Today I heard something quite strange on the news. President Obama and Premier Putin are discussing a new START (STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty) in order to improve the general safety of the world. I've been glancing over the treaty, and it really doesn't look all that drastic. It allows both the United States 1550 total nuclear warheads (a piece), 800 ICBM and SLBM launchers, and 700 deployed ICBM and SLBM launchers and bombers. The treaty is also supposed to require both countries to disclose the locations of their nuclear weapons.
This, in and of itself, would not be too noteworthy. Granted, one might comment that the fact that nuclear weapons are still around is scary, but because of the history of the world, I think it is not that interesting.
However, what I do find a bit intimidating is that this is a REDUCTION. Current estimates show that the US has over 10,000 nuclear weapons, and Russia has over 15,000. We may be planning on dropping down to a few thousand, but are we really fixing things?
Consider the following: when the first atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, it killed about 350,000 people. Bombs today are usually about twenty times as powerful. A bomb dropped on New York City would most likely kill the majority of the 9 million people there, and would cause long term effects (radiation poisoning and cancer) for the rest. Bombs sent to just New York, LA, Chicago, Boston and Washington would kill off about a tenth of the nation (five bombs). Think what 1550 could do.
We've tried to distance ourselves from the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine of the 50s and 60s, but we still cling to it. There is no possibly beneficial reason for having such great stockpiles of such malicious weapons. 1550 nuclear warheads would do just as much damage as 15000 (or, in the 70s, as many as 25000). It seems to me that even possession of nuclear stockpiles is a bad idea. As many satires and social commentaries of the Cold War taught us, the idea of MAD falls apart once situations get heated. Rather than turning to negotiation tactics, the fear is that hot heads and short tempers in moments of crisis would lead to the (rather easy) result of launching a few hundred or thousand nuclear weapons.
Generals and war tacticians told us that the threat of mutual destruction was the deterrent. Of course, this idea of "deterrence" is similar to the half-baked idea that executing criminals deters people from committing heinous crimes. Of course, crime rates have not really dropped since the death penalty was reinstated in 1985, and executions have actually risen. The main point is that the threat of violence does not really deter violence.
Terry Eagleton, a renowned literature critic and defender of theism, said once that if one nation launches weapons against the other, the other one has no duty to launch back, but in fact has an ethical duty to not retaliate. Destruction of all mankind is a dire price to pay in order to "get back." Simply because one country is obliterated, this does not mean that the ethical thing to do is to erradicate the second. Genocide is not an ethically viable option. So the threat of mutual destruction even proves to be a grossly unethical proposition.
But the truly, absolutely scariest thing is that this treaty is facing some controversy in congress. Republicans are loath to ratify the bill because, many of them argue, it will reduce our nuclear capability. It baffles me that we would elect men and women who would take such a position. I find it disconcerting and utterly nauseating that our fears would not be that we have too many nuclear weapons.
And then, many of these representatives have the nerve to call themselves Christians. Jesus, the man who said, "I a man strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the left also," and "Love your enemy. Do good to those who despitefully use you." How can someone claim to follow this teaching but still hold on to the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction? How can we, as American people, settle for such a slap in the face of decency?
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
Iures mores non est
I've been thinking a lot lately about ethics (no surprise, especially because in a month I'll be in classes for my MTS in Christian Ethics (Not counting down or anything).
What has struck me as fascinating is A) the prevalence of Emotivism expressed by even a lot of people I know, and B) the all-to frequent confusion between jurisprudence and ethics.
To let me clear up, first of all, something being legal does not make it ethical, conversely, even if something is ethical, it is not always legal.
To be sure, laws are supposed to be based on ethics. It matters little what sort of ethics (Buddhist, Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Judaeo-Islamic-Christian ethics or what-have-you). All that is clear is that laws are based on ethics (hence, why certain countries have laws that parallel predominant religions' guidelines as well as differences in these countries correlating to this). Thus, we see laws related strongly to religious faith and ethical theories.
However, often times laws stray away from their ethical origins. Such situations include traffic laws, which, though they have life-protecting influences, are not based off of any acknowledge ethical code (some, such as yielding and stopping laws may, but speed limits are often arbitrary).
On a similar note, what is ethical is often illegal. For example, in the nineteenth century in the United States, slavery was legal, and rescuing people from slavery was illegal.
So the fact remains that there are many laws which don't reflect any ethical principle, as there are many ethical principles which don't factor into the law-making process. So, even though the legal system is predominantly based on ethics, it does not submit completely to ethical scrutiny. Similarly, ethical principles often escape or are ignored utterly in the legal process.
St Augustine taught that any law which does not follow truth and ethics is no true law. Thus, a so-called law, whether civil or religious, if it does not stand up to ethical criticism, is not a law that can be enforced, in good conscience.
Nietzsche, as well, in "Genealogy of Morals" (though, admittedly a controversial work) pointed out that what he saw as bad ethics, had affected the development of laws and were thus, (in his view of ethics) a result of bad ethical practices and ignored true ethics.
One might wonder how something like this comes about. The most obvious answer is that people who function as law-makers are motivated by the same things as regular people: money, power, love, salvation, etc. However, the ability to gain more power is easier in a ruling position, and, as the saying goes, "power corrupts." Thus, oftener than not, rulers and law-makers often cater to interests specific to themselves, which go against common ethical sense.
Because of this fact, Thomas Hobbes wrote that in situations in which the people's best interests are not being served, the people are obligated to remove the government. While I am not advocating any drastic measures, what I do mean is that one must not confuse ethics with laws. Often times what's ethical may not be legal, or vice versa. However, you have an ethical duty to follow the ethical over the legal, every time.
