Barth on Dogmatics--Commentary 1

Karl Barth begins his “Dogmatics in Outline” by writing, “Dogmatics is a science.”

Whoa! What does he mean by this?

“In every science an object is involved and a sphere of activity. In no science is it a matter of pure theory or pure practice; on the one hand, theory comes in, but also, on the other hand, practice is guided by this theory.”

Perhaps we get all tied up in knots because he uses the term “science” and then attempts to relate dogmatics to the well-known perception of science that we are all familiar with involving experiments and tests and other “hands on” things.

But, he says here that science is not just theory but it is also practice as well. That is, we cannot focus on just one or the other. These two components of a “science” are “combined at the hip” in his view and cannot be separated.

Maybe we have a problem with this comparison because of the time that Barth gave the original lectures, in 1947. At that time, science was considered by many people to be a field of its own, something separate and distinct from theology or the humanities or “soft” stuff. At that time, many believed that a field could be only one or the other and science was the one field that could provide “proofs”.

I believe that the times have changed and what Barth says is more acceptable to more people now than it was way back then. First of all, however, I would change his emphasis on trying to claim that dogmatics is a science. In my view, dogmatics or theology has arisen because of the basic human capacity to solve problems, to make decisions.

In this respect, dogmatics, like physics or chemistry or biology, is an effort by humans to solve more and more difficult problems or to make better decisions. In all of this, humans begin with a question. For example, “Why do apples fall to the ground when they drop from trees?” Or, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

To answer this, humans build models, formal or information, or other systematic ways of trying to explain what happens. In building these models humans are looking for ways to predict outcomes. They want to predict outcomes so that they can solve a problem or make a decision. Practice or action is in the picture.

Of course, a science like physics can be very abstract, mathematically based, and logically consistent. But, models can be very common place and ordinary. Rules of thumb may result from human model building. Stories or narratives can result from human model building. Models and schema can take all kinds of different forms and still be exceedingly useful to human beings.

When Barth was writing these lectures, the general feeling was that science was abstract, mathematically based, and logically consistent. If a model did not fit this criterion then it was not considered a part of a science.

Now, however, we consider that narratives can be just as helpful to humans in problem solving or decision making as can formal, logically consistent mathematical models. In fact, it is clear that humans use models constructed around stories or narratives far more in their lives than they do these other kinds of models. We know now that the same process is involved in either approach. We give this approach another fancy name: we call this process of model building inductive inference and it is something that people use constantly in all the things they are doing in their lives.

In more formal situations, people can this approach the scientific method. In other situations people just call this problem solving. It is the process a question is ask, information that is hopefully relevant is collected, and then an effort is made to induce, from the information, so kind of model that can make predictions. The model is then used to make forecasts in specific situations. If the model builder does not feel very confident about the model at this point, more information can be collected. Then an action is taken, given the model.

The final step in this iteration of the process is to compare the predictions the model has produced with the outcome of the action. If the outcome is relatively close to the predictions, then the model-builder will go ahead and use the model again in the future. If the outcome is significantly different from the prediction then the model-builder will make alterations to the model so that a better forecast can be forthcoming next time the model is used.

This process is continued, iteration after iteration, until the model ceases to be useful or until other questions are asked. Then the model-building process begins again.

The crucial thing is that this process of inductive inference is a normal human process that has been a major part of the evolution of the species. Human’s problem solving capabilities separate this species from all the others. These capabilities apply to physics and to dogmatics. Therefore, what Barth claims for dogmatics, I believe, is true.

There are other parts to what Barth writes, however. For one, the models human beings construct are fallible. “No act of man can claim to be more than an attempt (at comprehension and exposition, at investigation and instruction), not even science.”

And, Barth states that “By describing it as an attempt, we are simply stating its nature as preliminary and limited.” He goes on: “we are under no illusion that anything man can do can ever be an undertaking of supreme wisdom and final art.”

“Christian dogmatics is an attempt—an attempt to understand and an attempt to expound, an attempt to see, to hear, and to state definite facts, to survey and co-ordinate these facts, to present them in the form of a doctrine (a model).”

Our models are incomplete and fallible…in physics, in economics, in theology, in whatever. The test of our models is practice…we must act using the predictions or forecasts we derive from our models. Theory, just believing in your model is in not enough. This is the “pure theory” that Barth talks about “on the one hand.”

The models must allow us to solve more and more difficult or make better decisions. The models must be put into practice “on the other hand.” Theory (dogma) is not useful unless it works in practice, but practice without theory (dogma) is meaningless. The final test of the model and the theory is whether or not it works when one acts on it.

David Tracy, the Roman Catholic theologian, defines a model as relatively adequate when it is logically consistent and can predict at least as well an any other logically consistent model that is relevant for the situation at hand. Our dogmatics must be relatively adequate.

Theology, dogmatics, is a human activity. In this respect it is like physics and chemistry and biology. Barth then concludes, “So by dogmatics we understand this twofold activity of investigation and doctrine in relation to an object and a sphere of activity.” Barth continues by defining the object of dogmatics and the sphere of activity. A discussion of this will follow.

Practical Living

In recent posts I have been attempting to present a general view of how human beings go about living and go about trying to achieve greater unity in their lives that would make them feel more whole and at peace within themselves. Much of this effort I would argue centers around what could be called “practical living” or “pragmatic living”. This approach is also captured in the field of psychology called “Cognitive Therapy” a practicing branch of the subject, much of it deriving from the work of Aaron T. Beck.

