Various projects and musings by Mason Smith
This was originally a Blogger/Xanga post, which became a very intriguing debate. This was the original post, created by me on August 8, 2005.
"
Some people get my stance on religion, faith, etc. confused. I am not necessarily against faith in the supernatural. I believe that, as long as you constantly question your ideals instead of blindly following an unconsidered faith, there's no problem. Until recently, I was also fairly convinced that if most people thought about it, they would probably end up being agnostic. I could be underestimating the power of faith in God, but I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't mistake their faith for fact.
However, upon reading and more reading, I've decided that I might have to amend my belief (see where skepticism gets you?). I now hope (rather than believe) that most who thought about it would consider themselves morally nontheistic. I should probably clarify that previous statement. To be nontheist is to not live your life differently because you have or lack faith in God.
Now, initially this sounds like asking for too much. Many people, for instance, tend to think of morality as firmly in the domain of religion. Not only that, but theists sometimes extend American law and the Constitution into the realm of religious basis:
" Moral of the story: If the legislature wishes to write laws incorporating Christian morals into our government, it is perfectly legal. Let's see... we aren't allowed to kill people in this country, but hey, that's a Judeo-Christian moral ("Thou shalt not kill")... what about stealing? Wow, that's a Judeo-Christian moral as well ("Thou shalt not steal")... How 'bout lying under oath? Nope, that's illegal as well, and look, God said it first ("Thou shalt not give false testimony against thy neighbor") "
(This is quoted from a lengthy comment left on my Xanga by someone who went to my high school. Even though this person doesn't speak for everyone, I've heard these arguments many times, and this person's articulation of said arguments are as good as any.)
Where to begin with this one? First of all, we have to notice that the Constitution is rather selective of the Commandments. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Sabbath kept holy (#4), for instance. One can argue that this (along with the first three) contradicts freedom of religion, but even then one can question the legality (or at least alegality) of adultery (#7) or the covetting of neighbors' property (#10). Could you imagine the reaction if, for example, instead of using democratic principles, we slayed every first-born son whenever we wanted major social change? Clearly the Bible is not wholly a moral standard, at least not a contemporary moral standard. Anyway, to say that the Constitution is a reflection of Judeo-Christian morals is, at best, a half-truth.
Now let's start thinking. What do the Commandments upheld in the Constitution have in common? Do not murder, steal, or lie... what civilization, Judeo-Christian, pre-Judiastic, or otherwise, has not upheld these principles? One can only conclude that these Biblical principles are a false cause for Constitutional laws; the reality is that these basic laws are in both by a common cause, that is, a common social good and common social sense.
The point is, even theists most likely don't largely act solely on the Bible's influence. (I just realized that I was using Christian and theist as synonymous in the past few instances, which I should apologize for). The point is, even Christians most likely don't largely act solely on the Bible's influence. In general, most theists probably don't act morally solely based on numinous beliefs or the contents of revealed texts.
Therefore, I'd like to believe that most people might consider themselves, or at least consider the prospect of considering themselves, nontheistic if presented with the notion.
As always, leave comments/corrections/etc."
This was soon responded to by someone who identified themselves as 'pieater'. His comment, on August 9, 2005, is reproduced here.
"
Corrections: The 4th Commandment is to honor thy mother and father, not to keep holy the Sabbath day. That's the 3rd Commandment. Likewise, the 7th Commandment is to not steal, not to not commit adultery; that's the 6th Commandment.
Comments: Your comments about the Constitution and the Bible makes sense, inasmuch as the Constitution is not a reflection of the Bible. Instead, the Constitution is a reflection of the collective human ideal, of the best way for we as American citizens to refrain from anarchy. Inevitably, the Constitution comprises elements of different faiths prevalent in this country, including Christianity. Some principles that are common to many faiths, such as not murdering, stealing, or lying, are part of the "natural law" that Christians agree is an innate part of human existence. However, your statement that Christians do not derive their morality largely from the Bible is incorrect. True, they follow the laws of the nation mandated in the Constitution, but the Bible remains a "moral backbone." The following verse from the Bible is relevant: "Be subject to every human institution for the Lord's sake" (1 Peter 3:13). The actions of Christians are motivated both by the accepted "natural laws" and by the moral guidelines stated in the Bible. In fact, if societal norms run contrary to Biblical teachings, Christians often reject the former in favor of the latter. That is why some Christians are vehemently opposed to some laws such as those legalizing abortion; they act based on the Bible, not on what society has determined to be "Constitutional." Presented with the notion, many people still prefer theism over nontheism."
