OJ, you are confusing belief and faith. Faith is an assertion of the will that life is meaningful and worth living, in spite of suffering and death. I that regard I am one of the faithful. Belief is the pre-condition that most people put upon their faith. They can only have faith if they can believe in their own immortality and eventual liberation from suffering. The believer assumes that noone can have faith without this pre-condition, since he cannot (or assumes he cannot).

One can recognize the existence of absolutes without a belief in a supreme PERSONAL being. The personal is the wrong place to look for absolutes, it is a battlefield where absolutes of good and evil, selfishness and empathy struggle for mastery.

There is always something selfish about faith - whether it is a need to deny death and expand the self to a position of kinship with the Absolute, or whether it is a need to deny the theological basis of faiths other than one's own.

Yeah, see, that's what I don't get. Never mind the question of how you can have faith in something you don't believe in--are you really saying that unless God grants you immortality and alleviates human suffering you can't believe in Him? And that this isn't rooted in a surpassing self-centeredness?

No, you are confused. My faith is not a faith in God. It is faith that my life has meaning beyond itself, that it is vital for me to pursue that which is good and true irregardless of whether there is an afterlife. My faith is not dependent on God, it is only dependent on my will. Faith is an act of will, not of knowledge or belief.

Your question assumes that I actually believe in God, but am withholding my acknowledgement of him out of spite or selfish desire. You really can't wrap your mind around the idea that some people look at the universe before them and see no evidence of a personal agent behind the scenes. Why the insistence that my non-belief is based on personal motives, why can't you accept the fact that I just don't see the same pattern that you do?

So if your will led you to a moment of road rage would you think it okay that you killed someone? Or would that be wrong?

I believe that there is an absolute Truth that is not subject to reason. That belief is based (by definition, can only be based) on faith. I do not believe that I know, or can know, that Truth in whole, as it is greater than I.

The core of Christianity is that God wants an intensely personal, private relationship with us. The miracle is not that we "expand the self to kindship with the absolute," but the rather that the absolute voluntarily reduced itself to have kinship with us.

The miracle is all the greater the more you appreciate His transcendece and awesome power. That for whatever reason - free will, selfishness, etc - we are not worthy, and yet He troubles Himself with us and makes such a sacrifice anyway - makes it all the more amazing.

I am not saying that my will determines right and wrong, I am saying that my will determines that the worled, and my life within the world, is meaningful. Everyone faces the same question everyday: is it worth the effort to get out of bed, or do I just blow my brains out now? Is there a point to my life or isn't there? That is where faith comes in. It is an act of will. Your life is meaningful if you make it have meaning. It's not that complicated OJ.

I agree with everything David said.

One's will is important because will controls how we decide & choose. But why are some choices better than others? Why is there a Good that the will should be turned towards?

Robert, on your description, Satan's life is meaningful, because his will is consistently turned toward Evil, he is willing to endure suffering in order to expand the domain of Evil, he is willing to get out of bed in the morning and doesn't blow his brains out. Satan makes his life have meaning.

You say your particular will is turned towards goodness and truth, but we Christians would say that you can only know what goodness and truth are because God has inscribed his law on your heart, and that in responding to God in your heart you are in fact demonstrating faith in God whether you know it or not.

In the absence of God, how could we ever hope to agree on what goodness and truth are, much less come all of us to seek them? It was Dostoevsky's question, and it's a good one.

As an aspiring decent agnostic and acknowledged moral freeloader, I can accept the idea of an Absolute. However, that still leaves me miles from the Christian God and the Bible. I honestly don't see how one can firmly believe they've got the right One.

Rick T:

However, we can take a look at the past history of various belief systems and their end results and side effects (Christianese "By their fruits you shall know them") and see which ones actually gave some decent results and which ones just left us with a basketful of unicorn heads or worse.

Quote I found on another list: "I'm agnostic, but I believe Christianity to be the worst system except for all the others."

If you believe in the Absolute, then you are a believer.

Rick:

That's where aesthetics come into play.

Robert:

The point isn't whether your life is meaningful--everyone thionks their own is. The question is why is anyone else's meaningful enough that your will should yield to them?

OJ Writes:

"If so much of what our fathers' culture achieved was dependent on their faith in God, why not choose to share it?"

