Every now and then, I come into contact with liberal theology. Usually this means that the theologian happily accepts scientific theories like evolution, and regards the Bible as an imperfect, human-wrought (but possibly God-inspired) conception of the supernatural.
In a Facebook discussion group, I’ve recently been talking with someone who has such views. He is very well versed in the sciences, and has produced a number of extremely well-written descriptions of various aspects of evolutionary science.
When this person is pushed for an account of his theology, though, it seems as if a fog settles over the discussion. For instance, I am told that God is “behind” nature, even though he doesn’t explicitly guide it.
Instead of dropping the God hypothesis due to lack of evidence, liberal theologians invent a place to put God where he cannot be detected. Or they infuse nature with some sort of ill-defined godly quality that cannot be seen. Or they make the baffling argument, as Karen Armstrong does, that God does not exist in any conventional sense, but is conceptually manifest in some way.
The sophistry makes my eyes water.
I rather get the feeling that liberal theologians cling to such ideas not because there is evidence to support them, or because there is some logical argument in their favor. It seems they cling to these ideas as a last-ditch attempt to maintain their cherished childhood beliefs and needless to say, this carries a whiff of intellectual dishonesty.
Perhaps I am wrong, and liberal theologians genuinely believe there is an argument in favor of their ideas. If so, I have yet to see such an argument, let alone decent definitions of the concepts behind them.