What has struck me as fascinating is A) the prevalence of Emotivism expressed by even a lot of people I know, and B) the all-to frequent confusion between jurisprudence and ethics.
To let me clear up, first of all, something being legal does not make it ethical, conversely, even if something is ethical, it is not always legal.
To be sure, laws are supposed to be based on ethics. It matters little what sort of ethics (Buddhist, Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Judaeo-Islamic-Christian ethics or what-have-you). All that is clear is that laws are based on ethics (hence, why certain countries have laws that parallel predominant religions' guidelines as well as differences in these countries correlating to this). Thus, we see laws related strongly to religious faith and ethical theories.
However, often times laws stray away from their ethical origins. Such situations include traffic laws, which, though they have life-protecting influences, are not based off of any acknowledge ethical code (some, such as yielding and stopping laws may, but speed limits are often arbitrary).
On a similar note, what is ethical is often illegal. For example, in the nineteenth century in the United States, slavery was legal, and rescuing people from slavery was illegal.
So the fact remains that there are many laws which don't reflect any ethical principle, as there are many ethical principles which don't factor into the law-making process. So, even though the legal system is predominantly based on ethics, it does not submit completely to ethical scrutiny. Similarly, ethical principles often escape or are ignored utterly in the legal process.
St Augustine taught that any law which does not follow truth and ethics is no true law. Thus, a so-called law, whether civil or religious, if it does not stand up to ethical criticism, is not a law that can be enforced, in good conscience.
Nietzsche, as well, in "Genealogy of Morals" (though, admittedly a controversial work) pointed out that what he saw as bad ethics, had affected the development of laws and were thus, (in his view of ethics) a result of bad ethical practices and ignored true ethics.
One might wonder how something like this comes about. The most obvious answer is that people who function as law-makers are motivated by the same things as regular people: money, power, love, salvation, etc. However, the ability to gain more power is easier in a ruling position, and, as the saying goes, "power corrupts." Thus, oftener than not, rulers and law-makers often cater to interests specific to themselves, which go against common ethical sense.
Because of this fact, Thomas Hobbes wrote that in situations in which the people's best interests are not being served, the people are obligated to remove the government. While I am not advocating any drastic measures, what I do mean is that one must not confuse ethics with laws. Often times what's ethical may not be legal, or vice versa. However, you have an ethical duty to follow the ethical over the legal, every time.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Qui bono si Deum esse?
I have lately been contemplating a question about God and God's existence. I have not been contemplating whether or not God exists, but rather whether or not it matters if God exists. This train of though has been fueled by my constant interaction with Agnostics/Atheists as well as reflections on Pascal, Feuerbach, Heidegger and Dostoevsky.
To begin with, one must first understand how exactly this question is different than "Does God exist?" For starters, this question is not changed by the actual answer to that question, but the answer that we personally give this question does affect whether or not we think that it matters. Secondly, this question is a much more advanced one than the previous, and if one contemplates the latter rather than the former, he will achieve a greater understanding of not only human nature, but also the mechanics of religion, philosophy, and especially ethics.
To answer the question, we must ask what many cultured critics of our time have come near, but few have ever really grasped. We must ask the merits of the current system of beliefs across the globe and what would be the alternate (ie, if religions and philosophies of today were non-existent, what would be the effect?). Many critics proclaim boldly that religion is a blight and that humanity would be much better without it. Many state that religions provide faulty ethics and a faulty reasoning for accomplishing ethics. Many attribute the majority of conflicts to religious differences. So, to ask whether it matters if there is a God is to directly focus on these accusations and the overall consequences of siding one way or another.
Let us first remember that religions have been around for a very long time. Where there have not been "religions," there have been philosophies. This is still true today. The men and women who decry organized religion often ally themselves with some form of a philosophy, though we often don't recognize it since they are not preaching in the agora. Thus, they are still holding onto a set of beliefs. However, rather than asserting divine knowledge they assert some other principle, logic, for example, or scientific discovery, or simple observation or something else. Often, these people fail in similar ways to the fundamentalists and extremists of religion, and don't quite follow the tenets of their beliefs, but this will be addressed later.
As far as ethics go, one has to realize that our sense of ethics is, very much, derived from our culture and our religions and philosophies. In fact, to attack religion full on for it's ethics causes a logical contradiction. For most people who condemn the ethics of religions must take a morally relativistic stance, considering by their own words they don't stand behind a specific creed or guided set of principles, yet in this same stance, they cannot take a position against such sets of principles without betraying the single ethical idea of relativism, namely that nothing is wrong. However, it is also the case that to attack religion for its use of eschatology as a way to moderate ethics is also to take a stance more on religion's turf than one realizes. For the idea that "virtue ought to be done for the sake of virtue" is an Aristotelian idea, an idea which in the West was translated by one St Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of philosophers, theologians, universities and students. Even its promulgation today was a result of Catholic scholars in the early twentieth century returning to Thomistic Philosophy. Thus, even in condemning religion for eschatology, critics must borrow from religion to do this.
To think of all conflicts as arising from religion is plain ignorant. I have stated my reasons for thinking this way before, and to save space, I will simply state that many conflicts, especially wars in the previous 300 years, have had no religious component whatsoever, and those which did, were wars that were specifically twisted in order to appeal to the religious of an area. Wars have been fought for millenia.
