I'm heartened enough by Jonathan Brack's response to my Philosophy for Theologians review to put out this rather lengthy open question to them or any readers who might fall into a comparable category:
I find it's easy to be cordial about metaphysical differences and have a live-and-let-live approach (or even something more productive/interactive) to matters of faith in this respect. Though there are enough terribly stupid proponents of both theism and atheism out there to elicit a general hostility from the other side, with some exposure to the right disputants, the whole discourse can become much more friendly.
The one unmovable force, though, is the wholesale moral condemnation of the unbeliever read by many into scripture. As long as you think I deserve everlasting torment for willfully refusing to believe, well, that's anathema to friendliness.
As much as I appreciate the variety of moral intuitions out there, I've reached a point where I have identified at least two judgments that demonstrate that a moral outlook has just plain failed:
1. Unbelievers go to hell. The whole point of philosophy for me is following your intellectual conscience. Now, we can by cynical about that, and think that we're ultimately going to follow whatever view matches our temperament, or upbringing, or whatever; or if you have a more charitable view of the human intellect, you can admit that we really can decide philosophical questions with some amount of impartiality, at least after developing some critical skills. It's simply not the case that everyone, for example, can just look up, so to speak, and behold a personal God watching their every move, such that everyone who denies this proposition is engaging in serious self-deception. Given this, it's at least possible for someone who has been sufficiently educated in religious beliefs (has "heard the good news") can still say in good conscience that he just can't believe any of this stuff. Now, he may be wrong, but if your moral system says that nonetheless, after an honest try, that person is going to burn in everlasting torment, this indicates something has gone wrong in your system.
2. Homosexual love is sick and wrong. Love (and I mean actual love, not just lust) is just about the coolest gift we've been given (by God, nature, or whatever), and though of course there are many types of unhealthy relationships that we're better off avoiding, if you find that the kind of love you're capable of is for someone of the same sex, and your belief system says that no, you don't get to love, you are instead denied this most excellent gift and, to be morally upright, need to live in denial of your true self, then your moral system is similarly faulty.
There are plenty of religions that get these cases right, and there are plenty of secular ethical systems that I think get case #2 here wrong. If your system condemns both cases, you can either:
-Deny the self-reports I've included in my descriptions. Kierkegaard for one will say yes, God is always phenomenologically available to us. You could deny that homosexuality is really genetic or natural or unavoidable. These are, I think, empirical claims, and historically hard-won ones. I don't think anyone making a serious attempt to objectively examine the evidence is going to feel justified in overriding the self-reports of millions of other people.
-Bite the bullet and say that despite the clear consciences of the unbelievers and homosexuals, God condemns them anyway. This is, I think, a species of the problem of evil, but it's not here just that God is permitting evil (disease, plague, other people's evil choices) that the theist must then explain away as necessary for God's larger plan, but that God's commands themselves result in a human condition fraught with cruel irony. One can then hold a view of a rather grim God that requires our suffering for his plan to work, and there's nothing intellectually self-contradictory about doing so, but such perverse moral intuitions disqualify you from cooperative political activity in a secular society.
To make my point more starkly: imagine your scripture commands you to regard some class of people as not actually human, such that it's encouraged that you kill them, and it's totally OK for you to torture them and otherwise make them suffer. Does your hermeneutic in reading scripture force you to interpret this (hopefully hypothetical, but certainly some groups have read such nonsense into the Bible or Koran) command in some less literal way, or do you follow what it says and deny the first-person reports of your victims that they really do have consciousness/soul/moral moral status that is by all appearances comparable to yours?
So what do you say? Is the way out of the dilemma to interpret scripture in light of a basic respect for human integrity (i.e. paying attention to what other intelligent people claim to find upon reflection), or do you insist that no notion of human integrity is even coherently describable without reference to scripture, such that you end up being a hard ass against other people's sincere claims of conscience?
-Mark Linsenmayer
Oooh, can I jump in first as the token theist on this blog?
I think Mark you would find common ground with quite a few traditions within Christianity. Unfortunately, the loudest and most vocal would put you in the heretic sandbox, but there are plenty of traditions within Christianity that are willing to accept your views on the two points above.
For the ‘unbelievers don’t go to hell’ tradition the word in theological circles is universalism. It’s not usually well accepted in conservative religious circles, but actually pretty well accepted in liberal ones. You’d get kicked out of an evangelical church for that belief, but you’d find good company in most liberal churches.
