That Little Question Of Faith
Over at Orphans of Liberty, James Higham has another post up writing from his Christian conservative position. In it, he writes:
Tut tut, LR – that Judaeo-Christian tradition again we’re supposed to mock and vilify. Such a pity it underpinned our whole society for centuries which, of course, we’re hellbent on denying.Now, I'm with Longrider not in denying the existence of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, but rather questioning the extent to which that tradition actually underpins or has underpinned our society for centuries - something I've seen precious little evidence for. Furthermore, I've seen next to no evidence that people are "hellbent on denying" it. But that's not a strand I want to get into with this post. Rather, I want to point out that I have a far bigger and more deep-seated problem with that tradition.
Put simply, I don't believe in God. Therefore, the fundamental ontology of that moral philosophy is, for me, frankly nonsense. And it isn't a case that I've been in some way indoctrinated against God or the tradition that flows from the teaching of his followers. Quite the opposite; as a child, I was arguably more indoctrinated by Christianity than against it. However, since then, I have simply found that I do not have faith in God. And since God - an idea for which there is no meaningful evidence for - is an idea largely predicated on the idea of faith, a loss of it is pretty detrimental to the whole Christianity thing. But faith is something that you either have or you don't. I know people like Higham do have faith, and they are more than welcome to their beliefs. However, I really do not share their faith. And it isn't something that can be feigned - Pascal's Wager is, and always has been, utter nonsense that does not understand the real nature of faith. I do not believe in God; even if I pretended that I did it would make bugger all difference to what I actually think.
Now, an inability to believe in God does not, of course, mean that I automatically reject everything associated with that faith. I know that the Bible - a vast document written by multiple authors over the course of centuries over two millenia ago - is big enough to contain some really sage and relevant advice. It would take a truly cold-hearted, sociopathic monster to reject at least some of the Bible. Yet there is also a lot of misanthropic bilge in that book as well (in the Old Testament, in particular). Like most religious books, it has passages that its more moderate followers probably wish did not exist, and certainly do not represent their views. To find a meaningful morality in the Bible takes, at the very least, some essential cherry-picking of its contents.
Furthermore, as Higham acknowledges in his piece, other sources (including other religions) have reached similar moral codes to the Bible, but without following the same path. And this, for me, is crucial. I don't think our morality is a piece of divine work. Rather, the pragmatist in me would argue that it is people with genuine empathy skills arrive at the general morality within our society through using those empathy skills. Thus, I work out what I should and should not do to others based on what I feel I would want and deserve (two very different, but equally crucial, ideas) if I was in their position. No rocket science here; just people wanting to treat people in a reasonable manner. And therefore, no need for religion, or faith, or God in order for us to work out a moral code and to act morally.
Of course, I can understand why Christians would want to make the case for what is right within our moral code to be the result (at least in part) of their faith. Many of them do feel under threat, and while the reality is that only a very small minority of people truly want to destroy Christianity, the fact is that faith has gone from being the dominant one in our society to one of many in a multi-faith society in which probably the majority of us have, at the very least, secular inclinations. But I'd argue that the fact that some reach a reasonable morality based on the teachings of Christ is by no means an argument for Christianity being central for our morality. Others reach a similar moral code through other religions or simply through the use of empathy and reason.
In short, if you don't have faith in something, it is highly unlikely you will ever have faith in it. However, that doesn't prevent you from reaching similar (although probably not identical) conclusions to those of that faith, albeit through different channels and reasoning. We don't need Christianity; we need to treat each other with the respect they deserve and we would want if we were in their shoes.
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 8:30 am
8 Comments
8 Comments:
The golden rule runs throughout man's history. Every civilisation at some point has adopted it. Christianity is merely one belief system that stumbled upon it and claimed it for its own as it did with much of the beliefs and practices that preceded it. That it absorbed the local customs and cultures is why in part it was so successful.
As for the Bible, not only was it written by multiple authors over a period of centuries, much of the events portrayed were written down long after they occurred, so a Chinese whispers effect has to be borne in mind. Then there's the translation from the Aramaic or the Greek into Latin - not to mention judicious editing by the Church at the time - and subsequent translation from the Latin into English. As anyone who has tried to learn a foreign language will know, translation is not a simple matter of word by word, but also involves making sense of idioms that work in one language but mean nothing in another.
So, as I said in the comment to which James was talking about it, I think that it has some things to offer - not least an insight into an ancient civilisation - but that it should be read with those caveats in mind.
My lack of belief is much like yours. I grew up going to church on a Sunday and taking it all in. By the time I reached my teens and was studying biology, the penny dropped. A man does not die and come to life again three days later, let alone an immaculate conception. When religious folk can explain happenings that defy the laws of physics, chemistry and biology with irrefutable evidence, I'll believe them. Until that time - and I'm not holding my breath - I don't.
The point was that society is falling away now because there is no code, only relativism and the JCT is acknowledged, even by atheists who know their history, to have been a powerful force in establishing a sense of right and wrong in people, particularly when families passed this down.
It doesn't mean everyone was religious - it was just something everyone knew was there. That point about right and wrong is not put by other religions, e.g. Islam and not even by Buddhism.
It's also the case that societies which had the JCT were more developed and had a higher standard of living overall.
"It's also the case that societies which had the JCT were more developed and had a higher standard of living overall."
