Luke asks two theologians to convince him that theology is a legitimate avenue for coming up with robust models of our reality

Science and theology are both human endeavours seeking to explain our past, our present reality, and possibly also the trajectory of our future. Both build elaborate ideas on the foundation of previous scholars, collect new data, and try to come up with newer or more finessed models to expand our ever-growing body of knowledge about our existence in this universe.

To do this, scientists have developed a strategy that seems to work really well: “the scientific method.” Each idea that they form is put through a battery of tests to prove it wrong. Yes, I said that right: many non-scientists think that science is about proving things right, but we scientists know that our job is either about proving something wrong or …. less and less likely to be wrong. Increasing our confidence, but never achieving certainty. We call this “testing the null hypothesis.” We run experiments, and then repeat them. We make sure to build in proper controls in the experimental conditions, and randomize the variables to make sure we’re not manipulating the outcome. And we subject the interpretations of the data to peer review. If there’s disagreement, new experiments are designed … again, to prove the idea is wrong, or less and less likely to be wrong.

Theology, on the one hand seems to be equally scholarly and rigorous in its model-building, but … there is no mechanism in place to decide which model(s) are correct. This became so blatantly obvious to Luke when he listened to two highly-trained, well-informed, and skilful theologians discussing the three currently most popular models of hell.

The first model is eternal conscious torment in a lake of fire. It seems that a vast majority of non-expert believers seem to hold this view, and almost every non-believer also thinks that this is the universally accepted model of hell among believers (even though they themselves would say there is no hell at all in reality).

Scholars, on the other hand, who spend years studying and mulling through this idea, tend to favour either the annihilation view of hell (instant vaporization … no fuss, no muss), or universalism (everybody gets to heaven in the afterlife).

Luke watched as both of these theologians agreed that the first model … the one that almost every non-expert (believers and non-believers) accepts as the correct standard model … is clearly wrong, and both gave similar reasons for this rejection. But then the one proceeded to defend the second model while the other defended the third model, and both showed how their opponent was incorrect based on scholarly arguments, the work of previous scholars, and additional “data” (their interpretations of scriptural passages). Ironically, sometimes the same scholarly works and scriptural passages were used to make the completely opposite conclusion!

Luke (a scientist) talked to Dr. Bethany Solereder (a theologian) and Scott (the referee?) about how theology works … or sometimes doesn’t work … in the search for “Truth with a capital T.”

As always, tell us what you think…

Find more about Dr. Bethany Solereder at https://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/people/bethany-sollereder

Scott’s recommended video about scientists seriously questioning whether science is also self-deluded in thinking that they have a legitimate handle on “Truth with a capital T” can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xauCQpnbNAM

To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher.

Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook.

Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

Writing for Children with Alison Reddihough