Science or "Science"

I'm going to start posting some reflections on Karen Armstrong's book, Twelve Steps To A Compassionate Life.

Karen Armstrong is one of the most important theological historians of our day. However, her style of theological history is specificly “scientific”. What do I mean by this?

There are two ways that the term “science” is meant. First, we have the “scientific method”. This is a method of discovering truth in which one does a repeatable experiment to determine what is real. This can be done in any context that can be seen or measured in some way. Thus, the scientific method is “materialistic” in that it can determine truth in anything that can be measured. What humanity has been shocked at is how many things can be measured. From this, astronomy – the determination of the movement of the heavens—replaced astrology—the spiritual narrative of the movement of the heavens. Chemistry—the use and manipulations of elements based on atomic numbers—has replaced alchemy—elemental guesswork. And forensics—applications of the scientific method, especially DNA evidence to criminal justice—is beginning to replacing witnesses in courtrooms. In history, archeology is informing the historical stories that have been told for millennia.

There is another kind of “science” however, which is more philosophical in nature. This is the idea that only that can be measured is actually real. It is a denial of anything that cannot be measured. It is the denial of the spirit world, or at least an extreme agnosticism about a spirit world, that even if it did exist, we cannot determine the effect of it on our world. It is the denial of a history in which events that do not seem plausible occur. It is the denial of the use of language which affirms some sort of fate or personal power beyond what we see.

The interesting thing about this philosophical kind of science is that it is, in some way, a denial of the scientific method. For the scientific method, while it has theories and assumptions, it does not affirm these theories until it has been proven with experiments. Since assumptions about reality that cannot be measured cannot, by definition, be measured, then no “proof” of the reliability of such a theory is possible.

Karen Armstrong is a historian of that second kind of science. This does not mean that she doesn’t do her history well. What makes her so good is that she is a good reader of ancient texts. She is thorough and tries to be compassionate to the text. However, if the simplest understanding of the text is in disagreement with her basic materialistic interpretation, then she will seek a different interpretation. The story of the Exodus is too full of miracles, so she must create a new interpretation. In her book, The Case for God, she speaks about the need for religion, but not the fact or necessity of God as a real entity. This is because she sees religion as a primarily psychological phenomenon, as a success of the human spirit, rather than as the spirit world breaking into this world.

The main problem with Ms. Armstrong approaching religion or history in this way, is that one must deny how the original authors and the majority of religionists see the reality of their narratives. She is in the business of affirming part of their stories but denying a good portion of them as well. This may seem positive to those who agree with her materialism-only philosophy, but it does not communicate to the majority of religionists, to whom she is trying to communicate with her book, Twelve Steps To A Compassionate Life.

So why am I spending any time with her work at all? First of all, because she is an important voice. She is, in a sense, creating a new religion. A religion which denies the spiritual, which has been attempted before, but never has anyone had such ecumenical support for this idea. This approach will not be accepted by the majority of religionists, but the broad base of support from different religions is interesting.

The other interesting aspect of her work is the attempt to have a moral agreement between all the major world religions. And the foundation of this moral agreement—compassion—is an essential basis for two of the religions in question: Buddhism and Christianity. Because of this, I am interested to explore what she says and whether it matches, or even comes close to, biblical Christianity.