When are we talking about and where, was Medieval Europe more developed than China, did it have as high a standard of living as ancient Rome ? The developed JCT world with a reasonably high standard of living was largely a product of the agricultural and industrial revolutions, I'd like to see the evidence that either of those was driven or even influenced by a vague religious and cultural tradition with many strands, including neo-classical and humanist ones. This seems like just another variant on the tendency of the religious to take any positive aspect of a society and claim it as due to their belief system, conversely anything negative is put down to godlessness.
The golden rule runs throughout man's history. Every civilisation at some point has adopted it. Christianity is merely one belief system that stumbled upon it and claimed it for its own
That's true up to the "claimed it for its own". In Christianity, as JofN said, he didn't come to change the law but to fulfil it but elsewhere, various things had to alter. You could call that revisionism.
With that "claiming for their own", you're conflating here the religion with the devotees.
much of the events portrayed were written down long after they occurred, so a Chinese whispers effect has to be borne in mind
There is certainly that point but there is a great error you make here. As John AT Robinson and various theological scholars have shown, there's no historical reason that any of the gospels were outside AD100 and Mark was certainly before AD55.
The authors were contemporaries and a Christology was present even by AD20, so it was in no way people coming back nostalgically later.
There are too many modern revisionist dating articles, esp on the net and they are just that - revisionist. The late dating is a relatively new phenomenon, coinciding with the rise of the so-called Enlightenment.
So, as I said in the comment to which James was talking about it, I think that it has some things to offer - not least an insight into an ancient civilisation - but that it should be read with those caveats in mind.
Most certainly and with the caveats I've just mentioned as well, just for balance, you know.
Thornavis, this is an argument which cannot be won by either side because many bad things occurred in both societies and it does not address, for example, personal freedom.
Better is to look at the result of the removal of the JCT from our own society and what we have is people now, a whole generation, who have no social and personal parameters, no sense of the history of their nation.
We have inward looking people who are treating each other without limits, aided and abetted by the State. The chavs, all the high profile cases such as Casey Anthony, Jo Yeates etc., that girl where the judge had to leave the court yesterday so as not to sentence her to the maximum, Knox - we're seeing a society where it is simply not safe any more.
Courts are full of judges like Cherie Blair whose main task is to let criminals off and punish the minor offender, often with a made u charge like putting a wheelie bin not in the right place and so on. Expenses scandal, lack of ethics in high places.
I argue that these have always been potential and to an extent actual but that the JCT did limit people's behaviour in society, including the judiciary and, say, public utilities.
It's also true that Rome and other civilizations fell away for sociological and military reasons and we're falling away for many of those reasons.
One of those reasons is everyone for himself which was not the case when the JCT was going strong. There was still a classical liberalism going and an attitude, for example, to political scandal - Profumo maybe - where politicians resigned immediately because they knew the view of society.
Sometimes going all out for one's personal freedom does not translate into you getting it. Even LPUK recognized that with its "rule of law, not of laws".
Also, the fact that we're even free to have this discussion [cf. in a Muslim country] speaks volumes.
James, it is a matter of historical fact that Christianity absorbed the local customs of the host population. Christmas and Easter are pagan customs, not Christian ones, for example. Christianity merely adopted them.
I stand resolutely by my Chinese whispers comment. Something written decades after a supposed event will suffer the same problem as one passed through oral telling and then being written down - to a lesser extent, maybe but it will still be there. Witnesses to an event have difficulty recalling accurately days, weeks or months later, let alone decades. Point stands, I'm afraid.
Unfortunately, James, none of your comments really make the case for the supposed (previous) dominance of the JCT in our society. We may as well talk about the Greco-Roman tradition. And since you haven't made the case for the JCT, it is difficult to agree that it has in some been lost recently.
But if we take your idea that the loss of the JCT has led to someone sort of moral breakdown in society as proof of the good of the JCT, then surely we need to not to have seen similar cases to the ones you cite when the JCT was in ascendance? Yet humans have consistently shown themselves to be violent and utterly immoral in the past. Miscarriages of justice occurred in the past, hideous crimes were committed. The past in that regard looks a lot like the present, no matter how much the likes of The Daily Mail tries to argue (in its shrill, hectoring tone) otherwise.
Of course, the actions of the political class are concerning - not so much for their failure to resign at the earliest opportunity, but because of the ongoing encroachments on our autonomy and liberty. Can this be described as a result of the diminuition of the JCT? No, frankly. There has always been an inherent tension in society, and frankly we are a lot freer now than other points in our history. Freedom isn't an absolute goal that once won will exist in perpetuity. It is something that will always have to be fought for.
And the rule of law? Yeah, that could be part of the solution. It reminds me of the old quote that the rule of law is better than the rule of man. Which came from Aristotle. Who died in 322 BC. Again, we don't need religion to make the case for the rule of law.
Which is what underpins everything I am saying here and what you've really failed to address, James. Morality is intuitively available to those who use empathy and reason. Religion - which has been responsible for as much bad as it has good - is not necessary to get to morality.
As a result, I think Thornavis nails it when they write: This seems like just another variant on the tendency of the religious to take any positive aspect of a society and claim it as due to their belief system, conversely anything negative is put down to godlessness.
TNL
I did read both comments, gentlemen. In the interests of peace and quiet, best I don't reply. ;-)
Don't worry about the peace and quiet; where's the fun in that?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home