As for the homosexuality argument, again, pretty much the same, with a bit of a tweak. Those of us in the theistic tradition who argue for more inclusive ideas, usually take the example that the Quakers set in opposing slavery. In their opposition to slavery, Quakers acknowledged that certain scriptures condoned the status quo of slavery, or worse encouraged it, but that these scriptures were subject to a greater authority, namely the commandment to love one another. So not all scriptural references should be applied equally, but judgement and discernment are required when interpreting any material (whether you believe it to be divinely inspired or not).
So many churches have taken on the issue of homosexual rights, trans rights and illegal immigrants rights under the same tradition that those who opposed slavery did. There are of course many verses in scripture that are problematic for those that take such a liberal stance. Inevitably some form of modification is required in one’s views of scripture. But again, I would argue that this is well within the tradition of the religion.
History is written by the winners, especially the history of religion. It doesn’t change the fact that there are spaces and corridors for those who didn’t turn out to be part of the dominant or loudest belief.
Hi, Robert, thanks for jumping in.
Yes, this post wasn’t supposed to be slamming all types of Christianity. So in the case of the liberal types that pass my litmus test here (or pick a specific creed if we can’t generalize): do they acknowledge that they’re basing their interpretation (or selective reading, if the issue is writing off some of the more objectionable passages as historical relics) of scripture on humanistic moral intuitions, or do they just read scripture as just plain not obnoxious in the ways I’d object to, i.e. so there’s no need to acknowledge any kind of epistemic principle that somehow supersedes scripture (i.e. which comprehension of scripture needs to presuppose)?
Several religious traditions that i am aware of seem to read scripture based on humanistic moral intuitions, and state that they do so. Universalists I believe. United Church of Christ, a few others. It can vary from pastor to pastor, but many or even most basically admit of humanistic under pinning. Hell some of the pastors in those traditions outright admit to being atheist, so maybe we shouldn’t take them seriously… 😉
With all seriousness and due respect, what could ever serve as a universal moral code? Is it even remotely possible? If not, what is a person to do with the reality that others’ beliefs are often radically different from their own.
I think one can rationalise the scriptures in either way. Some interpret scripture metaphorically like Garry Wills (call that the “just not plain obnoxious view”, e.g. having your head uncovered is really a metaphor for prostitution), or you get those that that don’t believe that the scriptures are inerrant or literally the word of God. If you fall into the last camp, it is pretty easy to subject your beliefs to reason, experience and intuition. A bit harder for the first, but plenty of people seem to pull it off.
Shane, emergent theology/the emergent church also has its fair share of agnostics and even atheists. If you go to an emergent church in NYC you’re likely to hear the pastor get up and admit that he or she is not even sure whether or not God exists.
Well, this is simply one Christian’s opinion but –> Homosexuality was never addressed by Christ and only alluded to a couple of times by Paul in the whole of the New Testament. Hell is a bit more problematic: Christ talked about a real hell and it sounds pretty awful. But hell is not a place but a state: a state of being in which God is no longer present. This can be construed as metaphorically or literally as you wish, but it’s nonetheless real. Few would doubt this after reflecting on the horrors of man’s savage history. My constant prayer is that no individual experience the despair that results from being separated from the love of God. Corny, I know, but does the pursuit of philosophy, science, and reason really mean there is no room left for the basic human desire for this transcendant possibility and that this may only be found through a “message in a bottle”?
Ross Douthat at the Times touches on this in his discussion of militant atheism’s need for religious fundamentalism:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/why-atheists-need-fundamentalists/
This is a comment that Andrew C. sent me via email on this when he was having web issues:
Thanks to all who’ve jumped in here.
I guess the “mechanistic” version of hell mentioned by Russ and Andrew here is marginally more palatable than the alternative: that it’s not some torture chamber manned with demons whipping you but a state that your soul ends up in without any direct “sending” by God, much like your house ends up burnt if you set it on fire. Then as far as “God being a bastard” issues goes, this would go into the problem of evil category: just as one could put oneself in jeopardy by, e.g. living in a hurricane area (not an immoral act in itself), because hurricanes are just one of the shitty things that can happen to good people in God’s universe, being a well-intentioned non-believer could lead one just through the nature of the universe into some undesirable post-death state. OK, that’s my best attempt at restating the position, and it’s still practically making me ill to do so, so suffice it to say I don’t think this solves the problem for me, but thanks for your input!