Christopher Hitchens has concluded that god is not great; that indeed, we must free ourselves of all priestcraft if we are ever to realize our potential for self-sufficient virtue. Human decency, Hitchens asserts, “does not derive from religion. It precedes it.” Socrates appears to have urged a similar conclusion when he challenged Euthyphro to define piety. Euthyphro suggested that right actions are actions that are approved of by the gods. Socrates's response: is virtue loved by the gods because it is virtuous, or is it virtuous because it is loved by the gods? If the latter, then righteousness is entirely arbitrary, dependent on the whim of the gods, and reference must therefore be made to some other source to guide one's course. If the former, and the gods' love right actions only because they are right, then there must be a non-divine source of righteousness.
I am not particularly interested in whether god exists (having already come to a conclusion on that point -- subject, of course, to evidence to the contrary). But I am interested in whether he (or she or it or they -- for simplicity and familiarity, let's say he) inspires righteousness. If god is -- as one blogger has described Barack Obama -- "a noble lie that tricks us into self-improvement," then perhaps he is great.
But do we need god to be tricked into self-improvement? Does the aspiration to human decency and righteousness derive from god, or does god simply embody (for believers) those aspirations that pre-exist god? I believe the answer is the latter. And if it is the former, I nevertheless reject that answer because I cannot believe in an arbitrary code of moral conduct that references nothing but god's approval. Especially when god appears to have approved -- and even demanded -- so many contemptible things.
Or, for those of us motivated more by fear than hope, perhaps god is great because only he can trick us into self-improvement by the threat of everlasting damnation. (And for those who believe in god this way, there is the added bonus that one can take solace in contemplating the damnation of all those smug infidels who will surely get theirs in the end.)
But if god motivates primarily through fear, then when we discover he does not exist we are suddenly free to rape, pillage, and steal our neighbors' porn -- at last!! This would not be great. Yet I suspect that it is why the god-fearing sort, and other god apologists, are so concerned that god's existence be "proven" as a matter of faith: If one were to lose one's faith, all hell would instantly break loose.
It may also be the reason that athiests are so distrusted. According to a 1999 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans would not vote for an athiest candidate solely on that basis. More by far than would not vote for a woman, or for a black person. More than would not vote for a transsexual. After Barack Obama's Reverend Wright apology speech, Sam Harris noted: "Obama's candidacy is [ ] depressing, for it demonstrates that even a person of the greatest candor and eloquence must still claim to believe the unbelievable in order to have a political career in this country. We may be ready for the audacity of hope. Will we ever be ready for the audacity of reason?"
I am an athiest because I do not believe in god. But then neither do the 1.1 million individuals in this country who identify themselves as Buddhists. Nor do many of the 600,000 individuals in this country who identify themselves as Unitarians. Luckily, I am not a politician. But if I were more prudent, I might identify myself as something else, like Buddhist, or Unitarian, or even "humanist" so long as it somehow smacked of religion. This would be more likely to assure people that at least I was trying -- misguided as I might be. And maybe someday I will identify myself as one of these, or all of these, or none of the above.
Ultimately, however, whether one identifies as atheist or not, I do not consider believing in god to be a choice. If I could believe, I likely would. I expect there is much comfort to be found in "knowing" that there is an omnipotent being who sees all, has a plan for you, responds to your petitions, and keeps your loved ones preserved and ready for reunion after death. And I would take Pascal's wager, if I could.
But I cannot. If I am wrong and god turns out to exist after all, then I suppose I will be damned for all time. But I will still ask god: Did you want me to profess belief that I did not have? Would it have been better for me to pretend faith? Is there no value in the truth? I suppose god would say "No," and down I'd go.
See, that's why I cannot believe in him.
6 comments:
Human decency, Hitchens asserts, “does not derive from religion. It precedes it.”
I'm embarassed to admit many many years ago as my kids were leaving toddlerhood, I said something to the effect that "we better take our kids to church so they will receive some moral training and guidance." Because that's what my parents said. Because that's what other parents I knew said. So, I became a member of the Methodist church (the church attended in my own childhood).
After not too much reflection, this all-too-common "presumption" quickly gave way to what now seems obvious - we, as parents, are the primary teacher of values for our children - mostly . . . in fact almost entirely - by our example. The idea that an hour of Sunday school is, or could be, the foundation for our kids moral training now seems more than just a little naive on my part.
So, what's the point? Hitchens is of course right when he observes that "Human decency . . . does not derive from religion." It's remarkable to me how "religion" has managed to insert itself into our culture as the super-parent, who is largely responsible (in the eyes of many) for the moral education of our young. Of course I recognize this is a bit of an indictment of myself as I too fell quickly and easily into this line of thinking when first confronting moral training for my children.
But if I were more prudent, I might identify myself as something else, like Buddhist, or Unitarian, or even "humanist" so long as it somehow smacked of religion.