So now that I've addressed several criticisms against the idea of the existence of God, or at least religion, I shall try to answer the main question of this post. It seems to me that it does not matter whether or not God exists. For if God truly does exist, then a lot of people have been right about a lot of different things. However, if God does not truly exist, then our sense of ethics, our ideas of compassion, etc, are pointless and nullified since it all amounts to nothing in the end, yet it still provides those who live religious lives a sense of fulfillment and happiness. Nietzsche said that Christian ethics were made up and derived, but he admired how effectively they worked, even so much that "the great politicians of Germany, brutes and terrible men, call themselves Christian." Feurbach himself saw that Christianity, though he had no faith in it, provided a means for relieving alienation that people feel, a way to feel real love and give us an ultimate example in Jesus for us to follow. Heidegger saw the lack of faith that humanity was experiencing and the consequent loss of humanity and famously said (as I have quoted multiple times) "Only a god can save us."
Though Pascal often gets a bad reputation from cultured critics, and is highly misinterpreted even among theists, his so-called "wager" lays out a fairly summary argument for the case. If there is a God, then righteous and virtuous behavior (and most certainly belief) can only do one good in the hereafter. If there is no God, and we cease to exist with death, then Christian living can do no harm to us.
Of course, Pascal was a notorious Jansenist who believed God would be angry at sinners. The average Christian, and especially Catholic, of today would not share the same sentiments as Blaise Pascal. Furthermore, the issue is even further complicated with globalization and the knowledge of other religions and their doctrines, practices and ethics. This, however, is a much different question from whether or not God exists, as well as whether it matters. The reality is that living a life that is truly in line with what one's faith teaches them is not only good in the sense of Christian and most modern understanding of good, but is also the easiest way to promote peace and unity.
To begin with, one must first understand how exactly this question is different than "Does God exist?" For starters, this question is not changed by the actual answer to that question, but the answer that we personally give this question does affect whether or not we think that it matters. Secondly, this question is a much more advanced one than the previous, and if one contemplates the latter rather than the former, he will achieve a greater understanding of not only human nature, but also the mechanics of religion, philosophy, and especially ethics.
To answer the question, we must ask what many cultured critics of our time have come near, but few have ever really grasped. We must ask the merits of the current system of beliefs across the globe and what would be the alternate (ie, if religions and philosophies of today were non-existent, what would be the effect?). Many critics proclaim boldly that religion is a blight and that humanity would be much better without it. Many state that religions provide faulty ethics and a faulty reasoning for accomplishing ethics. Many attribute the majority of conflicts to religious differences. So, to ask whether it matters if there is a God is to directly focus on these accusations and the overall consequences of siding one way or another.
Let us first remember that religions have been around for a very long time. Where there have not been "religions," there have been philosophies. This is still true today. The men and women who decry organized religion often ally themselves with some form of a philosophy, though we often don't recognize it since they are not preaching in the agora. Thus, they are still holding onto a set of beliefs. However, rather than asserting divine knowledge they assert some other principle, logic, for example, or scientific discovery, or simple observation or something else. Often, these people fail in similar ways to the fundamentalists and extremists of religion, and don't quite follow the tenets of their beliefs, but this will be addressed later.
As far as ethics go, one has to realize that our sense of ethics is, very much, derived from our culture and our religions and philosophies. In fact, to attack religion full on for it's ethics causes a logical contradiction. For most people who condemn the ethics of religions must take a morally relativistic stance, considering by their own words they don't stand behind a specific creed or guided set of principles, yet in this same stance, they cannot take a position against such sets of principles without betraying the single ethical idea of relativism, namely that nothing is wrong. However, it is also the case that to attack religion for its use of eschatology as a way to moderate ethics is also to take a stance more on religion's turf than one realizes. For the idea that "virtue ought to be done for the sake of virtue" is an Aristotelian idea, an idea which in the West was translated by one St Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of philosophers, theologians, universities and students. Even its promulgation today was a result of Catholic scholars in the early twentieth century returning to Thomistic Philosophy. Thus, even in condemning religion for eschatology, critics must borrow from religion to do this.
To think of all conflicts as arising from religion is plain ignorant. I have stated my reasons for thinking this way before, and to save space, I will simply state that many conflicts, especially wars in the previous 300 years, have had no religious component whatsoever, and those which did, were wars that were specifically twisted in order to appeal to the religious of an area. Wars have been fought for millenia.
So now that I've addressed several criticisms against the idea of the existence of God, or at least religion, I shall try to answer the main question of this post. It seems to me that it does not matter whether or not God exists. For if God truly does exist, then a lot of people have been right about a lot of different things. However, if God does not truly exist, then our sense of ethics, our ideas of compassion, etc, are pointless and nullified since it all amounts to nothing in the end, yet it still provides those who live religious lives a sense of fulfillment and happiness. Nietzsche said that Christian ethics were made up and derived, but he admired how effectively they worked, even so much that "the great politicians of Germany, brutes and terrible men, call themselves Christian." Feurbach himself saw that Christianity, though he had no faith in it, provided a means for relieving alienation that people feel, a way to feel real love and give us an ultimate example in Jesus for us to follow. Heidegger saw the lack of faith that humanity was experiencing and the consequent loss of humanity and famously said (as I have quoted multiple times) "Only a god can save us."
Though Pascal often gets a bad reputation from cultured critics, and is highly misinterpreted even among theists, his so-called "wager" lays out a fairly summary argument for the case. If there is a God, then righteous and virtuous behavior (and most certainly belief) can only do one good in the hereafter. If there is no God, and we cease to exist with death, then Christian living can do no harm to us.
