Why do we need theology?

[Guest]

Daniel Dennett is a well-known philosopher of the mind, and he happens to be an atheist. He is buddies with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and so on. Well, I happened to be reading PZ Myers' blog, another atheist, who posted a description by Dennett regarding a festival for Darwin taking place at Cambridge. I was reading through this description, and came across a question Dennett posited to a theologian giving a lecture at the festival.

I'm Dan Dennett, one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and we are forever being told that we should do our homework and consult with the best theologians. I've heard two of you talk now, and you keep saying this is an interdisciplinary effort--evolutionary theology--but I am still waiting to be told what theology has to contribute to the effort. You've clearly adjusted your theology considerably in the wake of Darwin, which I applaud, but what traffic, if any, goes in the other direction? Is there something I'm missing? What questions does theology ask or answer that aren't already being dealt with by science or secular philosophy? What can you clarify for this interdisciplinary project?

The central idea which Dennett is seeking an answer to is the need for theology. (Well, to be honest, I don't think Dennett is really seeking an answer. Rather, he has already made up his mind that there is no need for theology.) That is, why do we need theology? Are there questions which theology asks and answers which cannot be answered by another means?

 

[handy]

You Minn, I don't think that we could fully discuss this question until we know just how theology is being defined here. If by theology Dennett was referring to what impact religion has on the theories of evolution and Darwinism, that is one question. But, if you are reading into Dennett's statement that he is asking of what use is any theological discussion, and included in that would by necessity be the gospel, then that is a whole different ball game.

 

[Guest]

Short answer: I would suggest both.

Long answer: Daniel Dennett is part of a group which has been dubbed the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse. This group includes Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. There has been no shortage of criticism of the works by these four, but one of the common criticisms has been that they show themselves as being ignorant of theology (for example, see Eagleton and Platinga). The generic response from this group was provided by PZ Myers, atheist and friend of Dennett's, in the Courtier's Reply. The Courtier's Reply basically argues theology is meaningless and unworthy of consideration because its basic assumption, God, is false. Dennett references this idea in his book "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon." Thus, this larger discourse provides the context for Dennett's remarks, when he frames the questions with "we are forever being told that we should do our homework and consult with the best theologians." Further, we have to remember that Dennett is a materialist. Hence, all that exists for him is the material world.

With the discoursive context and Dennett's materialism in mind, I would argue though the denotative meaning of Dennett's questions strike only at the uselessness of theology for "science," and the connotative meaning is questioning the uselessness of theology in general.

 

[handy]

Methinks that the so-called horsemen aren't as smart as they'd like us to think. Sounds as though they are simply trying to marginalize any thought processes that they don't agree with. Although they might mask their rhetoric in classy sounding language, they sound just as ignorant as fundamental types that shout, "I don't have to actually READ Harry Potter to know that it's SATANIC and will lead an innocent child STRAIGHT TO HELL!!!!!!!!