On a somewhat related line of thought, I'd like to start with a letter from dear Pliny to the emperor Trajan:
I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent...
[In] the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome...
[Those] who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged.
And Trajan's reply:
You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.
Now, these words are probably the most frequently quoted in modern times for either Trajan or Pliny. Moreover, they're generally looked on as being a wonderful example of tolerance for Christians by the Roman authorities. Trajan was especially seen by early and medieval Christians as a friend of the faith. Pope Gregory I liked him so much he wanted to resurrect him so he could be baptized and go to heaven. Why? Simply because he didn't go to great effort to seek out Christians to punish?
I suspect that many misunderstand the context of the times, and believe that the Roman norm was Nero, crucifying Christians and using them as people-torches at night. From every source I've read thus far, Trajan's attitude was the norm. The vast majority of the time, Romans were clearly annoyed by Christians, but made little sustained, concerted effort to eradicate them. This kind of "tolerance" was very infrequently punctuated by an effort by authorities to push back against Christian growth in the cities. Such efforts had limited success and didn't last very long (persecution was a difficult, messy and decidedly unprofitable venture). Probably the most successful was Diocletian, who intimidated many into converting back to pagan worship. But Diocletian also quit while he was ahead, and failed to finish what he started.
So if Trajan is our model of tolerance in the context of that time, and Diocletian is the model of intolerance, than what of the later Christian persecution of pagans in the 4th and 5th centuries? Constantine started by heavily taxing pagan temples and giving the money to the church - OK, not so bad so far. He and his sons made efforts to stop the practice of animal sacrifice - still pretty tame. Augustine incited an anti-pagan mob in Carthage with these words:
"...[For] that all superstition of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims!"
That mob left sixty non-Christians dead. Getting worse. Martin of Tours starts sacking pagan holy sites in Gaul and destroying pagan alters. After the sack of temples in Egypt and the destruction of the library of Alexandria, the leader of the Egyptian monks responsible for the act replied thusly to the victims who demanded back their sacred icons: "I peacefully removed your gods...there is no such thing as robbery for those who truly possess Christ".
Under the reigns of Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius, paganism is now made illegal. Not only were the temples shut, but private practices of lighting incense, hanging wreaths in honor of the gods, or burning candles were strictly forbidden. Bishops brought desert monks into the cities to assist in the destruction of temples. Christian mobs would taunt remaining non-Christians in the hope of causing a riot. A mob of Christians kidnap Hypatia of Alexandria (a well respected pagan philosopher) and brutally murder her, hacking her to little bits. It's strongly suspected that Cyril, the Patriarch of that city was responsible for directing the mob. Pagan practices of divination of any kind are made illegal under pain of death. Not only that but Theodosius made non-enforcement of that law by local authorities a crime in itself. Laws are created by regional authorities as kind of hunting licenses for Christian Bishops and Monks, to pillage and loot known pagans and pagan properties.
These are just the highlights, the bits that I know of that happen to stand out in my memory. I'm really not even doing this topic justice with the brevity. Also, note that all of these events occurred within the span of a century.
Pagan persecution of Christianity was like a man occasionally swatting at flies, while usually trying in vain to ignore them. Trajan and Diocletian form the two extremes (I leave Nero out since it was a kind of bizarre fluke by a bizarre emperor, tied to questions of guilt over the Great Fire of Rome). Christian persecution of pagans, on the other hand, was swift, brutal and effective, with little or no thought expended over the "rights" of individuals. Paganism was gone from view almost everywhere (although it lived on underground in small, rural communities for centuries further before gradually fading away) within a century. Those who would not willingly convert were coerced, those who would not be coerced were killed.
Why then is the general opinion on this matter so deranged? Why are pagan authorities seen as vicious butchers while ancient Christians are seen as the meek, quietly waiting to be delivered and inherit the Earth?
Friday, June 17, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The Spread of Early Christianity
I've been reading The Christianization Of The Roman Empire by Ramsey McMullen, which is a pretty well researched work. Although I've been going at a pretty slow pace, I think I've got a better handle on the subject, enough to summarize - poor though my skills may be - how the early Christian movement spread so quickly.
I'm not sure exactly where to begin, but I want to make something clear from the start. I'm going to try to cover the period from Christ's death, up until the point where Constantine takes the throne (306). It's an important distinction, because during and after the reign of Constantine, the Christians had a powerful patron in the Imperial house - except for the brief reign of Julian the Apostate, who attempted to revive the Greco-Roman pagan traditions - and as such, the incentives for an individual to convert were very persuasive.
