There is an excellent dialogue between Sam Harris and Dennis Prager going on over at jewcy. I’ve only finished Sam Harris’ first essay and am looking forward to reading the rest. If the rest of the dialogue in anything like what I’ve read we can be sure to hear some honesty from both sides. Check it out.
Melinda over at str.org said that her “theological views haven’t changed much in the last decade“. I’m not sure if I should give her props or wonder if she is out to lunch. From a complete reading of her post I think she wants us to understand that change isn’t necessarily an indicator that one is progressing in a positive way in their theology. I agree with this. But Melinda seems to rule out any other positive possibility when a change in theological perspective occurs. She offers two options, both of which are untenable. Either you were too stupid when you started out or you’re getting a lot of new information. The second option she attempts to make unavailable by stating that the availability of new information (of the theological type?) is not a common occurence. So we’re left with the cold hard fact that if our theological positions change over time we were possibly too stupid or naive when we started out. Interesting conclusion.
Let’s explore the unavailability of the second option to see if perhaps Melinda was, in fact, being a bit short-sighted in her assessment. Clearly in the last 50 years there have been some significant discoveries (go here for starters) that have lead to the release of new information. These older and, of course, newer discoveries (archaeological, sociological, historical) are the input for the creation of new information. Even the methods used to process existing ancient texts has led to new information about how we read and understand them. So, I’m not sure what Melinda means when she says that there is not a flood of information. Of course, I haven’t even touched on contemporary theologians who spend most of their lives taking this information and formulating more precise and sometimes new ways of thinking about theological subjects.
I think we can use Melinda’s same arguments to conclude that a lack of change is evidence of some sort of intellectual stagnation. Posts that attempt to communicate the superiority of a view based only on its ability to persist in the mind of a person do not have much substance. Sure, if your views do change with every new idea that is published then Melinda has a point (but only if she admits that this is a flood of information) and perhaps you need a bit more skill in the critical thinking department. I don’t think that is her point though.
Finally, I don’t think history matches Melinda’s reality. I don’t believe that there is any evidence that most theologians in the past 200 years did not alter, shift, or modify their theological views. If anything the evidence tells us quite a different story. Using the same broad brush that Melinda uses I can say that theological views change and this can be a good thing if they are moving closer to a theological construction that most accurately represents the objects to which they refer. Undoubtably as we discover and study evidence these constructions will change. The challenge then becomes how much are *you* willing to change when there is sufficient evidence and arguments to justify such a change?
