God: A theme that seems to be emerging in some of the comments and discussions we've been having is the conflict between 'traditional morality" and the idea of an "evolving morality." This is most brightly spotlighted on the Sex post, but I've noticed it elsewhere, as well.
So in the spirit of our more direct discussions, let's get down to it. Who of our readership genuinely believes in God? If 'yes,' why? What does God tell us to do, and why? Or does God - or the concept of a deity - not have any relevance to daily life whatsoever, regardless of existence? If 'no,' again, why? Where is your ethic derived, or is that even relevant to daily life?
Anyone's who's read my blog posts or comments knows that I do believe. I also believe that a fairly coherent moral order/ethic can be derived from this belief, but I won't bore you with that in the post (perhaps in comments). I further believe that while individual applicability of certain divine injunctions is subject to time and place, some things are very much non-negotiable for living a good life and human flourishing. But let me say that this is a belief, not a provable fact. I think - following the Sufis - that the best metaphor is the climbing of a mountain. We can all agree that some things are the same - everyone is going toward the same goal in much the same means - but the choice of individual mountain trail may be different. So I open it up to you and your hiking guides.
As a side note, this marks the 100th post on the Optimates main page. Happy century, Optimates!!!
So in the spirit of our more direct discussions, let's get down to it. Who of our readership genuinely believes in God? If 'yes,' why? What does God tell us to do, and why? Or does God - or the concept of a deity - not have any relevance to daily life whatsoever, regardless of existence? If 'no,' again, why? Where is your ethic derived, or is that even relevant to daily life?
Anyone's who's read my blog posts or comments knows that I do believe. I also believe that a fairly coherent moral order/ethic can be derived from this belief, but I won't bore you with that in the post (perhaps in comments). I further believe that while individual applicability of certain divine injunctions is subject to time and place, some things are very much non-negotiable for living a good life and human flourishing. But let me say that this is a belief, not a provable fact. I think - following the Sufis - that the best metaphor is the climbing of a mountain. We can all agree that some things are the same - everyone is going toward the same goal in much the same means - but the choice of individual mountain trail may be different. So I open it up to you and your hiking guides.
As a side note, this marks the 100th post on the Optimates main page. Happy century, Optimates!!!
posted by Joshua @ 11:57 AM
9 Comments:
Okay. In trying not to offend... Hmm. I personally do not believe in God in the traditional sense. I believe that concept of god was created by ancient kings in order to suppress reason and grant themselves higher authority. However, like many, if not most, of us, I was brought up in a Christian household, and so my ethical system can never truly be independent of that foundation. Which is fine by me, as I agree with the general ideas there, and think that "Love thy neighbor as thyself" has GOT to be the basis for any eithical system.
As for what I do believe in - where I see the closest thing to "God" that I can find - is in society, and its uncanny ability to be more than the sum of its parts.Individually you may a plumber, but in society that means people have hot water and sanitation. Individually you may have a roofer, but within a society that means children safe from the cold and rain. Individually you might have a farmer, but in society you have food. And particularly in a city like New York, where many of us live, you very well may never meet the person who provides you with these needs. And yet it all works like magic. And so you treat your neighbor like your brother and your brother like yourself and there's a "theology" if you want to call it that. I think it makes more sense as basic human decency.
As I see it, morality boils down to this: Don't be a dick.
Okay, let me expand just a little on that. Not being a dick comprises two related things. First is the acknowledgement that other people are pretty much like you on the inside, that is, they feel pain about the same things you do (generally) they get joy from the same things etc. Of course the problem of other minds denies us the ability to prove this, but I believe that extrapolation of one's internal world to other people is a cornerstone of our world picture. In other words, it can't be questioned meaningfully. Actually, it CAN be questioned, but we tend to call those people "madmen", or "psychopaths" or "genocidal maniacs". The corollary to this is that in acknowledging your understanding of what harms and pleases others, you are obligated to eschew the former and pursue the latter. This first part of morality is neatly summed up in the golden rule. Logically speaking, this does beg the question whether knowledge of what harms others necessarily obligates one to avoid doing such harm. All arguments, however, must connect with the practical world of experience at both ends (in their premises and in their conclusions) and so I would answer the begged question with a resounding "yes". I will note that all manner of devilish situations arise in which the doing of harm is unavoidable, but I would argue that in these situations, this first principle still provides the guiding force for balancing competing courses of action.
The second, less obvious, and in my opinion much more difficult, part of morality consists in being actively aware of the potential consequences (both immediate and long term)of one's actions not just for one's self, but for everyone potentially effected. Essentially, there is a moral obligation to do "due diligence". It is not enough simply to avoid doing wrong or to do right in the moment. Many things that seem morally neutral, or even good with respect to you and one other person can have disastrous consequences for others at future junctures. Such is the unfortunate consequence of the fortunate affinity humans have for forming bonds of friendship, trust, and interdependence.