When Constantine became Emperor, Christians amounted to about 1/10th of the population of the Roman world. By the end of the 4th century, they amounted to at least 1/2 of the population. By that point, the Church basically controlled the state and set about converting or killing the remaining pagans, and destroying every pagan temple still in existance. But that's not really what we're concerned with, is it? We want to know about the start, and how it took root in urban centers around the Mediterranean.
Miracles
Matt and I were debating about the role of moral examples in the spread of Christianity, but I've come to find that the moral question is largely irrelevant. What is relevant to the apostolic era and beyond were the demonstrations of miracles to crowds of onlookers. Christian evangelists would frequently exorcise demons from people, force pagan alters to break or disappear through the power of prayer, and even (at least in one case) cause an earthquake to shake a hostile pagan city.
Of course, I don't believe in miracles. But whether one believes or not isn't important from a historical perspective, anyway. People of the time, before and after Christ, believed in miracles, and indeed saw them fairly often. It would be outside the norm for someone of the time not to believe in miracles. Before John gloats, I should point out however that other cults, like Mithraism and the cult of Sol Invictus also demonstrated similar miracles, and it was a well known way of gaining converts.
Exclusivity
The most important thing to understand about the pagan world is how inclusive it was. Polytheism in the western world was very inclusive, and indeed tolerant of other forms of faith. Romans and Greeks interpreted the Gods of outsiders by their own names, and allowed their worship to continue. Romans only asked that an alter to Rome (or the current emperor) be built in whatever foreign city they were occupying, and that while the natives continued to kill oxes for Odin, they might occasionally burn a little incense for Rome, and pray for the health of the Emperor.
Naturally that was turned on it's head by Christianity. Christianity was exclusive, absolute and unambiguous. It wasn't enough to simply add Christ to the list of deities being worshipped. Conversion meant rejection of all other forms of divinity. A convert would not necessarily reject the existence of other Gods, but they would consider pagan Gods to be daemones, or minor demons, capable of miracles, but inherently corrupt and not worthy of worship.
This naturally had the effect of irritating the rest of the pagan world, who as a result saw Christians as anti-social and subversive to society. It also made the work of evangelizing Christ that much more dangerous. But most importantly, it gave a greater weight to the demonstration of miracles. In the mind of one who has just witnessed a miracle, not only was the Christian God real and powerful, but he demands obedience and exclusive worship. To ignore that was to invite damnation, and hellfire and brimstone were indeed thoroughly preached at the time. So, this added a sense of urgency and finality to the question.
Support/Incentives
Though the movement was very small, isolated (to urban areas), and limited in methods of outreach and advertisement, there were some incentives to being a part of a Christian community. Christians were typically of the lower, uneducated rungs of society (Pagan writer Celsus describes, in very unflattering words, the common practice of Christians recruiting Children and ignorant housewives in secretive conversations while adult males weren't looking) and often these were craftsmen or workers of a common trade. Often they would meet for common prayer and to receive the Eucharist in the backroom of a common workshop or place of business.
Although small, they would attempt to support each other when there was a need, and when possible would even open charitable endeavors for the general public. These would take the form of providing medical care for those in need, or food for the poor. There is a missionary aspect to these efforts, of course. It's not really all that different from what Churches to today to help the poor. Being a part of a "safety net" community like this was probably a draw for some. I doubt it alone was enough of a draw to make someone leave Paganism for Christianity, another reason in addition would be necessary (pressure from converted family members, perhaps, or some of the other motivations listed above).
I've written a lot, but definately not enough to do the topic justice. If you are still interested, I recommend reading the book.
I'm not sure exactly where to begin, but I want to make something clear from the start. I'm going to try to cover the period from Christ's death, up until the point where Constantine takes the throne (306). It's an important distinction, because during and after the reign of Constantine, the Christians had a powerful patron in the Imperial house - except for the brief reign of Julian the Apostate, who attempted to revive the Greco-Roman pagan traditions - and as such, the incentives for an individual to convert were very persuasive.
When Constantine became Emperor, Christians amounted to about 1/10th of the population of the Roman world. By the end of the 4th century, they amounted to at least 1/2 of the population. By that point, the Church basically controlled the state and set about converting or killing the remaining pagans, and destroying every pagan temple still in existance. But that's not really what we're concerned with, is it? We want to know about the start, and how it took root in urban centers around the Mediterranean.
Miracles
Matt and I were debating about the role of moral examples in the spread of Christianity, but I've come to find that the moral question is largely irrelevant. What is relevant to the apostolic era and beyond were the demonstrations of miracles to crowds of onlookers. Christian evangelists would frequently exorcise demons from people, force pagan alters to break or disappear through the power of prayer, and even (at least in one case) cause an earthquake to shake a hostile pagan city.