I'd love to, but it seems impossible. I could say I believe in God, pretend to believe in God, behave as if I believe in God, but the problem is I just don't. I wish I did. Maybe many or most people can "choose" whether or not they believe in God, but I cannot. Wish I could.

Could you choose not to believe in God?

Sure. But why would you want to?

Bret - Go to church, read Scripture and the saints, live faithfully. Your beliefs don't matter, the church is your home regardless.

What Robert, Bret, & Rick said.

I spent years in the Church as a choirboy and acolyte. Until it became a thoroughly empty exercise.

I was called to agnosticism, choice had not the first thing to do with it.

Bret: From our point of view, faith always seems like an act of will. Faith is choosing to believe.

"In the absence of God, how could we ever hope to agree on what goodness and truth are, much less come all of us to seek them?"

Are goodness and truth totally removed from our experiences? Do they have no bearing on how we live our lives? You speak as if they are arcane, dead languages, open only to those who travel to some distant ruin to study. We are all enlisted in the school of goodness and truth from the moment we enter into this world, it is only a matter of how willing we are to learn.

Even for those who accept the existence of God, agreeing on what is good and what is true is problematic. I don't see how belief makes it any more certain.

Robert:

Yes, they are.

"The question is why is anyone else's meaningful enough that your will should yield to them?"

The answer is that those who only seek meaning within the bounds of their own life will not find it. We learn from experience that the selfish life does not satisfy, it leads to emptiness and loneliness. You can be told this, but if you are not ready to accept it, you won't. It has to be learned.

"Sure. But why would you want to?"

Brian, if you could choose to not believe, you probably don't. Belief is not a faucet, you can't turn it on or off.

Robert:

We learn the opposite. We happily lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc.. It's not hard to treat others as objects. It's just evil.

Robert:

Believing removes the definition of what is Good and True from the operation of your will, so that you can't--as Jeff and Harry do--claim that everything you do is right and good. It provides a standard beyond yourself against which you have to measure yourself.

So, we must be selfless for our own selfless reasons. Why not just say "Because it's a survival trait", and have done with it?

OJ posted twice in the two minutes it took me to see Robert's comment and respond. My comment was directed to Robert. Also, it would make more sense if I had typed what I intended to type:

So, we must be selfless for our own selfish reasons. Why not just say "Because it's a survival trait", and have done with it?

David: I cheat--the comments are e-mailed to me.

BTW: Thanks to Robert who sent the story and consented to the title of the post. It's our policy here not to use the front page of the blog as leverage in arguments with commenters, since they don't have equal access to same.

I question whether it is, indeed, a fact that Christianity's output has been measurably better than the output of any other religion.

Unless A and not-A are the same thing, there is no such thing as absolute Beauty or Truth. Christian Scriptures do not agree within themselves about such matters, and --- according to you guys -- there is not better court to appeal to.

The reason I don't just kill bad drivers willynilly is that I would like to leave progeny. Experience suggests that participating in a war of all against all is a lousy way to achieve that.

Even not participating is no guarantee, but you play the odds.

harry:

Yes, so you conform to the Judeo-Chriostian ethos of your community. The question is how would you ground an ethos in youir secularized utopia? Or, if you just recognize the necessity of freeloading, then what of the implications?

Robert: I was raised Catholic and am educated as a scientist. It would be quite easy for me to agree with the 90+% of my physics colleagues who are atheist/agnostic (according to studies--these things aren't discussed because everyone assumes you're non-religious). My upbringing surely has much to do with the fact that I just don't want to believe there is no God, that what we see is all there is, that when you die it's over, etc. To believe is therefore a choice (of aesthetics?) I make.

Harry:

Unless A and not-A are the same thing, there is no such thing as absolute Beauty or Truth."

If A and not-A are the same, you have a logical contradiction, and everything is provably true (or false, since they are now the same). Hence you don't have absolute truth, but some indiscriminate, undifferentiated "truth", making the concept meaningless. This is all just elementary logic -- a relatively simple subject I commend to your consideration.

jd, I was not so clear, I guess. According to the believers, the source of Truth and Beauty is word from on high. But when we read the words -- I realize Christians do not read them, but some of us do -- we find that A and not-A are equally commmended. (Marrying your widowed sister-in-law a requirement in one text, an abomination in another.)

