Weekly Quote: Diderot on Revelation and Truth

Only a very bad theologian would confuse the certainty that follows revelation with the truths that are revealed. They are entirely different things.
- Denis Diderot, Apology for the Abbé de Prades (1752)

A large number of people are very susceptible to exactly the confusion that Diderot criticizes: the confidence with which a belief is held becomes confused with evidence that the belief is true. Those who appear most sincere are assumed to be the most truthful; those who are doubtful and questioning are assumed to be less reliable. It appears in a wide variety of subjects — especially politics — and is not at all limited to religion. It's also not limited to theologians by any stretch of the imagination.

As a matter of fact, it is arguable that mystics are the most susceptible to this. Mystics, by definition, have mystical experiences that they assume to be direct experiences of the divine or the supernatural. These experiences are so intense and profound that they produce a great deal of certainty as to their truth. This certainty, however, is assumed even by others to qualify as evidence that the mystics' interpretation of those experiences are completely accurate.

So why does Diderot single out theologians? There are a lot of possible reasons, but one worth considering is the fact that, in theory at least, theologians should probably know better. The average person doesn't necessarily have the training in logic to recognize that certainty isn't evidence of truth, even though this should ideally be obvious. Mystics, too, don't have any specialized training in logic and often not even in religion itself, so they won't typically be in any better shape than the average person.

Theologians, however, are supposed to be in a better position. Theologians are supposed to have training in philosophy, logic, rhetoric, argument, and of course religion. Because of this, one should be able to assume that theologians won't be as susceptible to basic logical fallacies such as this; when they do commit a fallacy, then, it is all the more deserving of objurgation.

Is Diderot correct here? I tend to think so. Although I would prefer that more people were aware of basic logical fallacies and had the ability to avoid committing them, the unfortunate fact is that they aren't and this isn't likely to change. It is true, however, that anyone who assumes the title "theologian" has undergone quite a lot of education. If this education has not included sufficient training in logic to avoid committing a fallacy like the one described here, then it was either grossly insufficient or the student was grossly inattentive. Theologians can and must be held to a higher standard.

More Weekly Quotes: commentary and analysis each week on a different quotation dealing with philosophy, religion, and more.