognize one voice from another. But they do, all the same. It is possible to believe in objective truth without believing in a specific method to get it.
So, how should one seek truth if no method is always guaranteed to work? Popper proposes, for scientists, that they should make guesses, and then try to prove them wrong. “The one who first states a case seems right, until the other comes and cross-examines.” Science works, not primarily because individual scientists are objective and unbiased (though it helps), but because the community balances itself by quickly proving wrong ideas wrong. The most necessary virtue is not objectivity, but openness to correction. And the second most necessary virtue is to make bold claims. Err boldly, and be corrected more boldly still.
To go Popper’s way, in theology, invites some problems. But it solves more and bigger problems than it invites. Indeed, it suggests a way forward for church divisions – that regrettable, immoveable plague on all theology. N. T. Wright has often suggested that if the Apostle Paul visited churches today, of all the problems that would shock him, his greatest shock would be our divisions. The unity of the church is a great promise of God to us. If I left any stone unturned in the quest for it, I would hold this promise in contempt.
Faith Carpentry 