Of course, Pascal was a notorious Jansenist who believed God would be angry at sinners. The average Christian, and especially Catholic, of today would not share the same sentiments as Blaise Pascal. Furthermore, the issue is even further complicated with globalization and the knowledge of other religions and their doctrines, practices and ethics. This, however, is a much different question from whether or not God exists, as well as whether it matters. The reality is that living a life that is truly in line with what one's faith teaches them is not only good in the sense of Christian and most modern understanding of good, but is also the easiest way to promote peace and unity.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Pride
"Proud to be an American," "The power of pride," "school pride," "gay pride," "national pride," "I'm proud of you," etc. The word pride, and it's variation proud, are often thrown about in colloquial conversation, as if something laudatory. We use the word pride often to describe something that we see as praiseworthy, such as when we say "I am proud of you," of "I am proud that..." However, I have come to the conclusion that either we greatly equivocate with the word "pride" or else we don't understand the true nature of the word pride.
For the sake of having something to write, I will assume that pride is often glossed over as being something more benign than it is. St Augustine, in the City of God, describes pride as the first sin, occurring almost simultaneously with creation (the full explanation takes care of the "God creating evil dilemma). Pride is also described as being the mother of all sins and the greatest of all sins by him.
Augustine's definition of pride was simply, "putting oneself before God." By this he means that in any instance, whether it be honor, devotion or service, we render to ourselves before we render to God, the universe, or else our fellow humans.
Later on, St Thomas Aquinas would list his "Seven Deadly Sins," a list of what he conceived to be the most vicious sins. The list includes several instances of pride, especially vanity. By applying Augustine's definition, we realize that not only vanity, but also at least gluttony, lust, sloth, greed and envy are also applicable, since they all depend on one putting himself above others.
Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to "Love God with all your heart, and the second is like unto it, thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself." Thus we can see that the commandment of Jesus Himself is a direct opposite to the demand of pride. If we love God with all our hearts, and our neighbors as ourselves, we no longer have the desire to put ourselves above either one of them.
But aside from theological talk, I must make a personal confession. I have found for myself that the time when I am the absolute most miserable is when I think I am not getting what is due to me. Whenever I get self-centered I never find myself being satisfied, but rather, being upset at what I have been given and what I perceive that I am missing.
On the contrary, the rare occasions where I find myself being generous, charitable and humble, I find myself more happy than any other time.
I have also noticed this quality in a lot of my family and friends. They're never happy when they think about themselves and what they think they ought to have. I've seen plenty of family torn apart because rather than loving people for who they are, they prefer to try to impose their own personality upon others. I have seen friends grow apart when one has had to call the other to reckoning and the other, in his or her own pride, has been loath to do so, or to admit that he or she does not have the ability to repay the debt.
Truly, pride is the most divisive vice there is. If there is a more destructive sin, I don't know what it could be.
Thus we're stuck in a bit of a contradiction. When we think of ourselves as being all-important, we exhibit hubris, one of the ugly heads of pride. However, it is against our nature and our experience to think in terms of anything besides ourselves. Thus, we get a plethora of philosophies and theologies that try to combat this problem. Even the scientifically based proposition that since humans are a relatively young species, on an infinitesimally small sphere in the vast universe, we are nothing, is itself based on a philosophy not unlike Nihilism. Platonism, Stoicism, and Aristotelianism all try to deal with overcoming the problem of pride, but they all also stop short of their mark, in that they are unable to show what else we should venerate (Platonism and Aristotelianism both advocate philosophy, but does not philosophy serve the needs of man? Stoicism takes the Nihilistic approach).
Theologies, on the other hand, get closer to dealing with this problem. Paganistic rites have always maintained that the gods need appeasing in order to take care of our problems, thus, in order to actually help ourselves, we need to do homage and sacrifice to them. Buddhism and Hinduism maintain that since we are reincarnated after death, we must respect all animals in order to bring about good Karma and to show respect to those which may be our ancestors. Zen teaches that the universe is nothingness, thus, one must only learn to respect the emptiness of the universe.
Monotheism, on the other hand, proposes that there IS a God, and that this God does have power over all things. There are various strains among the Judaism, Christianity and Islam which maintain that it is necessary to try to win God's favor, and thus, supplication and humility must be shown to God in order for blessings to be poured out to theists.
Christianity, specifically the versions of it that I find more orthodox, realizes, with a sort of Nihilistic understanding, that there can be no true prayer but, "Thy will be done." If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then our supplications will not sway God unless God specifically wants our supplication. Furthermore, if bad things happen to us, they are likely, "God's will," or in other words, a lot of times out of our hands to do change.
It is important to note, however that Christianity should not become nor be confused with stoicism, wherein the highest virtue is apathy and the virtuous man realizes that he cannot avoid all the things that happen to him in life. Christianity believes that in the end, the way a man lives his life will affect his eternal destiny. Thus, a man may not have control over some of the good and bad things that happen to him, but he can decide how to respond to them, and he can demonstrate by his faith and (to me, more importantly) his ethics that he is a good person. Thus, he must pay homage to God first of all, for the good Christian understands that he is truly nothing, that God is everything, and that without the intervention of God Incarnate he is damned, but he also knows he must live a Christian life or he loses all of that.
In my estimation, the reason why this theology is superior is because it puts humanity necessarily in debt to God for something God has already done and that man must try to earn back. There is nothing like servitude to bring about a humble and pride-less attitude.
For the sake of having something to write, I will assume that pride is often glossed over as being something more benign than it is. St Augustine, in the City of God, describes pride as the first sin, occurring almost simultaneously with creation (the full explanation takes care of the "God creating evil dilemma). Pride is also described as being the mother of all sins and the greatest of all sins by him.