Therefore, as you say, it's all logic, and either A and not-A are undifferentiated, or there is no such thing as absolute Truth or Beauty. I prefer to differentiate A and not-A, and draw the appropriate conclusions.

Orrin, but I don't subscribe to Judeo-Christian behavior. I deplore most of it. I am, for example, opposed to slavery. I am opposed to chopping off people's heads for no better reason than that they do not object to representational art in churches, etc.

My secular world, if we could achieve it, might be catch as catch can, but it would not be as awful as your religious one. We would not, for example, ask fathers to kill their sons just to prove that they are willing to be pushed around by the Big Spook.

Harry, you'd be amusing if you weren't so sad. Calling slavery a Judeo-Christian practice when it is in fact the universal experience of mankind, and Christians are the ones who put a stop to it, is nonsensical. Disbelieve all you like--but why must you make up fictitious history to defend it?

Kirk:

Harry isn't making it up. He just has his own version of Absolute Truth handed down in holy books by his ancestors.

All:

Good discussion. To the extent that the truth everyone is talking about relates to morality, it is not necessarily an everyday challenge for many people. I don't think one needs religion to keep from commiting murder and mayhem daily. Self-interest, fear, nuture, routine, biologically-conditioned behaviour, etc, do play roles in our lives, or seem to. Robert is quite right that atheists can lead exemplary lives, especially if they don't think too much.

But several times in a lifetime, many will be faced with choices that pit self-interest against the pain of others. The choice is very dramatic and tests our whole emotional and moral beings. Should I have an abortion if a baby would turn my life upside down? Should I leave a spouse I have come to find tiresome in favour of a new, exquisite passion? Should I take on the care of a meddlesome, demanding parent?

When one is the ultimate determiner of what is right in these circumstances, the fact that there is a perceived choice between 'rational", alternatives of no cosmic significance as opposed to between objective good and evil causes us to value our own pain and discomfort as highly as that we inflict, and it causes us too to demand the weaker or innocent party value our pleasure or freedom as much as their's. But most, not all, will also pay for the wrong or selfish choice in unforseen ways, as many women who had abortions or separated spouses will tell you. It also leads us to minimize the havoc we cause and deny our humanity because, by setting ourselves up as the decision-maker, we really do pretend we aren't selfish and can decide what is best for everyone. I see this all the time in divorces. The person leaving is extremely anxious to arrange things in a way that is good and "fair" for both sides and becomes offended and grumpy if his/her wisdom isn't recognized. Of course, the other side is reeling and won't play. The departer may be happier in some ways, but he/she carries a burden and spends many years trying to convince themselves that the chaos they left behind was a fair trade-off. "I count too, don't I?" Lots of debilitating guilt and sleepless nights.

Faced with such existential choices, the one who gives up the role of decision-maker and submits to the Commandments can experience a relief and freedom that not only solves the problem, it makes him more able to look in the mirror, to love and to discover the joy of an outward-looking life. The rightness of the decision is suddenly obvious, which is why so many come to religion at a time of turmoil (and why the young can be so hopeless). The religious nature of the revelation also leads him to see it all as a gift he is fortunate to receive rather than a huge sacrifice he resents (more openly than he thinks). His life may be tougher in many material ways, but boy, does he sleep better and the sound of childrens' voices and the smell of flowers (or freshly cut lawns!!)are sublime. True freedom through subservience.

Of course, it doesn't always happen this way. There are no straight lines in human affairs. And our humanity means there are physical and emotional limits to our ability to give, which is why abused women should bolt. But I believe it is the general rule and proven by history.

Harry:

So do modern Christians, but if they still supported slavery you would too. You're entirely conformist which is what makes you tolerable and your megalomaniacial ravings amusing rather than frightening.

I think Robert’s position is a perfectly rational and coherent one. That is, it is at least as rational and coherent as any of the other moral positions I’ve encountered.

I think it is the result of various observations, logical reasoning, and the rejection of a number of different extreme positions, both religious and secular.

