Spirituality Without Magical Thinking

One of the most significant challenges facing civilization in the twenty-first century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns – about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering – in ways that are not flagrantly irrational.

– Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Spiritual (Re)Visioning - Necessary Updates

Most of us have had to install updates on our computers or smartphones or even install a new operating system. We do this because the old system has flaws and design limitations, and we’re promised that the new features or system will be better.

We all hate these update experiences because they take time to download and make us change things we were familiar with and comfortable with. And if we’re honest, most of the changes are for the better in the long term, although not all the changes bring their promised benefits.

Christian theology and spirituality need long-overdue intellectual updates and upgrades to the operating system. These changes are required for the sake of the truth and for the long-term viability of the tradition in general.

These needed theological upgrades, like software and computer updates, take time to download and will result in uncomfortable, even sometimes painful, changes. Yet sometimes, we even need to delete data and start with new code and instructions.

We have the choice to upgrade and change, to revise our understandings, or to allow our old, outdated systems and programs to freeze up and crash eventually.

Getting Religion to Make Sense Again

The updates I speak about are necessary because the typical educated individual in the postsecular culture is unlikely to accept a spirituality that requires simplistic belief in resurrected corpses, virgin births, and miracles involving bread and wine.

It is also unlikely that they will accept infallible authorities or arguments for a sacred text’s inerrancy or divine authorship. Conversations about sin, hell, salvation, spiritual rebirth, redemption, or angels and demons will also likely fail to convince or even interest them.

Modernity and beyond see the world through a factual-historical, evidential mindset resulting from science and evidential reasoning. Those who identify as secular, and even those who don’t, tend to be formed by and immersed in this epistemological worldview.

Ironically, the same intellectual influences led many to reify and literalize spiritual myths, symbols, metaphors, and rites. The result is the concretization and literalization of initially mythopoetic claims and language.

The same influence can be seen in the desire to read sacred texts literally. Arguing for a literal six-day creation destroys one’s credibility in the eyes of secular, naturalist culture. It also grossly misreads the texts and the authors' intended messages and meanings.

Our culture is increasingly formed by a soft naturalist, a scientific mindset that asks for evidence and appeals to reasoned experience when presented with claims. Many, many Christians engage in a theology that contradicts this mindset.

Granted, human nature is not a computer program; reason is only one aspect of the human person, and people are distinctive. The human psyche includes rational functions, such as thought, evaluation, conceptualization, intuition, symbolic imagination, and the ability to experience awe, gratitude, belonging, and love.

Revised and rightly explained, some forms of religion and spirituality may be appealing enough to be reconsidered by secular individuals or cast in a better light. Yes, the effort involved in this revisioning is significant.

Understanding Evidential Reasoning

Evidential reasoning is a logical process of drawing conclusions or inferences based on available evidence. In theology and religious belief, evidential reasoning involves using empirical data, historical analysis, philosophical arguments, and personal experience to support or justify religious claims, doctrines, or beliefs.

It is a form of reasoning that seeks to provide rational grounds for belief by appealing to evidence that can be objectively observed, analyzed, and evaluated. Here are some critical aspects of evidential reasoning:

Evidential reasoning often relies on empirical evidence from sensory experience or observation of the natural world. This may include scientific data, archaeological findings, historical documents, and personal testimonies that provide evidence for religious claims or experiences.

Another aspect of evidential reasoning involves historical analysis, which examines the historical context, development, and transmission of religious beliefs, texts, and traditions. Historically based arguments can provide evidence for the existence of religious figures, the reliability of religious texts, and the impact of religious movements on society.

In terms of spirituality, evidential reasoning may employ philosophical arguments to support or justify religious beliefs. This may involve logical reasoning, conceptual analysis, and intellectual reflection on topics such as understanding the nature of the world, the problem of evil, the nature of morality, and the meaning of life.