Augustine's definition of pride was simply, "putting oneself before God." By this he means that in any instance, whether it be honor, devotion or service, we render to ourselves before we render to God, the universe, or else our fellow humans.
Later on, St Thomas Aquinas would list his "Seven Deadly Sins," a list of what he conceived to be the most vicious sins. The list includes several instances of pride, especially vanity. By applying Augustine's definition, we realize that not only vanity, but also at least gluttony, lust, sloth, greed and envy are also applicable, since they all depend on one putting himself above others.
Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to "Love God with all your heart, and the second is like unto it, thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself." Thus we can see that the commandment of Jesus Himself is a direct opposite to the demand of pride. If we love God with all our hearts, and our neighbors as ourselves, we no longer have the desire to put ourselves above either one of them.
But aside from theological talk, I must make a personal confession. I have found for myself that the time when I am the absolute most miserable is when I think I am not getting what is due to me. Whenever I get self-centered I never find myself being satisfied, but rather, being upset at what I have been given and what I perceive that I am missing.
On the contrary, the rare occasions where I find myself being generous, charitable and humble, I find myself more happy than any other time.
I have also noticed this quality in a lot of my family and friends. They're never happy when they think about themselves and what they think they ought to have. I've seen plenty of family torn apart because rather than loving people for who they are, they prefer to try to impose their own personality upon others. I have seen friends grow apart when one has had to call the other to reckoning and the other, in his or her own pride, has been loath to do so, or to admit that he or she does not have the ability to repay the debt.
Truly, pride is the most divisive vice there is. If there is a more destructive sin, I don't know what it could be.
Thus we're stuck in a bit of a contradiction. When we think of ourselves as being all-important, we exhibit hubris, one of the ugly heads of pride. However, it is against our nature and our experience to think in terms of anything besides ourselves. Thus, we get a plethora of philosophies and theologies that try to combat this problem. Even the scientifically based proposition that since humans are a relatively young species, on an infinitesimally small sphere in the vast universe, we are nothing, is itself based on a philosophy not unlike Nihilism. Platonism, Stoicism, and Aristotelianism all try to deal with overcoming the problem of pride, but they all also stop short of their mark, in that they are unable to show what else we should venerate (Platonism and Aristotelianism both advocate philosophy, but does not philosophy serve the needs of man? Stoicism takes the Nihilistic approach).
Theologies, on the other hand, get closer to dealing with this problem. Paganistic rites have always maintained that the gods need appeasing in order to take care of our problems, thus, in order to actually help ourselves, we need to do homage and sacrifice to them. Buddhism and Hinduism maintain that since we are reincarnated after death, we must respect all animals in order to bring about good Karma and to show respect to those which may be our ancestors. Zen teaches that the universe is nothingness, thus, one must only learn to respect the emptiness of the universe.
Monotheism, on the other hand, proposes that there IS a God, and that this God does have power over all things. There are various strains among the Judaism, Christianity and Islam which maintain that it is necessary to try to win God's favor, and thus, supplication and humility must be shown to God in order for blessings to be poured out to theists.
Christianity, specifically the versions of it that I find more orthodox, realizes, with a sort of Nihilistic understanding, that there can be no true prayer but, "Thy will be done." If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then our supplications will not sway God unless God specifically wants our supplication. Furthermore, if bad things happen to us, they are likely, "God's will," or in other words, a lot of times out of our hands to do change.
It is important to note, however that Christianity should not become nor be confused with stoicism, wherein the highest virtue is apathy and the virtuous man realizes that he cannot avoid all the things that happen to him in life. Christianity believes that in the end, the way a man lives his life will affect his eternal destiny. Thus, a man may not have control over some of the good and bad things that happen to him, but he can decide how to respond to them, and he can demonstrate by his faith and (to me, more importantly) his ethics that he is a good person. Thus, he must pay homage to God first of all, for the good Christian understands that he is truly nothing, that God is everything, and that without the intervention of God Incarnate he is damned, but he also knows he must live a Christian life or he loses all of that.
In my estimation, the reason why this theology is superior is because it puts humanity necessarily in debt to God for something God has already done and that man must try to earn back. There is nothing like servitude to bring about a humble and pride-less attitude.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Longe Vite Bohemia!!
So I've realized that among the anti-theists, there seems to be a running theme. It is the theme of Bohemianism. For those out there who may not know what Bohemianism is, or who want my personal definition (by which definition Bohemianism will hereafter (I've been working at a law firm too long) will be defined) then I would say that Bohemianism is a sensual, carnal, Epicurean way of life. In short, it is satisfying the wild, whimsical tastes of the flesh on the basis that "it isn't doing anybody harm who doesn't want it."
This is the lifestyle of excess, the lifestyle of rebellion, the lifestyle of the sensualists. All is fair as long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights. Promiscuous sexual activity with consenting parties is fine, laudatory remarks about the base and carnal are the norm, wealth and indulgence to excess are permitted and discipline is frowned upon. This is not the stated position of such men as Dawkins, and Hitchens, but when there views are evaluated, one realizes they are as guilty of "moral relativism" as anybody, a stance which leads them to make comments that support a Bohemian lifestyle.
The irony of the Bohemian lifestyle is that though it is presented as the position of the sophisticated ant eh erudite, it has no philosophical standing, and, when rationally evaluated, falls apart under the smallest scrutiny. Consider the following: Alasdair MacIntyre, in After Virtue, states plainly that one finds the answers to morality in either Nietzsche or Aristotle. In other words, we are teleological creatures, as Aristotle says, or we are driven by the will to power, as Nietzsche says.
