Deist John Toland Was Right! Even Religion Must Be Intelligible

Last updated on: July 3, 2014 at 8:03 am by Roger E. Olson

Deist John Toland Was Right! Even Religion Must Be Intelligible 2014-07-03T08:03:51-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Deist John Toland Was Right! Even Religion Must Be Intelligible.

Some of my student balk when we are studying Deism/Natural Religion and I tell them I think John Toland, author of Christianity Not Mysterious was partly right.

Some years ago Tony Campolo wrote a book with the intriguing title We Have Met the Enemy and They Are Partly Right. Before that, evangelical theologian Bernard Ramm (with whom Campolo studied theology) wrote The Devil, Seven Wormwoods, and God. Both books describe how Christians can and should agree with some of the insights of thinkers Christians usually consider absolute enemies of the Christian faith.

Here is what I consider the key statement of Toland’s Christianity Not Mysterious: “Whoever reveals anything, that is, whoever tells us something we did not know before, his words must be intelligible, and the matter possible. This rule holds good, let God or Man be the Revealer.” My thirty-two years of teaching mostly Christian students tells me that many, perhaps most, American Christians would reject this rule.

When I ask why student react negatively to it, they often appeal to the doctrines of the Trinity and the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ and to miracles such as Jesus’ resurrection. They argue that those doctrines are unintelligible (at least to non-Christians) and that miracle is impossible. I disagree and strive to explain why to students, some of whom seem persuaded and others not.

First, let me say that I do not agree with Toland about much else. His definitions of “intelligible” and “possible” seem terribly narrow to me. Postmodernity, for all its problems, has opened up new possibilities for what might rightly be considered intelligible and possible—even by secular, rationalist people.

Second, I carefully explain what I mean by “intelligible” and “possible” when I agree with Toland’s rule.

Third, I attempt to show that no Christian dogma, essential doctrine, and nothing I believe, is either unintelligible or impossible.

What do I mean by “intelligible.” Let’s start with the negative: Something is unintelligible if it is in a language I don’t understand and/or violates the law of non-contradiction. If someone asks me to believe something and the “something” involves a logical contradiction, I am well within my rights to demand an explanation that clears up the contradiction or to reject the something out of hand.

Examples always help. “The moon is made of green cheese” is not unintelligible. It’s perfectly intelligible. It’s impossible and I’ll come to that later. What’s an example of an unintelligible “something?” Consider “John Doe is a married bachelor.” Without further explanation such a revelation has to be considered unintelligible. Not much else is strictly unintelligible; only logical contradictions are strictly unintelligible. Of course, there are apparent logical contradictions and we call them “paradoxes.” And a paradox is always a task for further thought and explanation.

Are any Christian dogmas unintelligible? No. What about the Trinity? Well, if the doctrine of the Trinity were that God is “three in one, one in three” (as many people say), then it would be unintelligible without further explanation. I forbid students from expressing the doctrine of the Trinity that way. That’s taking a phrase from a hymn and making it a whole doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity is that God is one substance shared equally by three persons. That’s a mystery but it’s not unintelligible unless you consider all mysteries (things that cannot be fully comprehended) unintelligible which would make some scientific theories unintelligible.

I say again, no doctrines of the Christian faith (and none of my beliefs) are unintelligible in this strict sense of the word. And the moment we step beyond this strict sense to broaden “unintelligible” to include more than logical contradictions we get ourselves into trouble. We all believe things that are unintelligible to some other people because they only make sense within a certain plausibility structure. But logic transcends plausibility structures. The law of non-contradiction is the basic law of all persuasion. If someone wants me to believe something it cannot contradict itself. If it does, I don’t even know what they are saying or asking me to believe.

The problem with Toland and most modern rationalists is that they did not/do not see that their definitions of “intelligible” identifies their own plausibility structure with intelligibility itself. Postmodernity informs us that we are all caught in plausibility structures and there is no one over arching one that rules all language and thought. The law of non-contradiction, however, is not part of one plausibility structure. It is the law of what truth claims can be taken seriously.

Moving on to “possible.” Toland says that a matter must be possible in order to be believed. Put another way, if someone asks me to believe something I did not already know, it must be possible. That seems like a truism. Of course nobody believes in the impossible. But what’s “possible” depends on one’s plausibility structure. “With God all things are possible.” Well, not quite. Even William of Ockham thought God could not do the illogical. Still, with God in one’s plausibility structure, much more is possible than otherwise.

If someone asks me to believe that he jumped to the moon (to keep the moon illustration going) without any aid of any kind, simply by his own effort, I would not believe him. I would immediately discount that claim as impossible.

But what about the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ? If the resurrection of Christ, as understood by historical, classical Christianity, is anything it is a miracle. If naturalism is one’s plausibility structure it’s impossible. But if one believes in God, it’s not impossible.

Toland believed in God, but he almost certainly did not believe in the bodily resurrection. Why? Because he considered the universe Newtonian—ruled by mathematically describable natural laws in perfect harmony—a closed causal network created by God. For him, so it seems, God is “outside” that network and would have to “violate” it, “break into it,” “interrupt it” in order to work a miracle. That would, given the nature of the network, destroy it.

However, Newtonian physics is now on the ropes and postmodernity has opened up all kinds of opportunities for belief in miracles. And Christians should never have adopted the modern idea of nature as a closed network of causes and effects ruled by mathematically describable natural laws over against God. As C. S. Lewis argues in Miracles, laws of nature are simply regularities of God’s general providence—God’s operation in and through nature. A miracle is not a violation or interruption of nature and nature’s laws because God isn’t “outside” having to “break in” to do something. And God is fully capable of bringing about an unusual (and inexplicable to science) events while keeping the whole of nature moving along harmoniously.

Too many Christians seem to revel in the irrational; it is to many Christians a sign of Christianity’s “specialness.” But the cost is twofold. First, we can hardly blame non-Christians for rejecting our truth claims insofar as they are truly unintelligible. Christians have failed miserably when it comes to expressing dogmas like the Trinity and the Person of Christ (“hypostatic union”) intelligibly. Second, we can hardly argue against non-Christian belief systems on the grounds that they are unintelligible if our own is unintelligible. Many Christians argue, for example, that Mormonism is unintelligible while themselves reveling in illogical beliefs that they think are Christian.

In sum, what is at stake is truth. When Christians revel in unintelligible nonsense and resist the hard work of making their beliefs intelligible to themselves and others, eventually Christianity moves into a ghetto of irrationality, subjectivism and folk religion. Then the claim that Christianity is “true” is easily interpreted as “true for us.” But Christianity was always intended to be a gospel of good news for all, true for all, understandable by all—insofar as they are open to it and their minds are not closed to it. Paul’s message to the Athenians was not esoteric. The reason his message about the resurrection was rejected was that their minds were closed. But some wanted to hear more. “Always be prepared to give a reason for the hope you have within you.” (1 Peter 3:15)

Uncategorized

Previous Post

June 29, 2014

A Philosophical Historical Novel about Evil: The Kindly Ones by Jonathan Littell

Next Post

July 4, 2014 Arminianism FAQ 1 (Everything You Always Wanted to Know...)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I wanted a vineyard so badly that my wife arranged the owner's death through false witnesses. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Ahab Jezebel Naboth