Of course, I don't believe in miracles. But whether one believes or not isn't important from a historical perspective, anyway. People of the time, before and after Christ, believed in miracles, and indeed saw them fairly often. It would be outside the norm for someone of the time not to believe in miracles. Before John gloats, I should point out however that other cults, like Mithraism and the cult of Sol Invictus also demonstrated similar miracles, and it was a well known way of gaining converts.
Exclusivity
The most important thing to understand about the pagan world is how inclusive it was. Polytheism in the western world was very inclusive, and indeed tolerant of other forms of faith. Romans and Greeks interpreted the Gods of outsiders by their own names, and allowed their worship to continue. Romans only asked that an alter to Rome (or the current emperor) be built in whatever foreign city they were occupying, and that while the natives continued to kill oxes for Odin, they might occasionally burn a little incense for Rome, and pray for the health of the Emperor.
Naturally that was turned on it's head by Christianity. Christianity was exclusive, absolute and unambiguous. It wasn't enough to simply add Christ to the list of deities being worshipped. Conversion meant rejection of all other forms of divinity. A convert would not necessarily reject the existence of other Gods, but they would consider pagan Gods to be daemones, or minor demons, capable of miracles, but inherently corrupt and not worthy of worship.
This naturally had the effect of irritating the rest of the pagan world, who as a result saw Christians as anti-social and subversive to society. It also made the work of evangelizing Christ that much more dangerous. But most importantly, it gave a greater weight to the demonstration of miracles. In the mind of one who has just witnessed a miracle, not only was the Christian God real and powerful, but he demands obedience and exclusive worship. To ignore that was to invite damnation, and hellfire and brimstone were indeed thoroughly preached at the time. So, this added a sense of urgency and finality to the question.
Support/Incentives
Though the movement was very small, isolated (to urban areas), and limited in methods of outreach and advertisement, there were some incentives to being a part of a Christian community. Christians were typically of the lower, uneducated rungs of society (Pagan writer Celsus describes, in very unflattering words, the common practice of Christians recruiting Children and ignorant housewives in secretive conversations while adult males weren't looking) and often these were craftsmen or workers of a common trade. Often they would meet for common prayer and to receive the Eucharist in the backroom of a common workshop or place of business.
Although small, they would attempt to support each other when there was a need, and when possible would even open charitable endeavors for the general public. These would take the form of providing medical care for those in need, or food for the poor. There is a missionary aspect to these efforts, of course. It's not really all that different from what Churches to today to help the poor. Being a part of a "safety net" community like this was probably a draw for some. I doubt it alone was enough of a draw to make someone leave Paganism for Christianity, another reason in addition would be necessary (pressure from converted family members, perhaps, or some of the other motivations listed above).
I've written a lot, but definately not enough to do the topic justice. If you are still interested, I recommend reading the book.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
2012 - Let's Fail!
"I never play the opening rounds. Inconsequential." - Some douchebag negotiator from Star Trek
I love election season. It's what I obsess over in place of sports. I also love making predictions. But that joy is tempered by the knowledge that political pundits are almost guaranteed to be wrong in their predictions. I read a study once which estimated that such predictions had a higher average chance of success if the pundits simply threw a dart at the possibilities, rather than giving an honest opinion. Since I'm not a professional, I'd say my odds of failure are pretty significantly multiplied. Oh well, bite me, it's fun!
Reviewing the field of GOP contenders, it's hard to imagine any of them actually beating Obama. Some are appealing in some kind of hypothetical, academic sense. And it's not that our President is overwhelmingly popular, either. It's just that I can't see any of them holding both the necessary knowledge of policy, or the personal gravitas to come off as "presidential" enough to be a viable candidate.
Let's take a look.
Rick Santorum - Everything that I know about this man suggests that he may be the Anti-Christ. The fact that the man is a devoted Catholic does not assuage my fears. A noted enemy of The Gays, Santorum has spoken against the culture of "'private' moral matters" that allow the spread of homosexuality. Even GOP base as crazy as they are, I find this guy too much of a social conservative to penetrate. PRACTICALLY NIL
Ron Paul - I love Ron Paul almost as much as I love taffy. However, I don't love him enough to cast my vote for him as President Of These United States. His blunt honesty about matters of the deficit and foreign intervention bring me great joy. However, he also wants to wants to destroy the Fed and return us to the gold standard, which seems, well... Crazy. Ron's great at winning straw polls, but not great at winning elections. He may, however, end up being remembered as the "John the Baptist" for his son's future presidential run. That aside, UNELECTABLE
Newt Gingrich - Name one nice thing about Newt. Not about his policies or his career, but about the man personally. Exactly. UNELECTABLE.