In my opinion, however, the analysis is easier. It boils down, in my mind, to a system of Nihilism or Mysticism. Either it is a mystical experience, and everything that we see, experience and do, has some form, some purpose and some grounding. This position holds up for more than a strictly Christian or mono-theistic standpoint. The average Buddhist, for example, would see the harmony, and the Taoist would support the idea of nature providing a cosmic balance. Ecologists as well tell us of the necessity for each specific organism to provide a necessary role for the specific ecosystem.
On the other hand, what is our role in the universe? The planet earth occupies an infinitesimally small part of the universe, and our lives are equally insignificant as far as overall effect and lifespan. In the words of Camus, like Sisyphus, all we can do is learn to love the rock. If not everything has some greater cosmic significance, than it can't be that any of it really does, otherwise it is a matter of arbitration, of imperfect judgment on our parts.
I, for my part, fall on the side of mysticism. I believe that there is harmony and purpose to all that is. For this reason, I cannot see the sense in the Bohemian lifestyle. While it is true that one must live in such a way that his life does not harm someone else in his actions, it is also true that his actions can inadvertently harm others. Engaging in debaucherous behaviors might not have immediately damaging repercussions, but they certainly do have an affect. The Bohemian can say, for all he is worth, that his actions have no far-reaching consequences, but the fact remains that the values he has retained are derived from the Christian/Islamic/Judaic/Buddhist/Hindu/Taoist society he is rejecting. He has picked and chosen his values. And for that reason, without religion his position would either be based on Confucius and Socrates or Nietzsche and Sartre.
But rather than taking these positions, he has hybridized Christianity with the things he does not like about it. For this reason, he has declared that Christianity is a blight, because it does not fit his standard, one which, he ought to admit, is arbitrary and only right based on a relativistic understanding of no positions being actually right. For this reason, the Bohemian is ridiculus (yes, the Latin spelling, not the English) when he declares religion to be the great evil, and when his position is scrutinized boils down to pure rhetoric and fails to withstand the gauntlet of rationality. Thus, it is more or less the antithesis of men such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh--it takes an opposite stance, but it is no better as far as being a reasonable position to hold.
This is the lifestyle of excess, the lifestyle of rebellion, the lifestyle of the sensualists. All is fair as long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights. Promiscuous sexual activity with consenting parties is fine, laudatory remarks about the base and carnal are the norm, wealth and indulgence to excess are permitted and discipline is frowned upon. This is not the stated position of such men as Dawkins, and Hitchens, but when there views are evaluated, one realizes they are as guilty of "moral relativism" as anybody, a stance which leads them to make comments that support a Bohemian lifestyle.
The irony of the Bohemian lifestyle is that though it is presented as the position of the sophisticated ant eh erudite, it has no philosophical standing, and, when rationally evaluated, falls apart under the smallest scrutiny. Consider the following: Alasdair MacIntyre, in After Virtue, states plainly that one finds the answers to morality in either Nietzsche or Aristotle. In other words, we are teleological creatures, as Aristotle says, or we are driven by the will to power, as Nietzsche says.
In my opinion, however, the analysis is easier. It boils down, in my mind, to a system of Nihilism or Mysticism. Either it is a mystical experience, and everything that we see, experience and do, has some form, some purpose and some grounding. This position holds up for more than a strictly Christian or mono-theistic standpoint. The average Buddhist, for example, would see the harmony, and the Taoist would support the idea of nature providing a cosmic balance. Ecologists as well tell us of the necessity for each specific organism to provide a necessary role for the specific ecosystem.
On the other hand, what is our role in the universe? The planet earth occupies an infinitesimally small part of the universe, and our lives are equally insignificant as far as overall effect and lifespan. In the words of Camus, like Sisyphus, all we can do is learn to love the rock. If not everything has some greater cosmic significance, than it can't be that any of it really does, otherwise it is a matter of arbitration, of imperfect judgment on our parts.
I, for my part, fall on the side of mysticism. I believe that there is harmony and purpose to all that is. For this reason, I cannot see the sense in the Bohemian lifestyle. While it is true that one must live in such a way that his life does not harm someone else in his actions, it is also true that his actions can inadvertently harm others. Engaging in debaucherous behaviors might not have immediately damaging repercussions, but they certainly do have an affect. The Bohemian can say, for all he is worth, that his actions have no far-reaching consequences, but the fact remains that the values he has retained are derived from the Christian/Islamic/Judaic/Buddhist/Hindu/Taoist society he is rejecting. He has picked and chosen his values. And for that reason, without religion his position would either be based on Confucius and Socrates or Nietzsche and Sartre.
But rather than taking these positions, he has hybridized Christianity with the things he does not like about it. For this reason, he has declared that Christianity is a blight, because it does not fit his standard, one which, he ought to admit, is arbitrary and only right based on a relativistic understanding of no positions being actually right. For this reason, the Bohemian is ridiculus (yes, the Latin spelling, not the English) when he declares religion to be the great evil, and when his position is scrutinized boils down to pure rhetoric and fails to withstand the gauntlet of rationality. Thus, it is more or less the antithesis of men such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh--it takes an opposite stance, but it is no better as far as being a reasonable position to hold.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The human question
Lately, a lot of people have been asking me why it is that I want to go into moral theology. Many, who are secular, agnostic, atheist, or otherwise disinclined to view religion in a very high light, have balked at the idea.
But as I think about the facts of the way people view the world, it occurs to me that often times I am working on the same problem that philosophers, biologists, psychologists, anthropologists and others are trying to answer: that is, the human question.
