Friday, December 7, 2007

Christian authoritarianism

One objection to Christianity is so direct, its expression is three words: "Christianity is authoritarian." The intended meaning of "authoritarian" is straightforward: the trampling of freedom by Christian authority. On the other hand, the intended meaning of "Christianity" could be referring to any number of entities, accused of authoritarianism:
  • A Christian government
  • A (or The) Christian church
  • Christian individuals (parents?)
  • Christian belief systems, inherently
As usual, it's not hard to appreciate the objection's perspective. Nobody likes always being ordered around; slavery's most basic indignity isn't mere pain and labor. Undoubtedly, Christianity can be a powerful tool for authoritarians, within and without the actual church, to effect control. But the general, unqualified charge of authoritarianism rings a tad hollow to Christians, for a few reasons.
  • Philosophically and ethically, freedom is a trickier concept than its noncontroversial popularity suggests. Therefore, as the opposite of freedom, authoritarianism is a trickier concept than its noncontroversial unpopularity suggests. Someone saying he or she "supports freedom" is not distinctive or informative. Simply put, freedom is great, but which freedoms? Clearly, the freedoms to murder, destroy, and steal should be absolutely suppressed by governmental/societal authoritarians. The extent of other freedoms, and whether the suppression of those freedoms belongs in governmental hands, are vital questions in democracies. Similar discussions occur in churches and organizations of churches: what activities should members of the church never engage in, and what activities are left up to individual judgment? (Although heavy-handed church discipline, due to its tendency to backfire like all instances of negative reinforcement, is probably less effective than earnest, forgiving, and caring correction.) Even deeper, just between a Christian and his or her God, is the question of what areas of life have the freedom of being more or less morally neutral, as opposed to what areas of life are under God's intimate concern. (Actually, the strategy of apportioning bits of lifestyle to God and self is not how to please God; seek out God and his Spirit for true, real transformation, to reflect His holiness in all situations.) In any case, calling Christianity authoritarian is a simplification of the fact that all entities which regulate behavior contain tension between freedom and authoritarianism.
  • This may be hard for the cynical to accept, but the parts of Christianity that curtail freedom aren't solely motivated by a fastidious craving for perfection. God does want His people to be as good as Him, yet their goodness will accomplish much more than failing to offend heavenly sensibilities. Good people improve the existence of other people. Good people improve the parts of the world they touch--and this is both an intentional and accidental effect of their actions and decisions. Lastly, people who do good may be happier than they otherwise would be, because evil is self-destructive sooner or later. The point is that (ideally!) when Christianity takes an authoritarian stance on some behavior, it's in order to preclude evil and evil's corresponding negative effects, neither on a whim nor out of an obsessive thirst for domination.
  • Humility remains essential to Christianity. When Christians bow their heads to address the supreme God, the motion should be the outer "face" of the soul's reality. Faith "walks". Any church-goer can say that God is all-knowing and sacred, then live as he or she chooses, regardless. People of faith trust that God is all-knowing and sacred, then live as God directs, because being all-knowing and sacred are excellent qualifications for an authoritarian! If Christianity is authoritarian to its devotees, such "victims" of authoritarianism aren't coerced. They have as much freedom as ever, which they use in recognition of Someone infinitely greater than they.
  • Christ refused to become part of the societal hierarchy of power, to the point of fleeing zealous crowds who wanted Him to do exactly that. He also refused to use His reign over both supernatural and natural to destroy and punish. Not because He was never angry and disappointed, as evidenced by the "temple clearing" and His many rebukes, to Pharisees and disciples alike, but because He chose to take the less authoritarian path. People who would follow in His footsteps should take note.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

questions I need help answering

The Web is a medium of communication. Rather than holding back from writing down the questions/concerns about Christianity that I personally struggle with, I have decided to create this blog entry to invite illuminating comments, not only for my benefit, but for blog readers. I plan to keep this entry updated.

1. What is the precise relationship between the body, mind, and soul? What is the dividing line? Related questions, which the answer should also satisfy:
  • When does a soul begin existence? How?
  • What is the soul doing in cases of mental impairment, or merely when someone is asleep?
  • When souls become disembodied, are the "personalities" of the souls the same, despite now being apart from the limitations and regulation of the endocrine and nervous systems of the body?
  • In the case of children, especially the very young who don't yet speak, is the soul fully developed? Are they suspect to judgment? If not, then at what point in life?


2. Heaven has been described as a return to an Eden-like existence, or as an eternity of worship. Related questions:
  • People like to work, meet challenges, and compete with each other. Does heaven meet such desires?
  • People like to learn, study, and discover. In a heaven inhabited by an omniscient being, will there be opportunity for those pursuits?
  • People like to create and tweak technology. In a paradise, where would this impulse be directed?


3. If salvation is through Christianity, do the damned include everyone who hasn't been presented with the decision, as well as everyone who was presented with a "faulty" version, and even everyone who simply weren't privileged to hear the message in a form persuasive to them?