Evidential reasoning acknowledges the significance of personal experience in shaping religious belief. While subjective experiences cannot be directly observed or measured by others, they can still serve as evidence for the reality of religious phenomena, such as encounters with the divine, religious conversion, or spiritual transformation.

Personal experience is part of spirituality. Evidential reasoning considers testimonial evidence provided by individuals who claim to have experienced religious phenomena or encountered divine realities. While testimonial evidence must be critically evaluated for reliability and credibility, it can contribute to the cumulative case for religious belief.

Evidential reasoning often involves probabilistic reasoning, which assesses the likelihood or plausibility of different explanations or hypotheses based on available evidence. This may include weighing competing interpretations of the evidence and evaluating their explanatory power and coherence.

Overall, evidential reasoning seeks to provide a rational basis for religious belief by marshaling evidence from various sources, including empirical data, historical analysis, philosophical arguments, personal experience, and testimonial evidence. While evidential reasoning may not provide absolute certainty, it offers reasonable grounds for beliefs open to critical evaluation and inquiry.

Supported by Illative Reasoning

Illative reasoning, also known as inference to the best explanation, involves drawing conclusions based on the best available explanation for a set of observed facts or evidence.

It is commonly used in various fields, including science, philosophy, and everyday problem-solving. Given the available evidence, illative reasoning aims to identify the most plausible or likely explanation for a phenomenon and to infer conclusions based on that explanation.

Illative reasoning begins with observing facts, data, or evidence relevant to a question or problem. This evidence may come from sensory perception, empirical research, historical records, or other sources of information.

Based on the observed evidence, illative reasoning involves generating hypotheses or possible explanations to account for the observed facts. These hypotheses may vary in complexity, specificity, and explanatory power, ranging from simple explanations to more elaborate theories.

Illative reasoning requires evaluating each hypothesis's explanatory power in light of the observed evidence. Explanations that provide a more coherent, comprehensive, and plausible account of the evidence are considered stronger candidates.

Illative reasoning involves selecting the hypothesis that offers the best overall explanation for the observed facts. This is often referred to as inference to the best explanation. The chosen explanation is not necessarily proven true beyond doubt but is considered the most reasonable or probable given the available evidence.

After selecting the best explanation, illative reasoning may involve testing the hypothesis against additional evidence or predictions derived from the explanation. Confirmation of the hypothesis through further observation or experimentation strengthens its credibility and supports the conclusion drawn through illative reasoning.

Illative reasoning requires considering alternative explanations and potential objections to the chosen hypothesis. This involves assessing the strengths and weaknesses of competing explanations and addressing any counterarguments or uncertainties that may undermine the chosen explanation.

Illative reasoning often involves building a cumulative case for the chosen explanation by integrating multiple lines of evidence and argumentation. By synthesizing various pieces of evidence and converging on a single explanation, illative reasoning strengthens the overall case for the conclusion drawn.

Illative reasoning is inherently tentative and subject to revision in light of new evidence or alternative explanations. While the chosen explanation may be the best available at a given time, it remains open to reevaluation and modification as new information becomes available.

In summary, illative reasoning involves inferring conclusions based on the best explanation for observed facts or evidence. It requires evaluating competing hypotheses, selecting the most plausible explanation, testing and confirming the chosen hypothesis, considering alternative explanations, and remaining open to revision in light of new evidence. Illative reasoning is a valuable tool for critical thinking, problem-solving, and hypothesis testing in various domains of inquiry.

Evidential Spiritual Reasoning

Evidential spiritual reasoning is an approach to spirituality that emphasizes providing evidence and rational arguments to support religious beliefs.

It seeks to demonstrate religious teachings' rational coherence and plausibility and address skeptical religious faith challenges. Evidential theologians draw upon various forms of evidence, including historical, philosophical, scientific, and experiential, to make their case for the truth of religious claims. Here are some critical aspects of evidential theology:

Evidential theology often uses empirical evidence from historical sources, archaeological findings, and scientific discoveries to support religious claims. For example, evidential theologians might cite historical documents, such as ancient manuscripts or inscriptions, to argue for the reliability of biblical accounts or the historical existence of figures like Jesus.