Tim Pawlenty - I want to make a prediction that Tim Pawlenty's penis will, at some point in the future, be caught in someplace it's not supposed to be. Why? I can't say. He just looks like the kind of goofball who's probably into the bathroom scene. Or the hooker scene or something. Every time I see his ridiculous countenance, I picture him locked in orgasm-face, with the look of creamy satisfaction as his budding relationship with his 17 year old male intern finally reaches it's culmination. But, other than that I haven't got a whole lot against him. Too goofy looking to place high, though. PROBABLE FAILURE
Herman Cain - Herman Cain is the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza. I'm unfamiliar with the man, but very familiar with the pizza. If the art is representative of the artist, I predict he will show himself to be thick, cheesy with a soft, butter crust. 18" WIDE; A POUND OF CHEESE
Mike Huckabee - I'm selling my stock in Mike Huckabee, if anyone cares and is still buying. I considered Mike the frontrunner since 2008. He was affable, well spoken, and capable of delivering a speech. His policy record was mixed, which can sometimes be an asset in general elections. He had some social conservative credentials, but he also seemed relatable to the general public. Now he's seems to be steadily accelerating toward wierdness. He says strange things and he's recently produced some bizzare cartoon propaganda for children. I'm not even certain if he can make it to the primaries at all. PROBABLE FAILURE.
Donald Trump - Please don't be mistaken. Mr. Trump is not running for President. He's just a clown, hired by Sarah Palin to warm up the audience for the next few months before the Iowa Caucus gets underway. Then it gets real. N/A.
Mitt Romney - Mitt might have a chance of making a good showing in the general election. But he's been living in hypothetical land too long, and I have a feeling that he's not tough enough to survive the opening round melee. He'll be evicerated over his record as Governor of Massachusetts, and even if he does survive long enough to drag his sorry carcass in to the ring, he'll shatter into a thousand pieces in the general election. PROBABLE FAILURE
Mitch Daniels - Nobody's really heard of this guy. I'd like to see him be a dark horse candidate that really ends up giving a good show, but it's still too early to tell. He's what I would call a "serious" conservative, in that he doesn't believe in fairy tales and his policies are based in reality, geared towards actually getting results. From what I know, I like the man. However, what matters is not what he is, but what he becomes. He'll have to pivot if he makes it deep into the primaries, and pivot again if he makes it to the general election. That is, in the end, what will matter. I'll be watching this one.. UNDECIDED...
Sarah Palin - The less said, the better. We all know what she is, and what she represents, I think (nothing, except for naked ambition). She may cause some sort of singularity, or black hole because of two opposing possiblities of equal weight and likelyhood. Either she's so much of a maniac that she's totally unelectable, or she's so much of a maniac that she must be elected president so that the gateway to hell may be opened on earth. It's still possible that some combination of catastrophic events, in the right sequence cause Sarah Palin to be elected President. Someone of her character has no business in the PTA, let alone public matters. This possiblity is already too close to occuring. For my comfort anyway. Still. POSSIBLE ARMAGEDDON
I love election season. It's what I obsess over in place of sports. I also love making predictions. But that joy is tempered by the knowledge that political pundits are almost guaranteed to be wrong in their predictions. I read a study once which estimated that such predictions had a higher average chance of success if the pundits simply threw a dart at the possibilities, rather than giving an honest opinion. Since I'm not a professional, I'd say my odds of failure are pretty significantly multiplied. Oh well, bite me, it's fun!
Reviewing the field of GOP contenders, it's hard to imagine any of them actually beating Obama. Some are appealing in some kind of hypothetical, academic sense. And it's not that our President is overwhelmingly popular, either. It's just that I can't see any of them holding both the necessary knowledge of policy, or the personal gravitas to come off as "presidential" enough to be a viable candidate.
Let's take a look.
Rick Santorum - Everything that I know about this man suggests that he may be the Anti-Christ. The fact that the man is a devoted Catholic does not assuage my fears. A noted enemy of The Gays, Santorum has spoken against the culture of "'private' moral matters" that allow the spread of homosexuality. Even GOP base as crazy as they are, I find this guy too much of a social conservative to penetrate. PRACTICALLY NIL
Ron Paul - I love Ron Paul almost as much as I love taffy. However, I don't love him enough to cast my vote for him as President Of These United States. His blunt honesty about matters of the deficit and foreign intervention bring me great joy. However, he also wants to wants to destroy the Fed and return us to the gold standard, which seems, well... Crazy. Ron's great at winning straw polls, but not great at winning elections. He may, however, end up being remembered as the "John the Baptist" for his son's future presidential run. That aside, UNELECTABLE
Newt Gingrich - Name one nice thing about Newt. Not about his policies or his career, but about the man personally. Exactly. UNELECTABLE.