I responded on August 10, 2005 as follows.
"
Yeah, i wouldn't cite commandment numbers without checking. I used Wikipedia as my source, btw, but here and here agree, along with the KJV which states keeping the Sabbath day holy before honouring thy mother and father and similar for the adultery/stealing measures. You can search here to see for yourself (Exodus 20:1-17, but I'm sure you knew that.)
Anyway, I almost see your point, except that abortion probably isn't a good example. Feel free to correct me, but I don't know that abortion is specifically mentioned in the Bible. My understanding is that Christians see murder as wrong, and the idea that life begins at conception (maybe before conception? at least, that would explain the ban of contraceptives in some denominations) has been extrapolated from the Bible's teachings.
In any case, to say that Christians as a whole reject societal standards in favor of the Bible's teachings isn't exactly true. I'll offer the admittedly cliché example of more anitquated moral principles, such as forbidding clothing woven of two different fabrics. I've heard nothing in recent history related to the moral outrage of cotton blends, or the cutting of sideburns for that matter. Many argue that this Old Testament is now out of date and useless (admittedly selective morality), but this becomes a problem when "Thou shalt not lay with mankind, as with womankind" is only pages away (Levticus 19:19, 19:27 and 18:22 respectively in KJV).
So, as you can see, I'm not convinced of your point. At best, many people follow the Bible's teachings when it's convenient, and typically convenience is associated with common, nontheistic morality. (The pro-life stance, for instance, can be equally based on atheistic principles, as all it requires is the straightforward belief that fetus = life and taking life is wrong)."
Response by 'pieater' on the same day:
"
My apologies for correcting your listing of the Ten Commandments; I hadn't realized that they are ordered differently in different Christian denominations. I could provide a few websites corroborating my original corrections, but I don't think that's necessary. Wikipedia is fairly comprehensive.
I suppose abortion wasn't the best example for a moral standard drawn from the Bible; as far as I know, you're right in saying that the Bible doesn't expressly prohibit abortion, but condemns killing instead. My point was more that Christians don't just follow what society democratically deems to be "moral," as in the case of declaring abortion to be Constitutional. Even though killing is legally (Constitutionally?) wrong in contemporary American society, the general public seems to find nothing wrong with abortion. So there is clearly something that sets Christians apart from non-Christians, making them believe that abortion is morally wrong, which, if not rooted in the Bible, undoubtedly originates from some form of theism.
Now about the Old and New Testaments. Since we're discussing the Ten Commandments in the first place, we clearly can't dismiss the entire Old Testament as being obsolete. So where do we draw the line? You suggest that Christians are selectively moral, choosing from the Bible whatever meshes best with contemporary culture. Much of the Old Testament has definitely been replaced by the New Testament; for instance, Matthew 5 includes a list of modifications to the Old Testament coming directly from Jesus. Keep in mind that God is the same in the Old and New Testaments; what changes is man's ability to discern God's commands. What parts of the Old Testament that Christians still follow is largely determined by tradition; even the early disciples argued about which parts of the Mosaic law to preserve at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). But it is important to realize that Christian tradition evolves very slowly over time -- unlike fickle "public morality" -- and remains, at least to Christians' best understanding, based on the Bible and the teachings of the Church. At any rate, Christians do not derive their morality largely from convenience and common morality; there is something more than nontheism here."
I was going to respond, but one 'wilycrabbit' beat me to it on the same day:
"pieater --
You say that the "parts of the Old Testament that Christians still follow is largely determined by [Church] tradition." You're right. Unfortunately, your observation corroborates Mason's point that the revealed word of God plays only a part, and often quite a small part, in determining what stances devout Christians take on moral issues. "Interpretation" of scripture through "tradition" often provides the means to shoehorn the Bible into the socially acceptable stance of the day. Moreover, the interpretations are quite malleable over time; the net effect is that putatively numinous Christian moral teachings are subject to change once they become sufficiently dissonant with the ambient social contract. This casts serious doubt on Christian claims like, "the Bible and Christian teaching are very clear in saying that X is morally wrong." A few generations later, all Christians may well be saying the opposite. So, at least qualitatively, Christian morality is relativized to social standards, much like the ethical beliefs of many agnostic materialists.