I don’t claim to be able to read Robert’s mind, so let’s call my hypothetical atheistic moralist ‘Bob’. Bob’s thought processes might include:

1) a belief that even if there is an absolute Truth, Right and Wrong, Christian text and teaching can not be sure of knowing it or applying it correctly (the wider question being – which is the right religion?)...
2) …and an observation that even within single denominations of a single religion there is always disagreement between believers on moral issues. Gay rights is an obvious example…
3) …and anyway broad general rules such as the Commandments rarely fit neatly onto actual practical situations, leaving huge scope for individual interpretation of what is right and wrong.

But at the same time, Bob also rejects the following secular extremes:

4) moral relativism. Bob thinks for example, arranged marriages are morally wrong, believing that women should be able to choose their husbands. When he makes this moral judgement he believes that ‘morally wrong’ by definition applies to all humans in all societies. It doesn’t matter that some ‘cultures’ approve it – they’re wrong.
5) Maudlin existential navel-gazing. Disbelieving in an Absolute Purpose is not the same as thinking one may as well not get out of bed.

So, if Bob is to coherently reject both the notion that morals come direct from the Word of God, and the notion that morality is wholly relativistic, he needs to find other sources for morality. These could include: the rule of law as agreed and enforced by enlightened democratic societies, 'natural law', evolved moral behaviours, and especially, his innate sense of morality.

Is this too ‘wobbly’ a base for morality, compared to an Absolute morality dictated directly by God? Yes, of course if you believe in that God and believe that we have accurate access to his wishes. But observations 1-3 above mean that Bob thinks this is not the case.

Is Bob’s morality liable to come crashing down periodically? Is it that the best a secular rule of law can hope for is to prevent most of the people behaving immorally most of the time? Will people constantly disagree about what right and wrong are?

Yes, and that describes the real world accurately. It’s not perfect, but there it is.

Brit:

Why adopt a system that comes crashing down, as Europe's is. Why not retain the Judeo-Chiristian
system that got the West to where it was? America's closer adherence certainly appears to have been a great benefit, so even simple utilitarianism suggests the efficacy of godaddledness.

OJ:

Bob disagrees with your premises.

He thinks that the West has acheived whatever it has done not through strict enforcement of 'Judeo-Christian' doctrine, but despite horrendous and bloody disagreement about what that doctine is, and because a secular governments have picked the best bits of that doctrine - specifically, those that align with the innate, evolved, moral sense of most of the people.

He also observes that crime rates seem to be much lower in most European countries than they are in the US.

Robert said, "The answer is that those who only seek meaning within the bounds of their own life will not find it. We learn from experience that the selfish life does not satisfy, it leads to emptiness and loneliness. You can be told this, but if you are not ready to accept it, you won't. It has to be learned."

A few points:
(1) Many will not learn this in the short space of a lifetime. If the divine teachings are true -- if only fidelity to God's commands can truly satisfy -- then it would be better for the slow learners to just accept them on faith, rather than have to go through the 'school of hard knocks.'

(2) How could this be true if it were not for God having designed the universe in such a way that selfishness does not pay? There are many atheist libertarians, e.g. Randian Objectivists, who think that selfishness does pay. It stands to reason that if there is no God, the seeking of one's own good will create the most good for one's self. The fact that selfishness doesn't pay is in itself strong evidence for the existence of God.

(3) You acknowledge that many people are not ready to accept the truth. There are reasons for this other than ignorance. As a result, learning alone will not necessarily resolve the problem. They can learn unlimited facts and still reject the truth. There is a need for what Christians call "grace" to turn the heart toward the truth. And in the absence of God, where will this grace come from?

Brit:

I think your assumption #3 above is not as strong as you think and is perhaps a product of too many undergrad philosophy seminars where "What if two men are in a boat and it will sink unless one goes overboard?" kind of questions. It is certainly true that the Commandments and traditional morality are not detailed "how to" manuals, but where does this "huge scope" for subtlety and disagreement come from in most people's lives. It often comes from people trying desperately to rationalize doing what they want to do and convincing themselves it is all so complicated.

It may be complicated emotionally or in the head, but the objective choices at the end of the day are usually quite simple and mundane.

Brit:

Bob who? Robert's never said anything of the kind, while you're wrong about European crime rates which are higher than here. But that's a bad measure--crime is a healthy sign that freedom exists.