Tim Pawlenty - I want to make a prediction that Tim Pawlenty's penis will, at some point in the future, be caught in someplace it's not supposed to be. Why? I can't say. He just looks like the kind of goofball who's probably into the bathroom scene. Or the hooker scene or something. Every time I see his ridiculous countenance, I picture him locked in orgasm-face, with the look of creamy satisfaction as his budding relationship with his 17 year old male intern finally reaches it's culmination. But, other than that I haven't got a whole lot against him. Too goofy looking to place high, though. PROBABLE FAILURE
Herman Cain - Herman Cain is the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza. I'm unfamiliar with the man, but very familiar with the pizza. If the art is representative of the artist, I predict he will show himself to be thick, cheesy with a soft, butter crust. 18" WIDE; A POUND OF CHEESE
Mike Huckabee - I'm selling my stock in Mike Huckabee, if anyone cares and is still buying. I considered Mike the frontrunner since 2008. He was affable, well spoken, and capable of delivering a speech. His policy record was mixed, which can sometimes be an asset in general elections. He had some social conservative credentials, but he also seemed relatable to the general public. Now he's seems to be steadily accelerating toward wierdness. He says strange things and he's recently produced some bizzare cartoon propaganda for children. I'm not even certain if he can make it to the primaries at all. PROBABLE FAILURE.
Donald Trump - Please don't be mistaken. Mr. Trump is not running for President. He's just a clown, hired by Sarah Palin to warm up the audience for the next few months before the Iowa Caucus gets underway. Then it gets real. N/A.
Mitt Romney - Mitt might have a chance of making a good showing in the general election. But he's been living in hypothetical land too long, and I have a feeling that he's not tough enough to survive the opening round melee. He'll be evicerated over his record as Governor of Massachusetts, and even if he does survive long enough to drag his sorry carcass in to the ring, he'll shatter into a thousand pieces in the general election. PROBABLE FAILURE
Mitch Daniels - Nobody's really heard of this guy. I'd like to see him be a dark horse candidate that really ends up giving a good show, but it's still too early to tell. He's what I would call a "serious" conservative, in that he doesn't believe in fairy tales and his policies are based in reality, geared towards actually getting results. From what I know, I like the man. However, what matters is not what he is, but what he becomes. He'll have to pivot if he makes it deep into the primaries, and pivot again if he makes it to the general election. That is, in the end, what will matter. I'll be watching this one.. UNDECIDED...
Sarah Palin - The less said, the better. We all know what she is, and what she represents, I think (nothing, except for naked ambition). She may cause some sort of singularity, or black hole because of two opposing possiblities of equal weight and likelyhood. Either she's so much of a maniac that she's totally unelectable, or she's so much of a maniac that she must be elected president so that the gateway to hell may be opened on earth. It's still possible that some combination of catastrophic events, in the right sequence cause Sarah Palin to be elected President. Someone of her character has no business in the PTA, let alone public matters. This possiblity is already too close to occuring. For my comfort anyway. Still. POSSIBLE ARMAGEDDON
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
On Morality
Part I: Morality Without God?
Introduction
The notion that belief in a Supreme Being is necessary for the existence of morality has sometimes been been mentioned in passing, in this blog and others within the "Triumvirate." I've felt that this required a response in kind, but the scope is certainly big enough to require a separate blog, at least, to do the topic justice. I do not intend to give evidence that morality is possible without God. I intend to give evidence that morality - that is, the familiar sort of personal governance which we all use in day-to-day life - is not possible, or at least not compatible at face value, with the notion of a Judeo-Christian law-giving God.
Note: For the record, I state the obvious, which is that this blog is a "response" to a non-existent statement. My good friend John Stegeman, has not (I think) stated that he holds all of the positions that I will counter. This is, after all, a monologue, not a dialog. So, I'm using arguments from a theistic point of view which are my best approximation (in good faith, I'm honestly not trying to make a straw man) of the Christian perspective.
"God's Law"
Christian morality revolves around two tightly coupled ideas.
1. God defines morally correct action.
2. Your own behavior, in accord or discord with God's law, determines your eternal fate.
Morality without a perfect author is seen as ludicrous by the Christian (or Jew, or Muslim, for that matter), simply because it's seen as a matter of truth. If morality cannot be known absolutely, then it becomes a matter of relativism. Who is to say that my actions are any less proper than yours? It's your word over mine, might makes right, etc, etc. This is the nature of the argument which I challenge.
Facts and Values
Before I go any further, I want to talk about the distinction between facts and values. A fact is simply a verifiable statement describing something about the world. A value is describing what "ought to be". In other words, describing an end or state of being as desirable or "good".