Enough generalities, for there are many examples to illustrate the point. But first, I'd like to point out that it's letting you get off easy to agree that only the Old Testament is fair game for copy editing by modern "interpreters." The New Testament gets the same treatment. Note the following quotations:
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission..." --1 Corinthians 14:34
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." -- Ephesians 6:5
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." -- Colossians 3:22
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." -- 1 Peter 2:18.
On their face, these pronouncements clearly declare that it is a sin to ordain female ministers -- now a staple of most American denominations. For that matter, it is apparently wrong for women even to speak in churches. But, of course, much more appalling are the latter three quotations -- especially insistent in their repetition -- which unequivocally support slavery and declare that it is illegitimate for the enslaved to seek freedom.
You can spare me the tired hermeneutics which interpret this bigotry into something quite sweet and nice; on its face, it says what it says. And regardless of how modern Christians think this should be read, it certainly fed a great deal of that "sacred tradition" which you venerate so tenderly. But probably not in a way that you'll like. To wit: in 1866, the Holy Office of the Vatican in Rome issued a statement in support of slavery. The document stated that "slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law." There are many recorded sermons in which preachers of many denominations assured African-Americans that slavery was good and holy, and disobedience was deeply immoral. Prominent religious leaders developed well-argued scriptural analyses in defense of slavery ( http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/eleven.html).
Today, you would be hard-pressed to find even a single Christian who does not think that slavery is deeply immoral. (And if you could, you would be ashamed of him.) For that matter, most Christians see no problem with women taking an active and even leading role in church affairs. In short, anybody who sticks to the strict New Testament line today -- that it is good to submit to racial oppression, or to oppress women -- is widely considered, by believers and nonbelievers alike, to be a bigot. To get around this inconvenience, most Christians have found a way to read the now-unpalatable exhortations listed above in metaphorical, inoffensive ways.
By the way, I should say in all fairness that some Christian denominations were against slavery all along; unfortunately, they were in the minority.
The point is that, on huge issues, entire Christian churches and their adherents are quite adept at wheeling around 180 degrees in view of social shifts and political developments. Many Christian moral convictions are fundamentally no more "absolute" than the convictions of avowed moral relativists who just adopt society's prevailing mores. The most you can say for Christians is that their views change somewhat more slowly, occasionally leaving them holding onto vile bigotries somewhat past their time.
What can be said, then, of modern declarations that, for example, practicing homosexuality is wrong, because the Bible says so? A true scriptural fundamentalist -- one who speaks against slave resistance to torture, and against women's rights even today based on scriptural pronouncements -- would be entitled to thump the Bible and inveigh against homosexuality, too. But mainstream Christians, and even Catholics, must admit that on specific issues in applied ethics, religious views rooted in scripture are malleable and change along with the social contract.
This willingness to reject and adjust parts of even the New Testament when it's convenient robs these mainstream Christians of much the numinous, absolutist heft they'd like to convey when they thump their Bibles and say that "scripture and tradition are very clear in saying that X is absolutely wrong." And that just goes to show that Mason is right. You're relativists too; just dishonest, unusually arrogant ones."
'pieater' responds on August 11, 2005:
"
wilycrabbit --
I find your comments counterproductive and hurtful. What had transpired was a rational and open-minded discussion about faith; you responded with a venemous lambast infused with loaded language. You seem to be utterly convinced of your own righteousness and unwilling to discuss your views. I will spare you the "tired hermeneutics" if you refuse to listen, but now who is the unusually arrogant bigot? I do not pretend to be a Biblical scholar, as I presume you are not, either, although you seem very capable of using the Bible as a weapon.
Let me say, however, that your comments about slavery are spurious. You hold up the words of a few Christian preachers as representive of an entire faith. Preachers are human, too, and not exempt from depravity; when slavery was present in America, the words of some preachers were no doubt motivated by their desire to gain favor in the eyes of the populace and amass their own power. Inferring from these preachers' words that Christianity supports slavery is almost like inferring from the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church that all priests are pedophiles or, worse still, that Christianity endorses pedophilia.
