The Editor, Sir:

In an article published last Friday, May 22, Peter Espeut attempts to position the 'theological method' as being derived from a higher form of "rational thinking" than science and he seeks to justify his position by erroneously branding science as disconnected from human reality relegating the "scientific method" to a dehumanised context of so-called only "data".

He states inter alia, "Theologians are trained to follow the 'theological method" - which he defines as "the application of rational thinking to matters of faith".

What really does he mean by rational thinking? How does one decide, and who is competent to decide what is really a matter of faith, or level of consciousness? Further, what does faith have to do with a theological construct of religious belief and practice? Or perhaps, what is rational about this construct?

Finally, how does he justify the consequences (e.g. the Inquisition) of the irreconcilable contradictions between the interpretations of different matters of faith with rational thinking? Was the theological justification for this practice rational thinking?

History does not smile too kindly on Espeut's attempts at justification of his claims. Further, in attempting to distance science from 'rational thinking', he justifies his 'theological method' by attributing Einstein's brilliance to his being a Jew.

What about primitive man who invented tools which laid the basis for modern agricultural practice and whose world view never included the 'Trinity', but the tree or the sun? From where was the genius and brilliance of the Egyptian people and their civilisation derive? When last I checked, they were worshippers of idols and graven images? History is not kind to your inferences, Mr Theologian!!

Finally, what I find really disturbing is his mechanistic view of science! Quote: The 'data' of science and theology are different; science only accepts as 'data' matters which are observable by the senses and objectively measurable by instruments, while, in addition to that, theology also accepts data obtained from 'revelation' . What arrant nonsense!

Dark ages

Science, more than any other method of human enquiry, has dragged religion screaming from the Dark Ages into the light of rational thinking. Thousands of scientists throughout the ages have paid the price with their lives. The scientific discoveries of the laws of nature have derived in large measure from the world view of man within his environment. This world view has been shaped essentially by his culture and his conditions and his struggle with nature.

Theological perception

However, what is true is that this world view is never static but ever expanding; so much so that a heaven above and a hell below in a theological perception of a flat world is no longer either plausible or rational, especially to young people, given the knowledge they now have of the earth and its relationship to the universe. If theology has changed since that time, are you denying the science which informed this change? How then has Espeut's theology adapted to this reality?

The fact is that science has done this by examining phenomena; indeed, any phenomena at that. By so doing, science has ruptured myths, belief systems and sheer ignorance throughout the history of mankind. How has Espeut come to this mechanistic view that science "only accepts as 'data' matters which are observable by the senses and objectively measurable by instruments"? What spurious nonsense! Explain to me what is the source which informs the "theological method"? What is this source, if not information? Do you refer to this information as data, or not? Medical science has been able to differentiate between those who claim to hear God talking to them from a genuine schizophrenic and to correct this malady - this is science. I challenge any theologian to make as accurate a distinction utilising his 'theological method'. The scientific bases for the plagues of Egypt have now been established. Left to the 'theological method', it would continue to be 'divinely' unknowable! The theological method has its place, it has built up a wealth of scholarly literature derived from exegetical analysis. But please don't absolutise its context or its role.

I am, etc.,

WINSTON MENDES DAVIDSON

(Prof)

Kingston 6