Of course, I haven’t even bothered to answer the main question which was about God. I do not believe, insofar as the things I believe are a product of my experience and are used as the basis for future action. I would classify myself (if I must) as agnostic. I consider atheism and blind religious faith to be nearly identical in everything but the content of their dogma. Both assert an absolute and unquestioned certainty in a matter for which certainty (as it functions in our lives with respect to evidence, proof etc) is meaningless. If anything, atheism is the more repugnant because it offers no guidance whatsoever, while still demanding absolute faith.
In the same way, I feel agnosticism and real religious faith are more similar to each other than either is to its extreme form (the faith spectrum, like the political one, is a circle, not a straight line). By “real faith” I mean faith that is questioned regularly, and challenged and which therefore is worth something to the person who holds it. Faith grows stronger with challenge, which is why faith in God is in no way incompatible with a fully rational life ((I need only look at the many extremely intelligent people of faith who am lucky to call friends to realize that this is true), they way that some seem to think it is. As for myself, I am ever the empiricist and while open to the possibility the future experience will change my mind, I am currently persuaded by the hypothesis that religion is a cultural phenomenon that probably has its roots in a biological (neurological) need of humans to have a spiritual dimension to their lives. Organized religion also tends to function as a way of binding societies internally (regardless of the external conflicts it causes with other religions/societies).
The main reason that religion has this socially cohesive effect is that it is the main conduit through which most people are moralized. While I think that the fundamentals of morality (the first principle especially) are somewhat intuitive, they must still nurtured and encouraged because they are at odds with other intuitive human inclinations, like the desire for self preservation, and the general tendency towards animal rage. Helping a child adjust these instincts is the job of parents and of society, and in most places religion of some sort is used as the vehicle. The second principle (the due diligence) is much less intuitive and requires even more societal intervention, although being built on the first principle, it is easier to explain to someone through logical reasoning once they accept the first principle. For this reason, belief in God of some sort is often sufficient for morality, but I would argue that it is not necessary.
Interesting approaches, both.
But what I think bears mentioning - even if just as a discussion point - is the insufficiency of morality and ethic per se for personal *happiness*.
That is, both of your points emphasized what I might call a materialist and empiricist approach to morality : it performs a necessary function for the ordering of society.
But is that what leads to human happiness? The rote following of a code for societal benefit? I would say that a social ethic leads to the creation of a system conducive to happiness in that creates peace, but not to happiness itself.
For actual happiness, I think - again, personally - guidance is needed, guidance that says the individual *is* part of something greater and can feel a part of it. This is why religious morality is stronger and more enduring, because it also speaks to the human need for happiness. If we were just flesh and not spirit, a secular ethic alone would suffice.
But even beyond morality, the idea of God is excellent because of its wondrous metaphorical possibilities.
Religion by itself is what we get when "God leaves the room" as it were. We're left by ourselves, and we derive metaphorical understanding and ideas about our existence. The problem exists when these metaphors and allegories are taken as hard fact and "real" in the factual sense.
God exists then in the way that love exists. I can see the effects of love, I know that I am in love, but I cannot categorize precisely what that means. If I were to reduce love to a set of behaviors conducive to a amicable relationship with a spouse to raise a family, this definition would fall woefully short. And, were it followed, would produce effects decidely un-loveable.
So any attempt to define the entirety of God in a way that fits into human understanding will fail. This is where I differ somewhat with Socratic when he says people of deep faith are capable of a "fully rational life." Maybe in the proximate sense, as the results do look the same as someone whose social ethic is determined by logical induction. But religious faith is deeply and certainly irrational (in the positive sense of the term) in many important ways, and that's the point.
For whatever reason, humans need irrationality bounded by rationality. Look at music! As Boudicca will agree (I assume), the structure of it is based on highly rational mathematical principles, but that's not the entire appeal of it, is it? The same goes for the flexibility of language and literature. We have very rational rules for grammar or else we'd be speaking gibberish. But the best literature takes us out of ourselves in a way that transcends the simple meaning of the words on the page. The very idea behind the words is hinted at and the definitions are bent under the weight of the thoughts being conveyed.
So that is how I feel in the divine presence when I am lucky enough to glimpse it, through my love of my fiance, my dearest friends and family, and the soul of music, literature, art, theater (and so many other things) : bent but not broken. Infinitely large and infinitesimally small.
Doesn't the Sistine Chapel express this perfectly? The two hands- divine and human- never quite touch, do they? But they're reaching for each other. So yes. All praise God.
A few quick comments for now (more to follow, hopefully, when I am not at work).
The topic in hand is so expansive that I found myself unable to address all of its aspects in a single post. Thus I did not even touch on the issue of happiness. As what I would call (and what was once in England called) a Liberal, I think the pursuit of happiness takes on many forms, any of which do not seriously interfere with others ability to pursue theirs are legitimate. Many, many people derive happiness from the spiritual and community fulfillment that comes with faith and religion. Families, friends, loved ones, passions, art and many other things also bring people happiness and a sense of fulfilmentl. As Tacitean correctly pointed out, I was addressing the ethical framework in society necessary to make these pursuits possible or probable.