Peter:

But things are rarely very simple and mundane. Even without counting undergrad thought experiments.

If "thou shalt not commit murder" was sufficient, why would we need to define first, second, third degree murder; manslaughter; exemptions for killing in military service (but even then not ALL killing)...Why do some convicted murderers deserve life imprisonment, others 20 year sentences, others the death penalty (in some places)?

Why do judges overrule each other?

OJ:

Bob is a hypothetical secular moralist, not Robert.

Orrin

Actually, I think he is Harry.

Brit:

Judges decide whether someone has violated temporal law and deserves to have his liberty withdrawn, not whether he has violated moral canons.

Peter:

Agreed. Hence observation 3. Moral commandments are fine, but rarely fit neatly onto practical situations, leaving a gap that individuals have to fill with their own moral judgements.

Brit:

Because Man is Fallen and incapable of following the morality God set out for us.

Brit:

Ah, I see. Bob's an idiot.

Wow, I missed some good back and forth last night. I was exiled from the computer, as my daughter was using it to do a school project. But I see my virtual self has carried on the conversation without me.

"So, we must be selfless for our own selfish reasons. Why not just say "Because it's a survival trait", and have done with it?"

David, isn't that what the fear of judgement does for believers? They are following the selfless commands of "love thy neighbor" for the selfish reason of avoiding suffering and acheiving eternal happiness, are they not? Let's just accept the fact that all motives are at their core selfish. There are different levels of selfishness, are there not? Simple animal selfishness seeks immediate gratification of the physical drives. Their are other, less immediate ego-driven desires which are still, at their core, driven by purely selfish concern but must take into account the needs of others to accomnplish the selfish goal, where the other is merely another self-interested agent. The selfishness I am talking about is by substituting the hapiness of others for your own happiness. It is the happiness that Peter describes by surrendering your self interest to the interest of the other. You can call that selfishness if you want.

Have we really advanced this conversation beyond the first two comments? Robert says he believes in Truth but not God. OJ says huh? I understand the argument of Harry et al, that one can not believe in God, Absolute Truth, etc., but conform to societal norms by both personal choice as well as to "go along" and try and produce the best possible outcomes, but I don't understand the difference between believing in some sort of Absolute Truth but not God (not just the God of the Bible), unless you're for some reason strongly averse to those three letters. Robert mentions a "supreme PERSONAL being" that he doesn't believe in but what's different from his beliefs and those of the past who saw God as a clockmaker who created the clock but now lets it run itself?

Brit: Europeans are as religious as ever, with church and state now not only inseparable but identical. Their Book of Psalms reads "The State is my shepherd. I shall not want." Look at the reaction to any attempt by heretics to modify the welfare state...

Brit:

I haven't read much of Iris Murdoch, but I was amazed by her quote: "At the crucial moment of choosing, most of the business of choice is already over".

I think that sums up the argument that orthodox Christianity would make. Choices are not made nakedly, blindly, or totally impartially.

As to your question about judges overturning each other, isn't it obvious? Unless there is a technical mistake (missing a precedent, for example), rulings change because preferences change. And those preferences are based on any number of things, from one's understanding of justice to pure politics to sheer prejudice.

"Robert mentions a "supreme PERSONAL being" that he doesn't believe in but what's different from his beliefs and those of the past who saw God as a clockmaker who created the clock but now lets it run itself?"

Brian, it would be very easy for me to say I believe in God and just fill in some vague "ground of being" definition that would pass the Eisenhower test. But that would make the God word meaningless. If something means everything to everyone, it means nothing.

I think that of all the attributes of the traditional description of God, personal is the key, make-or-break one. People either envision a personal consciousness at work in the Universe or they don't. Prayer is only meaningful if you sense a personal presence out there. Prayer is a conversation, and you only talk to other personal beings. To me, anyone who doesn't believe that the Supreme Being is personal is an athiest, for all practical purposes.

Robert - All motives are not selfish. Husbands notoriously fear the adverse judgments of their spouses; but that isn't because they're selfish; it's because they love their wives and it pains them to be divided from their wives.

So, too, "fear of [adverse judgments from] the Lord" is properly a manifestation of love, not of selfishness. A selfish person is rather one who disregards the judgments of others, basing his actions only on his own judgments.