I'm not sure it would be politically prudent for you to identify yourself as Unitarian in this community. And to think you may be able to sway 600,000 votes in America?! (Personally, in over three years, I've never seen more than 1 Unitarian agree on anything, but there is always discussion and hope!) That and $1.75 will get you a ride on the trax train! The days when Unitarians were well thought of are not these days.
I'm also not sure that the humanists consider themselves to be a religion. Isn't it a philosophy, like atheism? Although, I believe atheism could be considered a religion as well. In fact, don't they meet weekly on Sundays?
One theme you've touched on is the defining characteristic of whether one belongs to a "liberal religious tradition" or a "conservative religious tradition." It is the question of where the source of moral authority exists. Conservative religions point to an external source --think God or prophets. Liberal religions point to an internal source --one's own experience and conscience. Unitarians consider themselves to be a liberal religion. Are athiests? Or do they take Sam Harris at his word? (Or as you say, you are an athiest because you simply have "no choice." --One of my favorite sermons on free will ended with the statement: "I believe in God because I have no choice.") I believe you have a choice to believe in what makes the most sense to you based on your experience and conscience and based on what supports you the most in the quest that is your life.
I've always enjoyed the thought that in order for a liberal religious ideaology to work (or be "true"), you have to take it on faith that man is essentially good and driven to do "right." (I believe this.) Whereas, the conservatives view man as untrustworthy and prone to and drawn toward badness. He is incapable of doing the "right" thing without an external source telling him what the "right" thing is. I find this ironic and delicious.
I wonder if Sanford Barrett would classify his brand of Mormonism as a hybrid of the liberal and conservative?
And, I guess my other point here is that pb may not realize how conservatively she projects herself.
(Girl, I participated without external threat of demerit. My quiet inner voice told me what was good and true.)
At least you can find your position. I remain agnostic because I don't have enough evidence either way - or perhaps I do have evidence and yet remain hopeful.
How is it that I can believe in ghosts (my spouse and I saw one in the house once, no kidding) and yet not a supreme being? Perhaps because ghosts make more sense than a being that allows the atrocities all around us, on big (wars) and small (human interactions and you know which kind I mean) scales.
You write beautifully. You think even more beautifully.
It's a pleasure to hear your thoughts.
xo
jupee: your insight re: internal / external source of moral authority is exactly what I've been struggling with, I guess, though I hadn't thought of it in terms of conservative / liberal. I have a very difficult time with the idea of any human being ceding their god-given right to determine for themselves what is right and wrong to any outside authority. This is perhaps why I react strongly to the FLDS situation, for instance.
When I say I have no choice re: atheism, I mean that I cannot manufacture a belief in a supernatural being that is able or willing to intervene in our lives. Pascal's wager assumes that we can believe or not believe as we choose, but I don't think that this is true. I cannot believe; it is not a choice. That's not to say that this could not change, as I say, if some compelling evidence presented itself. I guess what this means is that I cannot manufacture belief in something where evidence is lacking, and in fact, where evidence points to the contrary.
As for my conservative projection, I guess I'd need to understand more what you're talking about. I know I tend to be overwrought and opinionated. Also, I interrupt people when they're speaking (right Mike?). Is this what you're talking about? (Not that there's anything wrong with being conservative; I just wouldn't have thought I project myself this way.)
Thank you for listening to your inner voice which urges you to comment on my blog. I appreciate your support. I'm also with you in believing that there is a natural human desire and longing for the good. There is also a strong impulse toward judgment, hatred, revenge, divisiveness, etc. The wolf that wins is the wolf we feed (as you would have learned if you had been in church last week) :)
ed's comments below:
i looked at the blog and i'm not sure i am where you and the others are in terms of what is my focus.
this is where i am. it seems to me that a very rough description of the extant schools of thought that address the question, "how then shall we live?" are these. 1. the judeo-greco-christian tradition; 2. the hindu-buddhist-oriental tradition; 3. the scientific-mechanistic tradition; 4. the scientific-spiritual tradition. 1 and 2 are older (2 is oldest at its sources). 3 is post-enlightenment. 4. is only 50 years old depending. (i realize there are lots of other groups with rich and effective traditions.)
i hope you stay with the below past the point where you think "what the fuck is he writing about?"
the members of/adherents to 1 and 2 are well known in all their forms. 3 would include dawkins (who is afraid when challenged and covers up his fear with anger on irish radio or asks that the camera be turned off when stumped about spontaneous mutation) and hitchens (who seems addicted to alcohol and nicotine, which is neither good nor bad, but is relevant to the below). 4. would include fred alan wolf (author of "the yoga of time travel" and popular describer of the double slit electron experiment) and stuart hameroff (popular describer of the planck scale/zero point field and what happens down there).
besides 3 (the dawkins-hitchens perspective) all of the other traditions hold there is a life force permeating the universe, whether one calls that the holy spirit/"god" (christians), prana (hindus), chi (more buddhist/oriental), and the planck scale, sometimes called the zero point field (the unbelievably immense potential energy and active information that exists in the space in between sub-atomic particles, which still pulses energy when a cubic meter of nothing is frozen to absolute zero (238 degrees below zero and then vacuumed of matter).
