In a recent Daily article, religious studies professor Hector Avalos asserted all theological propositions (such as “Jesus suffered in order to save humankind”) are in principle unverifiable. What Avalos fails to explain, however, is exactly what criteria he uses to determine verifiability in the first place.

As a former student of Avalos, I take him to mean that theological propositions are unverifiable in regards to scientific or empirical testing. Avalos holds that only statements that can be empirically tested are to be considered verifiable, and thus meaningful.

But one must ask whether this theory of verifiability is itself subject to the same rules.

In other words, is this theory capable of being verified by scientific or empirical tests?

Clearly the answer is “no,” and, as such, it purports to be a meaningful statement that is established apart from the empirical data.

So it would seem that the theory self-destructs in that it purports to be true apart from any scientific evidence in favor of its conclusion. On what basis can Avalos conclude such a theory is reliable? Perhaps there are some propositions that can be known to be true apart from the empirical evidence.

Avalos certainly seems to think his theory is worthy of such a distinction.

Why conclude theological propositions may not be verified by some non-scientific method as well?

At this point, one may point to the numerous arguments for the existence of God, as well as various historical evidences for a particular tradition’s sacred scriptures, as contributing to the verifiability of theological propositions.

Of course, the skeptic may be unpersuaded by such arguments, but this doesn’t affect whether such propositions are, at least in principle, verifiable.

And as long as verifiability is not arbitrarily limited to empirical testing, then there is room for many other claims to be considered and analyzed according to the available evidence.

David Leonard

Alumnus

Englewood, Colo.