The basic idea of this approach is that human beings are problem solvers and the methodology the use, implicitly or explicitly, is that of inductive inference. Inductive inference is basically a process of problem solving or decision making that assumes that people have models, schema, rules or whatever which they use to make predictions with. The predictions are, of course, to be used in deciding which solution or which decision a person should make in a given situation. All decisions are made on the basis of predictions…we have to have some idea of how things are going to come out…given the different choices of actions that we have…before we can decide which action to take.

Where do these models, schema, rules, etc., come from? They can come from parents, families, friends, groups we belong to, reading, the Internet, almost anyplace you can think of. Any source of information is a place where these operational tools can come from. And, the models we work from can be as simple as that coming from the old fable: “Slow and steady wins the race.” Or, the models can be extremely complex and formal, explicitly stated. Or the models can be held subconsciously thereby being just implicit in our decision making.

The important thing is that we human beings work from all sorts of models and we use these models, in a given situation, to make predictions about what result we can expect if we were to take different actions. First, I have to make sure the model I use is appropriate for the specific situation I am facing. For example, if I use the model “slow and steady wins the race” and apply it to, say, a sprint race…well, I should realize that this model is not really the appropriate one for this given situation. Maybe I should use the model, “the race goes to the swiftest” instead.

Then, I need to determine what possible actions I can take. In something like a sprint race, the situation is not too complex and the model is very simple. Hence, I have very few possible actions that are reasonable for me to take. A more complex situation will generally have more choices of action. Think about the way that you would like to have your children brought up, for example. Lots of different possibilities there…and you have to choose one.

One I have decided on an action plan…I will then go ahead and act. Let it be noted at this stage, however, that one of the actions I can take is to get more information. I may believe that I don’t have sufficient information on which to make a decision…so I bring in parents or friends for advice, I hire a consultant, I go to the library, I surf the Internet, and so on and so on. This is a legitimate action to take. I am then gathering additional information that may cause me to adjust my model…or bring in a new model…or continue to search for new information.

At sometime, I will have to make a decision on the problem I am trying to solve or on the action I need to take. So, decide to choose the action that will give me the result that has the best “possible” outcome. I emphasize the word “possible” because we are acting in a world of incomplete information and, therefore, we realize that we don’t know with certainty what the outcome of a particular decision will be. When we make the decision we believe that the result we will get will be the most favorable result we can obtain. But, we know that things may not work out exactly as we would like them to…we might be wrong…and we have to live with that fact. Our models are only partial…and they are all fallible!

One other thing that can be mentioned here: I write that the purpose of building a model is so that we can make a decision…take an action. This is very important in the evolution of human beings. Human beings have evolved as “good” problem solvers. This is their primary trait and they excel at it more than any other living organism. But, humans have used this ability to solve not only problems of survival…they have also used in to develop brain exercises…I call them entertainments. So, I look at a spectrum of problems that humans set out to solve and these problems are continuous all the way from situations that are life-threatening to those that have no purpose at all except to entertain the species…pure “entertainments.”

One of the interesting things about humans is that they can get so caught up in “entertainments” that they spend an inordinate amount of time emphasizing them relative to the importance of other problems of a more crucial, life-enhancing nature. For example, I look at the effort to determine the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin…as pure entertainment.

Our process continues, however. We take an action…and get receive information about the consequences of that action. Things may work out exactly as we had planned. Or, some things did not work out exactly as projected. Or, things were all wrong. Or…something else…

We must not discard this new information for it is very useful in analyzing the adequacy of the model that we used. If we find that the model made very good predictions, then we probably will not want to alter the model at this time. If the model made lousy predictions, we may want to alter the model, adjust it for the future so that the modified model will make better predictions for us. Or, we may find that the model was not useful at all in such situations and we may want to find or create a new model to use in these situations at some future date.

Thus we have come full circle…we are back to where we started out…with a model, schema, rules, etc., that can be used in decision making and problem solving. The theologian David Tracy argues that the models we use should be “relatively adequate.” That is, our models are not “absolutely” adequate…they are partial and fallible. A relatively adequate model is one that is logically consistent…that is, it does not make contradictory predictions…and it predicts at least as well as any other model that can be used in the given situation.

And this is the point I am trying to make in this post. The models we use in life should work to some degree. That is, they predict at least as well as any other model for this given situation. And, one of our criteria for the models working is that the decisions that we make from these models help us to gain greater unity in our lives and bring us to a more complete wholeness. The process we use in decision making…the process of inductive inference…should help us lead fuller and better lives. If they don’t then we need to look for models, schema, rules, etc., that do achieve this goal.

And, we should not limit ourselves to where we get information about the models we might use. Religion is not off bounds as a source. Two things are important to remember, however, when one is dealing with religious models. First, ALL models are partial and fallible…even religious ones. We must not lock ourselves up in authority or power to the point that we “put-a-lid” on our God-given ability…the ability to problem-solve. Second, we must not get tangled up in religious “entertainments”, problems that have nothing to do with making decisions. We can enjoy them as intellectual exercises, but we must not let them keep us from the reality that we do have to make decisions relating to actions that determine what happens to us in life.

Where does this leave us…with a world of information where we have to pick and choose the models that “work for us”? Again, I go to David Tracy for the answer to this…”Start where you are, but be open.” That is, use the models and schema that you have inherited and been brought on to this point in your life. But…be open to whether or not the models you use are “relatively adequate”. I do not believe, as Richard Rorty seemed to, that we just pick the models that give us the results we want. Some models work better than others; we can’t just be arbitrary.