Wikipedia has an excellent article about David Hume's "is-ought" problem, which describes the extreme difficulty of translating a fact or an "is" statement, into a value or an "ought" statement. For example, if a person wishes to win a race, then they ought to train themselves to run quickly. That "if" is the critical word, there, since there's no absolute rule that says a person ought to want to win a race in the first place. That "if" is a marker for an implied value. But if you take it another step further and say, a person ought to win a race if they want to be a well respected athlete. Again, the value is implied an pushed out, forming an infinite chain where the value has no clear logical origin.
What has this got to do with our topic? Well, Christianity has a convenient work-around for this problem. Christian morals are not defined as facts or values. Christian morals are defined as facts and values. God's law is both a verifiable truth (well, verifiable through faith, I guess) and a value describing what "ought to be". Christianity does not say "A person ought to love their neighbor if they want to get along, and be a working member of society." Christianity says "A person ought to love their neighbor" - period. Why? Because. Because it's God's law, and God is perfect, therefore his law is absolute, therefore it is not subject to context, or your feelings, or your culture, etc, etc.
Well and good. Good for Christianity. My challenge is this - why should a person be motivated to act on that law? Is the statement of fact enough to actually motivate a person to act? Not without help. What help, you ask? Read again #2 under God's Law: "Your own behavior, in accord or discord with God's law, determines your eternal fate." This little stipulation, frequently swept under the rug by conscientious Christians when speaking about righteousness and love, is the missing piece of Christianity's fact-value equation. To update our example, "A person ought to love their neighbor, if they wish to be be in accordance with God's law and thus avoid eternal damnation." Now, please, be honest. Isn't that a much more compelling reason to act morally? And doesn't that statement resonate much more than it's "do it just because" predecessor?
My Catholic counterpart John might answer this by saying "Hell is actually irrelevant to the matter. Christians obey because it's the right thing to do, period, not because of the promise of paradise or damnation." [John - if I'm wrong on this, sorry for putting words in your mouth]
Ok. If so, I find that hard to believe. Have you ever tried taking heaven/hell completely out of your moral equation? Just to see what morality would taste like without it? It's got to be difficult to do, but here's a possible example:
YHWH: "John, I'm installing a moral button in your bedroom."
John: "What's that?"
YHWH: "It's a button. The important thing is that you not push it."
John: "Ok. Fair enough."
YHWH: "Right. Bye then."
John: "Wait"
YHWH: "Yes?"
John: "Hypothetically, what would happen to me if I push it?"
YHWH: "Nothing."
John: "Nothing?"
YHWH: "Right."
John: "I won't go to hell?"
YHWH: "No, you're guaranteed to go to heaven no matter what you do. Eternal bliss, etc"
John: "You won't be mad?"
YHWH: "Nope"
John: "But you'll secretly love me a little less, right?"
YHWH: "No, of course not. I'll love you just as much."
John: "Ok, why does it matter whether I push the button or not?"
YHWH: "Because! It's morality. That little button encapsulates everything I've defined as good and evil in this universe. All that is significant, important, crucial is within that button. It is really all that matters."
John: "Will it change anything here on earth?"
YHWH: "No."
John: "Will it change anything at all?"
YHWH: "No."
John: "I see. Well, I have no problem avoiding a button. I'll just throw some dirty clothes over it and forget about it. No problem."
YHWH: "Excellent! Oh, wait"
John: "Yes, Lord?"
YHWH: "I nearly forgot, the button does do one thing when pressed."
John: "Ah, I figured there was something!"
YHWH: "Yes. It dispenses orgasms"
John: "Uh, what?"
YHWH: "Yes, it dispenses orgasms. When you hit the button an orgasm comes out and floats around until it hits you, then you experience an 10 second orgasm"
John: "I see..."
YHWH: "Yes. Also, if you hold it down it goes into rapid fire mode, shooting orgasms in all directions"
John: "I see... Well, guess you'd better be heading out..."
YHWH: "You're not going to hit the button, right?"
John: "Right. Absolutely. You bet. I'll be seeing you, Lord..."
Now, tell me truly: Is there any compelling reason for John not to push and hold down that button for the rest of his natural life? I would submit that, no, there is not. An even more pressing question is, why the hell did God create such a button? What makes that button significant at all (apart from the orgasms, of course) if it doesn't change anything, or entail anything? Isn't an effect of some kind required for it to be in any way significant? Can it, in itself, mean anything without something else being entailed? I would submit that, no, it cannot.