But as you seem bent on twisting the words of the Bible and conjuring scriptural quotations at will for your anti-Christian intent, let me remind you that the topic was theism, and there is more to theism than the Bible. It would be letting you get off easy by allowing you to shoot down an argument about theism by quoting a few Biblical passages and convincing yourself that the best interpretation is the most contradictory. Ultimately, the core belief in Christianity is that there is one God who created mankind and watches over man's actions. Christians, then, derive their morality from the knowledge that God is constantly watching them -- in their thoughts, words, and actions -- and they are to refrain from sin. Pagans, however, instead of possessing morality, only possess a sense of legality: thinking evil thoughts or even performing evil deeds is perfectly acceptable as long as one is not caught in the act. In the mind of a Christian, something can be morally wrong even if there is little or no chance of being caught, because of the knowledge that God is omniscient and he or she will be liable to judgment in the end. This, too, is theism."
'wilycrabbit' responded on August 11, 2005.
"Preliminaries: You astutely surmise that I do not handle Christianity with kid gloves, but Christians shouldn't demand gentle treatment when they call others' morality "fickle" ( before my lambast) and suggest that others are "pagans" who practice "evil". Talk about loaded language! Not to mention the common Christian pastime of trying to impose bigoted beliefs on others through the machinations of the religious right. In short, I don't buy your blushing bride tone. If you dish it out, be prepared to take it, for your self-righteous religion has been responsible for a vast surfeit of evil, along with a lot of good.
Oh, and by the way: I am a Biblical scholar, and if you're not capable of defending the text to which you hold so tenderly, then too bad for you.
In any case, let's stick to the issues, for your frustration with my forthright, serious criticism appears to have driven you into a very weak response. You say that I "hold up the words of a few Christian preachers as representive [sic] of an entire faith," but even a skimming of my message shows that to be plainly untrue. I showed that the Christian Bible , the very foundation of your faith, endorses slavery by ordering slaves, at least thrice, to be meekly obedient even to harsh masters; Massa Jones should be to them "like Christ." Unless Paul was just another "Christian preacher", in which case a great deal of Christian doctrine becomes negotiable.
(To the extent that I quoted any recent preacher endorsing slavery in modern times, it was the Roman Pontiff... which, at the very least, goes to show that the most leading and influential interpreters of the Christian faith and the promulgators of "Church tradition" can often be sinfully, deeply, completely wrong.)
Finally, to address your claim that atheists don't possess a sense of morality when nobody is watching. While this is surely true of some people, some avowed atheists like Peter Singer deeply belief in inviolable moral absolutes which are required regardless of whether anybody is watching, including moralistic baby-sitters in the sky. Some acts are required just because they are . You may find that argument philosophically challenging, as I do, but don't tar all atheists with the brush of relativism and private immorality. Indeed, the absolute moral convictions of some atheists seem firmer than those of many Christians.
Moreover, many people act righteously in private because social norms do an excellent job of making us feel bad and guilty when we do unethical things like stealing or behaving unfairly. Our very own Professor Jean Ensminger has shown in her experiments that, regardless of religious convictions, people tend not to take an unfair share when a large sum of money is purely theirs to distribute, without any observation or chance of punishment. So stop with this nonsense of suggesting non-Christians are largely immoral in private. It's just false.
To sum up: in (explicitly and implicitly) confirming that the plain text of the Bible is okay to dismiss when inconvenient, you corroborate Mason's point that, on applied ethical issues, Christian views are relativized to social norms just like atheists' views are. So what's left of your position is the claim that theism makes people more inclined not to violate their conscience in private. This may or may not be true. We do know that experimental evidence thus far has not been kind to the claim.
And, as a final note, I would remind you that self-righteous confidence with which Christians often perpetuate vast public evil (Crusades, Inquisition, slavery, anti-homosexuality) at least balances the theistic conscientiousness that induces them to do private good."
This was actually a separate comment, posted shortly after the previous one:
"It was pointed out to me that the last sentence may be unclear, so I will break it up into two sentences.
You may be right that theism makes some people more conscientious in private; the evidence on this point is moot and probably against you. But even if you are right, it is also true that theistic, self-righteous confidence has often caused Christians do perpetrate vast public evil (e.g., Crusades, Inquisition, slavery, anti-homosexuality). Considering the vast amount of pain caused by these things, it is not clear whether the effects of theism are, on the whole, good or bad."
Interesting stuff, don't you think?