4. How does one disentangle/distinguish the effects of the Spirit from effects of emotional/mental/psychological phenomena? For instance, people who expect to feel God are more likely to report feeling Him (see table-turning). People who continually reinforce a belief are doing something like autosuggestion or self-hypnosis. What's involved in authenticating a divine vision, such that it can't be reduced to externally-caused (chemical) hallucinations or unorganized neuronal firings? If someone experiences an unexpected idea, is it surely from supernatural origins or could it be from the subconscious or nonverbal brain parts, as in a bicameral mind? When a flock (i.e. congregation) of people perceive a present proximity of God's presence, especially after an extended period of carefully-engineered worship activities, how much of the effect comes from empathy and/or peer pressure ("I see the way others are reacting, I should be feeling and acting the same")?

the bias that proves God exists

Many of people's experiences, particularly of the overwhelming forces of creation, cause them to feel humility. This is good. Many of people's experiences cause them to appreciate beauty. This is good, too. Many of people's experiences cause them to desire a dramatic, deeper meaning to life, a larger narrative than they can create. Good.

However, they shouldn't make a mental leap from these sentiments to the proposition "a god must exist". When they do, they end up looking like fools. The implication is simply not there, or if it is, it is more like a tiny, circumstantial clue than a definite argument.

To someone who is predisposed to believe in a god, "mountains are big" seems to indicate "god's vastness". To someone not so predisposed, "mountains are big" seems to indicate "cumulative geological effects occur on a large scale". Bias plays such a pivotal role in obtaining the right "conclusion" from the "evidence".

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

"the religious are sheep"

A sibling of the idea that Christians aren't smart (the third blog entry!) is the idea that people with religious belief systems are "sheep" who somehow lost the ability to think for themselves: under specific conditions they just don't question what they hear. This is how, according to the rest of the diatribe, they can be uncritically duped by "irrational but seductive lies", even to the point of martyrdom. The religious maxims flourish in the mind through isolation from any other knowledge.