A reasonable theology employs philosophical reasoning to defend religious beliefs and address philosophical objections. This may involve arguments for the existence of God, discussions of the problem of evil, or debates about free will and determinism. Philosophical tools such as logic, metaphysics, and epistemology are used to articulate and defend theological positions.

Evidential theology often employs the historical-critical method in examining religious texts and traditions. This approach involves rigorous historical and literary analysis of scripture and other spiritual sources to determine their reliability and interpretive meaning. Evidential theologians may use historical-critical scholarship to establish the authenticity of biblical events or to reconstruct the historical context of religious teachings.

By employing rigorous methods of study and reflection, theologians seek to deepen their understanding of religious beliefs, texts, and traditions and to engage in meaningful dialogue with others about matters of ultimate concern.

In this sense, a plainspoken, evidential theology is, in part, an attempt to respond to Sam Harris’ insights that one of the most significant challenges facing civilization in the twenty-first century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns – about ethics, religion, spiritual experience, and human meaning – in ways that are not flagrantly irrational.

For Christianity or any religion to be authentic and have the power to improve human lives, it must be centered on the truth – not elaborate, ungrounded dogma or grand speculation without foundation.

Theological claims must be reasonably explained and intellectually and practically justified. To the degree they cannot pass such testing, they must be treated as poetic metaphors or should be put aside.

What must be avoided is an ideological theology that lacks humility, makes unwarranted claims, and arrogantly demands that reality conform to its narrow views. Any theology that imposes itself on reality militantly without regard for reason and the truth that emerges from lived experience is false theology.

We must strive for an evidential theology emphasizing the importance of rational, evidence-based arguments to support religious beliefs and engaging in constructive interdisciplinary dialogue with all forms of human knowledge, including science.

The early Celtic and British Christians would have agreed. Theology was a practical and plainspoken enterprise for them. A sense of realism runs deep in most Celtic traditions, which are grounded in the everyday world.

Therefore, it is only fitting that a realistic, reasonable theology informs a practical and humane spiritual tradition.

The Necessary Theological Way Forward

To return Christianity to a healthier, reasoned, and vibrant state will require a willingness to rethink the tradition through various forms of theological reasoning, namely a regaining of familiarity with the mythopoetic language and illative reasoning and an updated interpretation of theological claims through the application of evidential reasoning.

The claims of any discipline or form of analysis must align with reality, and theology is no exception. Such a requirement derives from the heart of realism and reason itself. Theology and religion are not exempt from such requirements. Theological claims must be reasonably explained, justified, and verified. To the degree they cannot pass such testing, they should be put aside.

For religion to be authentic and have the power to improve human lives, it must be centered on the truth – not elaborate, ungrounded theology or grand speculation without foundation.

Authentic spirituality is rooted in evidential thinking and operates from an epistemological conservatism and realism. It humbly seeks to understand reality and offers a theology that aligns with that understanding. Our religious thinking should conform to the most total sense of the truth we can muster.

Sound theology, therefore, accepts a correspondence approach to the truth – that truth consists in the adequate alignment – a correspondence – of our propositions and judgments, our claims about reality – and reality itself.

Accordingly, theology must assess the adequacy of its religious claims concerning their alignment with reality. Such a task is an ongoing

Process. Such a task must be informed and aligned with science and its findings.

Humility, therefore, must be a core theological intellectual virtue. We must avoid ideological theology that lacks humility, makes unwarranted claims, and arrogantly demands that reality conform to its narrow views. Does reality form our theological convictions and narrative, or do we force reality to conform? Any theology that imposes itself on reality in an ideological, militant fashion, without regard for reason and the truth that emerges from lived experience, is false theology.