The human question is, simply put, what does it mean to be human? The professions I just mentioned define it in their own ways: for an anthropologist, a human is culture and way of life; for a biologist, he's a kind of primate; for a philosopher, she is the ghost in the machine; to the psychologist, a human being is a result of his surroundings and genetics.
The theologian tries to answer the same question, but the theologian sees the answer somehow relating to God. A standard response is something like, human beings are made in the image and likeness of God.
Of course, the question is much deeper than it seems, because the way we answer it defines how we answer other questions like, "What does this mean as far as how we should behave?" and "What does this mean as far as what we should strive for?" and finally, "What does this mean in relation to the rest of the universe?" There are many ways to answer these questions, but from my standpoint, the answers are something like this: "We should behave as if each person we meet is a fellow creation made in God's image, no matter who the person is," "We should strive to better the world around us so that those who are like us, may be afforded the same pleasures that we have been, and that, regardless of whether we think we are saved, we need to work as if we have to earn salvation," and finally, "We are not as great as we think we are, but we are obligated to do as much good to facilitate harmony as we can."
I have a million more thoughts to share on this subject, but seeing as I should head home, I will save them for another post. Until then, suffice it so say that I think that the best answer to the human question is that though we often damn ourselves by our actions to everyone and everything, true, beautiful humanity lies in the capacity we have to do good, to bring our own and others' salvation.
But as I think about the facts of the way people view the world, it occurs to me that often times I am working on the same problem that philosophers, biologists, psychologists, anthropologists and others are trying to answer: that is, the human question.
The human question is, simply put, what does it mean to be human? The professions I just mentioned define it in their own ways: for an anthropologist, a human is culture and way of life; for a biologist, he's a kind of primate; for a philosopher, she is the ghost in the machine; to the psychologist, a human being is a result of his surroundings and genetics.
The theologian tries to answer the same question, but the theologian sees the answer somehow relating to God. A standard response is something like, human beings are made in the image and likeness of God.
Of course, the question is much deeper than it seems, because the way we answer it defines how we answer other questions like, "What does this mean as far as how we should behave?" and "What does this mean as far as what we should strive for?" and finally, "What does this mean in relation to the rest of the universe?" There are many ways to answer these questions, but from my standpoint, the answers are something like this: "We should behave as if each person we meet is a fellow creation made in God's image, no matter who the person is," "We should strive to better the world around us so that those who are like us, may be afforded the same pleasures that we have been, and that, regardless of whether we think we are saved, we need to work as if we have to earn salvation," and finally, "We are not as great as we think we are, but we are obligated to do as much good to facilitate harmony as we can."
I have a million more thoughts to share on this subject, but seeing as I should head home, I will save them for another post. Until then, suffice it so say that I think that the best answer to the human question is that though we often damn ourselves by our actions to everyone and everything, true, beautiful humanity lies in the capacity we have to do good, to bring our own and others' salvation.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Only a God Can Save us
The famous (though controversial) German atheist philosopher Martin Heidegger once said, with regards to the human condition and the reality of alienation, "Only a god can save us." From a Christian standpoint, this statement seems ironic. An integral part of Christian belief is the doctrine that Jesus is God Incarnate, and that through Jesus we are saved, thus, God has saved us. However, Heidegger was an atheist. This rouses (in my mind at least) interesting questions about atheism and the true condition of humanity.
First, let it be noted that atheism is never simply atheism. Agnosticism can be true agnosticism, but atheism is almost always a rejection of a specific idea of God. One reads in Feurbach, for example, a different idea of atheism than one reads in Nietzsche. Both were compatriots and contemporaries, but Feurbach was raised in a Catholic household while Nietzsche was raised Lutheran. Thus, when they write texts that are profoundly atheistic in nature, one notes a sort of Lutheran or Catholic mentality, whichever the case may be. Thus it is that when a person decides for his or herself that there is no "God" they are almost always rejecting the version of "God" that some religion or another has pitched to them. Often times, the alternative to atheism is not agnosticism but conversion to a different faith. It's very easy for one to say, "I don't believe that there could be an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being who resembles a big white man with a big white beard" and either convert or reject theism altogether. Agnosticism, then, is what results when one decides he doesn't have enough information to make a call either way.
This is historically true and we can observe it all the way back to Socrates. Socrates is accused of being an atheist by the Athenians, but Socrates points out that he frequently mentions the "demigod" who directed him. Christians were charged as atheists by emperors such as Nero and Calligula, and now are regarded as the opposite. Heretics in the Church, including the Arians and Manichees have been regarded as atheists as well. Atheism is always contextually based.
The second thing is the state of the human condition. Heidegger was referring, in part, to the advent of new technology and how it's alienating us from ourselves. The piece I quoted from was written in 1969, after the first lunar landing. He was still years away from such technology as the internet and cell phones, and he was worried that we were becoming too alienated.
To show how much of an issue technology really is, one can note that there is much controversy surrounding the internet and it's many corrupt uses. I noted in a piece earlier that due to the anonymous nature of the internet, people have shown a very dark side of their nature. Without going into the nature of many of the different evils abundant, let it suffice to say that in my own opinion the internet has more on it of lesser value than of greater. I know this statement seems a bit of a nonsequitur because I am posting it on the internet, but the fact is that there is some advantage to this technology. Correspondence occurs faster, information can be quicker obtained, and people can exchange ideas better than ever before. However, when weighed against the evils, I am not confident that the goods outweigh. I, like Heidegger, am a bit reluctant to trust that all technology is a betterment for our race.