practices are designed to access that, whether one goes into the holy of holies, prays to jesus or meditates, does anonymous service, whatever. and prayer and/or meditation are both ways of relieving oneself of the bondage of ego (pride in the christ tradition) and all the mess and hurt ego and pride lead to. what jesus was teaching, before matthew, mark and luke got to re-write the story, was abandon yourself, your ego. to the jewish priests he said wo unto you uncircumcised of heart. weird thing to say since a heart doesn't have foreskin, until it dawns that the coating over the heart, the foreskin over the heart needing piercing, is pride, or ego in the eastern way. so i’m right back to ego, which all of the above traditions address, even the fred alan wolf and stuart hameroff people. wolf, PhD physicist who worked on the uses of subatomic and quantum physics for deep space propulsion, suggests the reason we find transcendence and time travel so difficult is that our egos get in the way, including not believing time travel is possible because we're very smart and we know that is stupid.
if we want to access the holy spirit, prana, chi, the planck scale, all of which contain ultimate knoweldge, for recovery from addiction or to be one with the life force and thus at peace or in stillness, we need to abandon ego. not fix ourselves, not fix others, just abandon attachment to pride/ego.
so why not say who cares whether or what kind of god there is or is not, a question that even dawkins cheerfully admits can't be answered scientifically ("why there is almost certainly no god"), and which wolf says there must be a god consciousness behind the universe/multi-verse, and just find the best practice to abandon ego, and start that practice today and be consistent with it.
if doing that means i choose not to be dismissive with new hires (skillful speech), i can get by with that. if that means i examine my life up to now and make some apologies, i can get by with that.
what interests me about the planck scale or zero point field is that in addition to its potential energy (one teaspoon more potential energy than the sun, thus british aerospace, nasa, cern, and whoever else trying to tap it), and in addition to its information (including the history of the universe including the moment of universal consciousness thought to have happened at the point of inflation during the initital stage of the bing bang, named the "big wow" by an italian physicist), platonic ideals are theorized to be embedded at the planck scale, which is one theory of why christianity, plato, buddhism, etc., all have similar ideals underlying them, thus to be enlightened is to learn and then live consistently with those ideals to be "one" with the "flow" of the universe, whether that's living the way of the tao, may the force be with you, live by the holy spirit, practice right speech, right thought, tell the truth instead of a lie. for a 12-stepper like me, there was a long while of not doing that, thus the 12-steps, repentence in the christian tradition (which means "change"), "coming current" in brad blanton, all are designed. so far i think consciousness is living consistent with the holy spirit, tao, chi, prana, the force, whatever.
in light of that, every single thing we do, every single thing we say, has an effect on our consciousness.
some leads on this are "the yoga of time travel" by fred alan wolf.
"the field" by lynn mctaggart.
stuart hameroff's website is: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org
in terms of the questions who are we? and what am i? the notion of quantum entanglement is interesting to me, i.e., that even after metabolism stops and we “die” our individual subatomic structure stays together, sort of like a soul, or spirit. hameroff’s has discussed this at some length in the rabbit hole version in the “what the bleep” DVD in the interview sections.
so even though i think there is some utility to being a christian or a buddhist or whatever, those practices become re-ified [sic] even before they start building churches, icons, statues. one classic that comes to mind is "well okay buddhists are vegetarians so i will be (and i'll judge the steak people in my right thought) and buddhists don't talk when they eat so i won't talk when i eat". why not get enlightened first, and then let what you eat and what you do be what flows from enlightenment, rather than living the symptoms of enlightenment that somebody else happened upon? even though jesus and god and whomever else are not divine more than me or anybody else, their teachings, before they get corrupted and structuralized, were designed to bring out the divine in all of us, but we have to want it, and for me that requires leaving my ego at the “door”.
no matter how i come at all of this, whether i read all the scientists, all the beatitudes and sayings of jesus, or the buddha, at the end of the day the source will be 1. getting current (for me 12 steps) and 2. prayer and meditation, and from that right action, right thought, etc will flow.
for a christian the constant and recurring question might be, lord what should i do? for others it might be, what’s the enlightened thing/action to do? that takes some practice, since my default status is to react rather than respond (i often sort of “fire, ready, aim!” rather than a calm “ready, aim, fire/not fire”)(if you think that’s funny it’s not original to me).
but seriously that takes practice.
some of the materials that have led me here are:
alcoholics anonymous, 4th ed. (the first 164 pages)(if the reader can get past its quaintness and sexist 1930s language, it’s loaded)
radical honesty, by brad Blanton
the DVD “what the bleep do we know” and its extended version
working the 12 steps of AA
the jesus in india materials
an insider’s view of mormon origins, by grant palmer
jesus for the non-religious, by shelby spong
that’s it. take what you like. leave the rest behind. i’m not attached to the above.
Ed: I dig your post. So much, I was bummed when it was over. Is there more? Hope so.
Post a Comment