We must recognize that the further our theology moves away from reality—the more abstract our claims, the more internecine and insular our preoccupations, the more removed from our everyday experience—the weaker, more speculative, and less meaningful our claims become, especially to secular culture.

The challenge for any spiritual tradition in the postsecular age is to remain credible and influential. Yet, for Christianity to remain a viable enterprise and cultural influence, it must now dramatically reconsider its claims and core convictions – simply doing business as usual and continuing to cling to the same understandings will diminish any tradition and likely force it into terminal decline.

Many today find claims about supernatural realities implausible. Many Christians, too, are uncomfortable with the inauthentic pretense they feel compelled to uphold when they involve themselves in religious practices that presuppose a supernatural worldview. They seek a severe spiritual practice that fits their evidentialist way of living and understanding the world.

Once we peel away the unjustifiable supernatural lingerings of the ancient worldview, what wisdom is there to cling to and develop? The insights into human dignity, the understanding of what leads to human wholeness, the value of freedom, equality and inclusivity, compassion, and care of the poor and marginalized – the resistance to the dehumanizing forces in our culture – such things have incommensurable value. They can still resonate with our postmodern sensibilities.

Evidential theology is characterized by humility, openness, and reverence for the mysteries of faith. It acknowledges the limitations of human understanding and the vastness of nature, recognizing that some aspects of truth are beyond human comprehension, leaving room for mystery.

A humble Christian theology is characterized by a willingness to question, doubt, and wrestle with theological beliefs and doctrines. It acknowledges that human interpretations of scripture and theological traditions are fallible and subject to revision, and it remains open to the possibility of learning from diverse perspectives and insights.

Reflecting on Meaning & Mystery

Like most significant religious traditions, Christianity is focused on meaning—the meaning of human life, goodness, and reality, the probing of existential issues in life, and the pondering of transcendent (but not necessarily supernatural) truths.

Virgin births, resurrections, healing miracles, the scriptures, and the tradition are replete with stories, metaphors, and sings of wonder wrapped in a mythopoetic language spoken in a pre-scientific, pre-modern world.

Our theological and apologetic task is twofold: sort through the mythopoetic claims to arrive at the authors' core meaning(s) and then apply evidential reasoning to those meanings and claims to render a genuine postmodern theology.

We first immerse ourselves into the sources and their claims and then turn our attention to what sort of claims these are. How do we sift the factual-historical from the mythopoetic-metaphorical? It’s essential to remember that the ancients making these claims didn’t differentiate those modes of reasoning and language as we do today and that claims can overlap into both categories.

Second, we allow science, advanced human learning, and reason to aid our assessments. This is, in fact, a significant aspect of seeking an evidential turn in theology.

We don’t establish a central authority to tell us the proper or correct position to adopt. This is the default response of most strict orthodoxies – create an authority to settle the matter, require conformity with the judgment, and then allow that authority to expel those who don’t accept that judgment. Doing such, while perhaps satisfying on some level, doesn’t settle anything, even if one believes their authority is infallible.

Mysteries are not matters to settle; instead, they are existential truths that must be engaged with, reflected on, and lived through on an ongoing basis.

Nor does communal unity require that everyone think precisely the same on such issues. Unity urges all to engage in such mysteries earnestly and together in dialog, but it doesn’t require narrow intellectual conformity.

The above theological process is intended to balance reasoned experience with the claims of the Christian tradition. Extreme approaches—simply writing off the claims as naive, superstitious nonsense, or uncritically accepting the narratives in a literal sense (which is impossible because they are disjointed and contradictory)—leave one impoverished on many levels.

One can set aside the claims and not engage in Christianity at all. That is one of our freedoms in a liberal, secular society.

But those who find meaning in engaging the Christian tradition must participate in understanding and applying the Good News as they best understand it, with the interpretive help of their communities, scholars, and experts, while resisting the temptation to allow others or ourselves to impose their interpretations as mandatory or definitive.