Morality Without God
Concepts of "right" and "wrong" have been with us a very long time. Values like "kindness" and "charity" have probably been with us at least as long as we've been settled in cities. Values like "courage" and "prudence" have probably been with us at least since we've been hunting animals for food.
Good and evil are easy concepts to grasp, but difficult to master. It's hard to say, in clear unambiguous language, why a person should act properly apart from the selfish motivations (social incentives, wealth, safety, etc). Personally, I tend to liken good morals to good taste. Aesthetics, in other words. However, this is just as arbitrary and relative as any other answer that has been floated thus far. These are very trying, and indeed disturbing, moral dilemmas. If we dig deep enough down our chain of shared values, we may find no solid foundation except for our inherited material needs, or - an even more terrifying prospect - we may find no foundation at all but our race floating alone though infinity. That thought gives me no comfort.
I can offer no apology for this, and no obvious solution. This is the state of things, as they are, when it comes to morality. This is what we have inherited, through tradition and shared experience from our ancestors. It is not perfect, absolute or universal. It is unavoidably human, and subject to the human flaws of being arbitrary, limited, relative, and difficult to prove.
My point, however, is that Christianity - for all the claims of absoluteness - is not a viable alternative. If the afterlife is taken into consideration, the law becomes a simple matter of self-preservation, or self-interest. I do this for the sake of my immortal soul, and that's it. If the afterlife is not considered, then the law is absolute and immaterial, yet shallow and empty. The "meaning", the purpose of this law becomes so abstract as to be completely unapproachable, and unpersuasive in human terms.
The question is not whether morality is possible without God. The only morality we've ever known is, in fact, a godless morality. The question is, "How do we come to terms with that?"
Introduction
The notion that belief in a Supreme Being is necessary for the existence of morality has sometimes been been mentioned in passing, in this blog and others within the "Triumvirate." I've felt that this required a response in kind, but the scope is certainly big enough to require a separate blog, at least, to do the topic justice. I do not intend to give evidence that morality is possible without God. I intend to give evidence that morality - that is, the familiar sort of personal governance which we all use in day-to-day life - is not possible, or at least not compatible at face value, with the notion of a Judeo-Christian law-giving God.
Note: For the record, I state the obvious, which is that this blog is a "response" to a non-existent statement. My good friend John Stegeman, has not (I think) stated that he holds all of the positions that I will counter. This is, after all, a monologue, not a dialog. So, I'm using arguments from a theistic point of view which are my best approximation (in good faith, I'm honestly not trying to make a straw man) of the Christian perspective.
"God's Law"
Christian morality revolves around two tightly coupled ideas.
1. God defines morally correct action.
2. Your own behavior, in accord or discord with God's law, determines your eternal fate.
Morality without a perfect author is seen as ludicrous by the Christian (or Jew, or Muslim, for that matter), simply because it's seen as a matter of truth. If morality cannot be known absolutely, then it becomes a matter of relativism. Who is to say that my actions are any less proper than yours? It's your word over mine, might makes right, etc, etc. This is the nature of the argument which I challenge.
Facts and Values
Before I go any further, I want to talk about the distinction between facts and values. A fact is simply a verifiable statement describing something about the world. A value is describing what "ought to be". In other words, describing an end or state of being as desirable or "good".
Wikipedia has an excellent article about David Hume's "is-ought" problem, which describes the extreme difficulty of translating a fact or an "is" statement, into a value or an "ought" statement. For example, if a person wishes to win a race, then they ought to train themselves to run quickly. That "if" is the critical word, there, since there's no absolute rule that says a person ought to want to win a race in the first place. That "if" is a marker for an implied value. But if you take it another step further and say, a person ought to win a race if they want to be a well respected athlete. Again, the value is implied an pushed out, forming an infinite chain where the value has no clear logical origin.
What has this got to do with our topic? Well, Christianity has a convenient work-around for this problem. Christian morals are not defined as facts or values. Christian morals are defined as facts and values. God's law is both a verifiable truth (well, verifiable through faith, I guess) and a value describing what "ought to be". Christianity does not say "A person ought to love their neighbor if they want to get along, and be a working member of society." Christianity says "A person ought to love their neighbor" - period. Why? Because. Because it's God's law, and God is perfect, therefore his law is absolute, therefore it is not subject to context, or your feelings, or your culture, etc, etc.
Well and good. Good for Christianity. My challenge is this - why should a person be motivated to act on that law? Is the statement of fact enough to actually motivate a person to act? Not without help. What help, you ask? Read again #2 under God's Law: "Your own behavior, in accord or discord with God's law, determines your eternal fate." This little stipulation, frequently swept under the rug by conscientious Christians when speaking about righteousness and love, is the missing piece of Christianity's fact-value equation. To update our example, "A person ought to love their neighbor, if they wish to be be in accordance with God's law and thus avoid eternal damnation." Now, please, be honest. Isn't that a much more compelling reason to act morally? And doesn't that statement resonate much more than it's "do it just because" predecessor?
