On the Relevance of Theology to Sanity

When some of my readers first see the link to this theological division of The Sane Asylum on the central page, I assume they may question the relevance and validity of having a division devoted to such an obscure field of study. Indeed, theology is unusual in a number of ways, some of which seem counterproductive to the pursuit of Sanity. Sanity is a devotion to certainty, to bona fide philosophical truths which can be practically applied to life. Yet, at the very core of theology is an assumption which can never be empirically proven: that one or more intelligent entities exist with power to alter the universe we perceive without leaving physical evidence of their existence. The very nature of this assumption seems inSane. Moreover, in the context of Sanity and the first maxim I outlined in The Sane Methodology, I am required to evaluate the action I take in choosing to write anything on the subject of theology in terms of pragmatism. If understanding the nature of any postulated deities does not have any practical application, then the field is not a viable pursuit. In order to open up the topic of theology to any Sane studies, I must show two things: first, that the existence of any aforementioned deities is probable enough to warrant further investigation; second, that such investigations may yield pragmatic insight to the nature of life. To this end, I open this division with my evaluation of the field of study.

Proponents of intelligent design have many varied arguments for the existence of one or more creators of the universe. These arguments are heavily documented elsewhere, and I can provide a reasonable summary of the best points to anyone who wants one. However, the end goal of theology is to understand how the supposed entity influences human life. I don't feel that a being would necessarily need to be the omnipotent creator of the universe to influence life without leaving documented evidence. The being or beings we call God could very well merely be extraterrestrial, yet still mortal and limited in power. The only necessity is that they be able to influence humanity.

Based on this premise, it follows that it can reasonably be assumed that such beings exist enough circumstantial evidence suggesting an outside influence on humanity can be gathered. Since firsthand accounts are most accurate, one need only look at their own lives to see if such influence has taken place. There are patterns, coincidences; there is luck; many of which often seem in retrospect to prepare and lead us to what is to come in our lives. The external mechanisms of society are not enough to have such singular effects on the lives of individuals. Moreover, it is impossible to get order from chaos - mere natural selection is not enough to get an entire species to become "civilized" as humans did milennia ago. Not only that, but with as many people as there are on the planet, and with how fragile psychologists and sociologists tell us the fabric of our society is, I find it highly unlikely that our species could keep it together on its own. I believe that where there is a pattern, there is an intelligence manipulating things to create that pattern, and thus I believe that the patterns present in the human condition imply the existence of some external force causing the patterns.

Now to the practical application of such studies, it's possible that understanding the thing causing the patterns could lead to better understanding of the patterns themselves. However, this is mostly a retrospective method and isn't as practical as I'd like it to be. Sanity is meant to be a practical approach to theoretical knowledge and to abolish ignorance. In any dichotomy, ignorance is bound to exist on both sides. There are many ignorant atheists, just as there are many ignorant Christians, both sides adopting arguments that were given to them or creating arguments for the sole purpose of debating the other side. Neither of these are concerned with real truth as much as they are with winning. This sort of ignorant behavior is inSane and unproductive.

The beauty of Sanity is that in can be applied to any viable field of study. And whether unreasonably or not, theology has much influence on the way people choose to live their lives. Just as I challenge people to think for themselves on political issues, I challenge them to do the same on theological issues. Dogmatic, organized religion is an opponent to Sanity, to independence of thought. Remember the first Sane assumption: that all people are manipulative. Dogma gives religious officials a kind of power over people that political leaders rarely enjoy. One must always be open to the idea that manipulation by anyone is possible, and even probable. This applies especially to religion. In light of this, I feel theology is a valid field of study for everyone to pursue - the independence of thought that is integral to Sanity extends, or should extend, even into the realm of spirituality.

With that, I hereby open this division of The Sane Asylum.

Sapere aude.