Sorry, that last one was me.

Thanks, Peter. Orrin says Christians have gotten over slavery, and you respond with a wishywashy version of the favorite American sermon text, the only true freedom is slavery to Jesus Christ.

It appears Christians haven't given up slavery as much as Orrin imagines.

If there's one Truth we can learn from the Bible, both OT and NT, it's that most people just love to be walked on.

"All motives are not selfish. Husbands notoriously fear the adverse judgments of their spouses; but that isn't because they're selfish; it's because they love their wives and it pains them to be divided from their wives. "

PJ, isn't it selfish to want to avoid pain? I don't want to belabor the point, but it seems that if I define the reasons that I will sacrifice my own self regard for others, it is based on selfishness (according to David). But if you (or any other believer) does the same, it is selfless. Heads I win, tails you lose, correct?

Harry:

"It appears Christians haven't given up slavery as much as Orrin imagines."

Orrin is a wobbly heretic. He's going to the stake right after you. Boy! Bring me my drink!!

Voluntary slavery?

Robert, Brit:

Extremely impressive. I'd love to add to the conversation, but I can't think of anything you two haven't already said far better than I could.

Actually, Christians took a while to get over slavery themselves. My own church was one of the last to throw in with the Abolitionists. The underlying reason?

"A Fish Doesn't Know It's Wet."

Slavery had been universal until then; only after the Industrial Revolution was brute labor done by machines, and even then the old ways died hard (such as industrial barons treating themselves as monarchs and their workers as serfs).

When X is so widespread and universal, it's easy to think of X as normal, even to the point of being Commanded by God in the Great Chain of Being. Remember vaccinations, surgical anesthesia, post-op infection?

But as either Chesterton or Lewis pointed out, Christ set up a system that could exist in a world with slavery, but could also exist in a world without slavery.

I have heard Islam can't; at least in its more conservative forms. I have heard that Radical/Wahabi Islam claims that Slavery is Commanded by Allah in the Koran -- can anybody confirm that this is (a) really in Islam's holy book or (b) that this is an actual interpretation of passages mentioning slavery, similar to Christian slaveowners' interpretation of St Paul's "Slaves, obey your masters" injunction as justifying their slaveowning?

Ken, isn't the point of religion to tell a fish that he is wet? If it can't do that, then what benefit does it provide above and beyond what is available to the non-religious? Lewis' defense of Christianity sounds a little tepid. He is saying that Christianity is strictly neutral on morality, and not actively hostile to it.

Robert:

No, it is tell the fish who is wet that he must endeavor to dry himself, even though he'll fail.

Sorry, but I think you are misusing Lewis' comment about the wet fish. As I recall, the point comes from "Living in an Atomic Age" and is used by Lewis to illustrate how man is different from other species in the sense that he is alienated from his natural surroundings and is conscious of his alienation. He was making the point that the fish fits in so perfectly it isn't even aware of it and man doesn't.

USS Clueless today has a very interesting essay along the lines of this thread.

It's certainly true that religion (Christian or any other kind) never came up with the idea of moral antislavery -- that is, not only myself should not be enslaved but no one should be enslaved.

That this idea only occurred to anyone after secularism challenged traditional morality is an historical fact. That secularism gets the credit is debatable. That religion does not is beyond dispute.

Harry:

That's because it isn't true. Slavery would be a better option than the one you propose for the Islamic world for instance.

I didn't say slavery was a better or a worse option than something else, although I think it bad enough. I said religion favored slavery and we have learned to dislike it on our own, without the assistance of self-imposed moral teachers.

And, as Peter so kindly reminded us, Christians like slavery just fine.

Moral antislavery is not popular. It has never had any purchase east of the Rhine nor west of North America.

Still, I'm a moral antislaver. You guys can suit yourselves.

I'm a moral pro-slaver. It's an effective means for quickly integrating disparate peoples into a superior society. Thanks to the development of large scale killing techniques it is no longer as necessary as it once was--after all, we can just nuke any population that doesn't conform to civilized standards, so there's no need to retrain them all. Chattel slavery is different.

Slavery? Nukes?

OJ, you are too sentimental.

This is the way forward.

Brit:

Yes, but the enslavement of the Irish worked, didn't it?