My Catholic counterpart John might answer this by saying "Hell is actually irrelevant to the matter. Christians obey because it's the right thing to do, period, not because of the promise of paradise or damnation." [John - if I'm wrong on this, sorry for putting words in your mouth]
Ok. If so, I find that hard to believe. Have you ever tried taking heaven/hell completely out of your moral equation? Just to see what morality would taste like without it? It's got to be difficult to do, but here's a possible example:
YHWH: "John, I'm installing a moral button in your bedroom."
John: "What's that?"
YHWH: "It's a button. The important thing is that you not push it."
John: "Ok. Fair enough."
YHWH: "Right. Bye then."
John: "Wait"
YHWH: "Yes?"
John: "Hypothetically, what would happen to me if I push it?"
YHWH: "Nothing."
John: "Nothing?"
YHWH: "Right."
John: "I won't go to hell?"
YHWH: "No, you're guaranteed to go to heaven no matter what you do. Eternal bliss, etc"
John: "You won't be mad?"
YHWH: "Nope"
John: "But you'll secretly love me a little less, right?"
YHWH: "No, of course not. I'll love you just as much."
John: "Ok, why does it matter whether I push the button or not?"
YHWH: "Because! It's morality. That little button encapsulates everything I've defined as good and evil in this universe. All that is significant, important, crucial is within that button. It is really all that matters."
John: "Will it change anything here on earth?"
YHWH: "No."
John: "Will it change anything at all?"
YHWH: "No."
John: "I see. Well, I have no problem avoiding a button. I'll just throw some dirty clothes over it and forget about it. No problem."
YHWH: "Excellent! Oh, wait"
John: "Yes, Lord?"
YHWH: "I nearly forgot, the button does do one thing when pressed."
John: "Ah, I figured there was something!"
YHWH: "Yes. It dispenses orgasms"
John: "Uh, what?"
YHWH: "Yes, it dispenses orgasms. When you hit the button an orgasm comes out and floats around until it hits you, then you experience an 10 second orgasm"
John: "I see..."
YHWH: "Yes. Also, if you hold it down it goes into rapid fire mode, shooting orgasms in all directions"
John: "I see... Well, guess you'd better be heading out..."
YHWH: "You're not going to hit the button, right?"
John: "Right. Absolutely. You bet. I'll be seeing you, Lord..."
Now, tell me truly: Is there any compelling reason for John not to push and hold down that button for the rest of his natural life? I would submit that, no, there is not. An even more pressing question is, why the hell did God create such a button? What makes that button significant at all (apart from the orgasms, of course) if it doesn't change anything, or entail anything? Isn't an effect of some kind required for it to be in any way significant? Can it, in itself, mean anything without something else being entailed? I would submit that, no, it cannot.
Morality Without God
Concepts of "right" and "wrong" have been with us a very long time. Values like "kindness" and "charity" have probably been with us at least as long as we've been settled in cities. Values like "courage" and "prudence" have probably been with us at least since we've been hunting animals for food.
Good and evil are easy concepts to grasp, but difficult to master. It's hard to say, in clear unambiguous language, why a person should act properly apart from the selfish motivations (social incentives, wealth, safety, etc). Personally, I tend to liken good morals to good taste. Aesthetics, in other words. However, this is just as arbitrary and relative as any other answer that has been floated thus far. These are very trying, and indeed disturbing, moral dilemmas. If we dig deep enough down our chain of shared values, we may find no solid foundation except for our inherited material needs, or - an even more terrifying prospect - we may find no foundation at all but our race floating alone though infinity. That thought gives me no comfort.
I can offer no apology for this, and no obvious solution. This is the state of things, as they are, when it comes to morality. This is what we have inherited, through tradition and shared experience from our ancestors. It is not perfect, absolute or universal. It is unavoidably human, and subject to the human flaws of being arbitrary, limited, relative, and difficult to prove.
My point, however, is that Christianity - for all the claims of absoluteness - is not a viable alternative. If the afterlife is taken into consideration, the law becomes a simple matter of self-preservation, or self-interest. I do this for the sake of my immortal soul, and that's it. If the afterlife is not considered, then the law is absolute and immaterial, yet shallow and empty. The "meaning", the purpose of this law becomes so abstract as to be completely unapproachable, and unpersuasive in human terms.
The question is not whether morality is possible without God. The only morality we've ever known is, in fact, a godless morality. The question is, "How do we come to terms with that?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)