Take for a second example, the cell phone. While it is useful in contacting people who are not around, it can cause problems when one is interacting face-to-face with someone else. How often do people answer their phones in public, or talk about personal or private matters while walking down the street, with several different people in earshot?
But I digress. The point is that human beings are becoming more and more alienated from each other. Yes, we live in larger cities than ever before, but people are spending more and more time alone and less time with other people. One thing that I think all people, atheist and theist alike, can agree on is that interaction with our fellow human beings is by and large a good thing.
When we get to know other people, we see the human--not the "other"--but the person. We see that other people are like we are. We see that just because somebody is not the same ethnicity, age, sex, sexual orientation or religious creed does not mean that she does not feel the same feelings, think with the same method or have similar aspirations. Everybody wants to be happy. Everybody wants to take care of those they love. Everybody wants to have what they need to live. However, we often go about these things in different ways--ways that lead us to conflict and to de-humanizing people.
Thus, Heidegger thinks that there needs to be some kind of binding force, a god, if you will, who will bring people together. This god will transcend the differences of peoples and overcome what we think separates us.
This is where Heidegger's statement becomes ironic, for in the message of Jesus we see this. Jesus taught all people. He spread the word to sinner and saint alike. He commanded us to do likewise, to welcome the stranger and feed and take care of the hungry and sick. His words "Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it to me," "Do to others as you would have them do to you," and "The second commandment is likewise, you shall love your neighbor as yourself" all show us the way to overcome alienation. One doesn't need to convert the world to his religion to be redeemed with humanity. One doesn't need to convert to another's philosophy either for her to be brought to completion. All we need to do is follow those simple tenets. And then, wouldn't a God have saved us?
First, let it be noted that atheism is never simply atheism. Agnosticism can be true agnosticism, but atheism is almost always a rejection of a specific idea of God. One reads in Feurbach, for example, a different idea of atheism than one reads in Nietzsche. Both were compatriots and contemporaries, but Feurbach was raised in a Catholic household while Nietzsche was raised Lutheran. Thus, when they write texts that are profoundly atheistic in nature, one notes a sort of Lutheran or Catholic mentality, whichever the case may be. Thus it is that when a person decides for his or herself that there is no "God" they are almost always rejecting the version of "God" that some religion or another has pitched to them. Often times, the alternative to atheism is not agnosticism but conversion to a different faith. It's very easy for one to say, "I don't believe that there could be an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being who resembles a big white man with a big white beard" and either convert or reject theism altogether. Agnosticism, then, is what results when one decides he doesn't have enough information to make a call either way.
This is historically true and we can observe it all the way back to Socrates. Socrates is accused of being an atheist by the Athenians, but Socrates points out that he frequently mentions the "demigod" who directed him. Christians were charged as atheists by emperors such as Nero and Calligula, and now are regarded as the opposite. Heretics in the Church, including the Arians and Manichees have been regarded as atheists as well. Atheism is always contextually based.
The second thing is the state of the human condition. Heidegger was referring, in part, to the advent of new technology and how it's alienating us from ourselves. The piece I quoted from was written in 1969, after the first lunar landing. He was still years away from such technology as the internet and cell phones, and he was worried that we were becoming too alienated.
To show how much of an issue technology really is, one can note that there is much controversy surrounding the internet and it's many corrupt uses. I noted in a piece earlier that due to the anonymous nature of the internet, people have shown a very dark side of their nature. Without going into the nature of many of the different evils abundant, let it suffice to say that in my own opinion the internet has more on it of lesser value than of greater. I know this statement seems a bit of a nonsequitur because I am posting it on the internet, but the fact is that there is some advantage to this technology. Correspondence occurs faster, information can be quicker obtained, and people can exchange ideas better than ever before. However, when weighed against the evils, I am not confident that the goods outweigh. I, like Heidegger, am a bit reluctant to trust that all technology is a betterment for our race.
Take for a second example, the cell phone. While it is useful in contacting people who are not around, it can cause problems when one is interacting face-to-face with someone else. How often do people answer their phones in public, or talk about personal or private matters while walking down the street, with several different people in earshot?
But I digress. The point is that human beings are becoming more and more alienated from each other. Yes, we live in larger cities than ever before, but people are spending more and more time alone and less time with other people. One thing that I think all people, atheist and theist alike, can agree on is that interaction with our fellow human beings is by and large a good thing.
When we get to know other people, we see the human--not the "other"--but the person. We see that other people are like we are. We see that just because somebody is not the same ethnicity, age, sex, sexual orientation or religious creed does not mean that she does not feel the same feelings, think with the same method or have similar aspirations. Everybody wants to be happy. Everybody wants to take care of those they love. Everybody wants to have what they need to live. However, we often go about these things in different ways--ways that lead us to conflict and to de-humanizing people.
Thus, Heidegger thinks that there needs to be some kind of binding force, a god, if you will, who will bring people together. This god will transcend the differences of peoples and overcome what we think separates us.
This is where Heidegger's statement becomes ironic, for in the message of Jesus we see this. Jesus taught all people. He spread the word to sinner and saint alike. He commanded us to do likewise, to welcome the stranger and feed and take care of the hungry and sick. His words "Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it to me," "Do to others as you would have them do to you," and "The second commandment is likewise, you shall love your neighbor as yourself" all show us the way to overcome alienation. One doesn't need to convert the world to his religion to be redeemed with humanity. One doesn't need to convert to another's philosophy either for her to be brought to completion. All we need to do is follow those simple tenets. And then, wouldn't a God have saved us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