I concede the point that a person of deep religious faith (is there any other kind?) does not live a fully rational life. However, I think this is only true if we take rational to be synonymous with logical, or skeptical. As I said in my previous comment, logic must connect to the world in both its premises and its conclusions. It is perfectly rational to give up one's life for a loved one, or likewise drop one's entire life and move to california. It is a question of the beliefs from which you start. Perhaps true love or faith in God is better classified as arational. Irrational action would be killing your wife because you were thought your children needed to learn about morality and she was feared she was a bad influence. Arational ideas, are those that are not internal to the logic of our lives. They form the inputs and outputs of our rational existence.
I liked the image of irrationality bounded by rationality, but I think that perhaps the reverse provides a more useful picture: Rationality bounded by irrationality (or rather arationality as I have just defined it). In other words, the rational realm in which most of our decisions and daily lives take place is ultimately teathered (at both ends) to the arational world of emotion, faith, instinct, love etc.
So while the tempting picture is that we use reason to conquor, contain, or subdue the arational parts of our nature (and there are both hideous and beautiful parts to this arationality, rage and love etc), it is misleading. Ultimately I think people cannot be held responsible for how they feel, only for how they act on those feelings. Our arational lives form the boundary and the context that gives meaning to our rational lives.
I am typing quickly at work, so if any of that is unclear or in need of severe editing, please forgive me and ask me to speak more coherently. Also, I have again, left many many points of the discussion untouched. But such is the glory of a dialectic! Others will find those questions and pose them, perhaps even give answers.
One clarifying thought: It occurs to me that the idea of rationality bounded by irrationality or the reverse might suggest an issue of control. That is, either our reason is seeking to exert control over our ir(a)rational lives or our ir(a)rationality always ultimately dominates our attempts to lead rational lives. I think this is a misleading picture. Imagine instead the following dorky image:
A man is floating in zero gravity inside a giant bottle. The space inside is many many times larger than he is and in order to move around inside, he has to push off of the hard walls of the bottle. He can't escape because when he pushes against one wall, he has nothing anchor him. Our faith and rage and lust and love (tacitean - what's the name of that XYYX rhetorical device?) are non negotiable, and our rational lives provide no purchase or leverage in trying to alter them. In fact, our rational lives have no content or context without the boudaries set by the arational.
Two things:
1) Kantian - Of course ethics isn't supposed to make me happy, nor should it - that's precisely my point. Enter: God.
And, so we're clear, I'm not defining 'happiness' as 'golly gee, another Red Sox win and I just found a million bucks' but rather more like the Aristotilean notion of happiness which is far less self-interested.
2) Socratic - it's called "chiasmus."
Okay, Kantian. I actually meant the exact opposite of your interpretation, but I guess I didn't make myself clear. (Tit-for-tat, what's the difference between "should" and "ought to?") The plumber goes about his daily life, doing what he's doing probably not because of a love for pipes, but because it ays, and pays fairly well from what I understand. However, because he does his job, people have hot water. People are able to bathe, and cook, and flush, and brush their teeth. But for this guy it's about the paycheck. He does what he does for himself and his family. Now the reason I bring this up is that - to me - the purpose of God is to act as a moral imperitive. Without God there is no need for an ethical system. The only puspose it serves, other than saving you from the wrath of an angry deity, is to allow society to function. Huh. So what if Society mandates its laws for it's own protection, and not because their following arbirary guesses at an invisible overlord's example? God, as I have said, is in societal interactions. Society creates it's own rules to ensure it's own survival. Any happiness derived is incidental, but a likely side-effect of being in a society that works.
Oh! And Kantian, the Golden Rule isn't dependent on one's mood or state. A better reading would be, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you in those same circumstances." ANd if that doesn't cover you, the version I quoted above was "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Surely there's no conditional argument to be made there.
Speaking of, "Do we err on the side of believing in God, lest heaven exist,' that argument - which I know you weren't proponing, Kantian - is flawed in that it presupposes knowledge of the nature of God. In reality, it all breaks down something like this:
Question one - Does God exist or not? Obviously if this were knowable, there'd be no wager to begin with. However, knowing the odds is actually irrelevent here. They could be fifty-fifty or infinity-minus-one to one. It's all the same, particularly when you consider that we're betting on something that IS, not how something could come out.
Question 2 - what is the nature of God? Pascal assumes that if God exists, he will only allow into heaven those who believe in him, which shows an enourmous amount of misguided confidence for someone making an eternal bet. Anyway, we must assume the possible natures of God to be infinite in variety, and thus this one part of it (how he feels about mortal's belief in him) could either be profaith, antifaith, or indifferent. If he doesn't care then it doesn't matter, but since we're talking about infinity, there must be an equal number of possible natures, and thus an equal chance, that God would be offended by belief in him as there are that he would be pleased with it. So we're suddenly even. Belief in yeilds the same odds for redemption/damnation as non-belief, with a high chance of total indifference thrown in for god measure. Thus all we can use for judgment is our time on earth, whhere surely many would feel freer away from religious constraints, and others would feel freer in their faith, but that's all it comes down to - choice on earth.
By the way, of course this is where my name comes from.
Want to know what other people think of God and how it relates to technology? Go here, my friends!
Post a Comment
<< Home