The automatons so described obviously exist. Cults, and the top figures of those cults, exploit them. Yet not all people who have religious belief systems are "sheep". Like "Christians aren't smart", "the religious are sheep" is a bald overgeneralization, having some flaws.
  • Consider the grid of four possibilities, with rows of "religious" and "secular" and columns of "sheep thinking" and "non-sheep thinking". Some of the people in the "religious" row are in the "sheep thinking" column (the cults just mentioned) and some of the people in the religious row are in the "non-sheep thinking" column (much of this blog entry will essentially cover why and how those people can exist) . "The religious are sheep" implies "non-sheep are secular", so people in the "secular" row and the "non-sheep thinking column" tend to support rather than disprove the objection. But the fourth possibility of the grid, the intersection of row "secular" and column "sheep thinking", while not strictly applicable to the objection, also has many examples. This means in statement form that "all secular people have non-sheep thinking" is false. Clearly, people can think "like sheep" about virtually anything, religious or not. That's why active parenting is so important, why trends have influence, why outsiders (any outsider relative to any group) receive scorn, why oppression often operates through media control and "loyalty-creation exercises". The point is that while this doesn't disprove that all religious people are sheep, it does disprove that "secular" and "non-sheep thinking" are one and the same. Therefore, religiosity and sheep thinking are distinct scales of measurement.
  • Sometimes people (choose to) forget that their belief systems contain foundational doctrines which cannot be challenged because those doctrines are the method to structure other knowledge, yielding its meaning. Removing the foundational doctrines would leave the person with no way to comprehend, interpret, and apply. These foundational doctrines will be in the "sheep thinking" realm; someone must have gotten them from somewhere. Granted, some people have more elaborate and explicit doctrines than others. They would doubtless argue that the doctrines are thereby more effective and honest.
  • The "sheep thinking" accusation glosses over the subtle, delicate relationship between ideals and particular ideas. Belief systems in general, religious or secular, have ideals/values (of almost equal importance to the foundational doctrines of those belief systems). Part of what makes human communication tricky is the easy pitfall of mistaking the ideals of belief systems and common, everyday ideas. Someone who, under specific conditions, imbibes every idea communicated, is by definition sheep thinking. However, someone who, through sharing ideals (more or less) with the communicator, understands and checks the ideas communicated, is not sheep thinking. Also, if the communicator is reinforcing ideals, nobody is learning what he or she hasn't already consciously chosen as an ideal in the past. In these situations, the participants in the communication are jointly figuring out what ideas best match the ideals. The most drastic of conversations, a switch to a different belief system, can work by identifying similarities in ideals between belief systems. Of course, the mistaking of ideas for ideals can also be put to the sinister use of luring someone to accept an idea that seems to match an ideal when it is actually opposite and/or false.
  • A telling discriminator of a belief system's dependence on sheep-thinking, and the person advocating that belief system, is if the believers are (truly) encouraged to rely on more than one source of truth. Practically speaking, a belief system should make it clear that authority over truthful information isn't the province of the Person Whose Name Is ______ (what happens when he or she is no longer able to serve that function?). Centralizing authority in one regularly-swapped official isn't too convincing, either, although one must grudgingly admit absolute dictates have the benefit (curse?) of avoiding debates. In the Christian traditions I am involved in, a balanced, self-checking approach to Biblical truth is the nominal norm: a combination of tradition, reason, and experience do and should inform one's understanding. A prescription for sheep-thinking this is not! I bring this up solely to give an example.
  • The desires of independence and freedom are active in people, to varying degrees in various people with their various personalities. The religious are people, regardless of a "sheep" label. They will believe what they choose, and do what they choose. In a society privileged to have religious freedom, any religious "leader" will discover how little control he or she really has. Scolding, discipline, and correction will only be effective on believers who on some level welcome it. Requests for volunteers usually don't lead to an overcrowding of applicants. Levels of commitment and participation are on a wide range. In their deepest of hearts, in the bottom of their minds, and in their locations of privacy, the outwardly "religious" can be surprisingly unwilling to carry out what they claim to believe. Honestly, the religious can be too insincere or weak-willed to aspire to be sheep.
  • "The religious are sheep" may be connected to the assumption that religious belief systems gain believes through filling a personal, perhaps emotional, chasm, instead of through a "rational" evaluation. This assumption has some merit, since in most cases a belief system engages entire people, not just the part known as the mind. And it shouldn't be controversial to note vulnerable, damaged people are easier to influence, nor that people who are undergoing forced life transitions are more likely to take the opportunity to jump belief systems. Nevertheless, isn't it naive and unsympathetic to expect that people would act any other way? A belief system that doesn't work for someone is likely to be left behind for another. If a large number of people, the "sheep", are rejecting a belief system or replacing it with a competitor, then might that indicate something?
  • "The religious are sheep" may be connected to the assumption that religious belief systems gain believers through people imitating and inculcating each other. This assumption has some merit, considering all long-lived belief systems (religious or not) are at least partially spread in this manner. But this assumption is too much of an overgeneralization of how religious belief systems spread, and applicable to too many secular belief systems, for it to be compelling. It also conveniently overlooks the fact that belief system switches also may come about through imitation and re-inculcation. In fact, it's not hard to imagine (or observe) a family in which a grandparent's religious zeal caused the parent to be anti-religious, and the parent's anti-religious zeal caused the grandchild to indulge religious curiosity.
  • It would be negligent not to acknowledge the Bible's recurrent metaphor of the Church as sheep, still more because the quotes are from Christ. The content and context of those verses don't support the interpretation/application that people should follow each other like sheep. Rather, the relationship between Christ and the Church is like the relationship between a shepherd and a flock, as He enumerates. Shepherds guide, protect, care, sacrifice themselves for sheep. The emphasis is on the shepherd's actions, not the sheep. Note that when preachers talk about the "flock", call themselves "pastors", and so on, the meaning is (or should be) a Christ-inspired sentimental affection for the people they serve, not a way to degrade/dehumanize them.

Monday, October 15, 2007

freedom of speech and press is a good thing

Freedom of speech and press is marvelous. Regardless of belief system, every U.S. citizen should be grateful and zealously defensive of it. Please heed the following corrections of some all-too-common misconceptions.
  • Having moral standards and respectfully expressing them is in no way "oppressing" other people, nor "inflicting" alternative points of view on the general populace. A free exchange of ideas is a benefit, not a burden. To parrot some popular clichés, "if you don't want to see it, don't watch" and "if you don't want to hear it, don't listen". Parodying and general mockery of differing ideas and media are fully permitted, of course (postmodernists hardly have any other tactic to employ), but have the reprehensible tendencies to emphasize societal division and antagonize the believers of what is mocked.
  • Having moral standards about speech or press and respectfully expressing them is not detrimental to the freedoms thereof. The respectful expression of a moral standard for speech does not include forcibly silencing immoral speakers. Obviously, it also does not include attacks, sabotage, harassment, etc. It does include whatever means are lawful and respectful. These might be raising awareness of the immoral speech, encouraging the personal choice to avoid it, refusing to support it economically, even participating in peaceful demonstrations. The same freedoms a speaker uses to spread a message can be used by other speakers to protest the spreading of that message. The point is that all the speakers can speak; none of them may prohibit the speech of the others.
  • It isn't contradictory for someone to believe in freedom of speech while having definite limits on what speech is acceptable to him or her. In fact, the existence of speech someone disagrees with is more or less guaranteed. People who would be generally considered as extremely permissive (and/or apathetic) about speech will nevertheless tell you that some speech or media wouldn't be around in an ideal world: at the very least, the speech or media which communicate the wrong viewpoints, as judged by him or her, and at the very most, any speech or media which have a cumulative negative effect on the audience, again as judged by him or her. Speech is a human activity. Therefore, it is possibly subject to moral consideration. Freedom of speech denotes freedom from interference in communication. As always, freedom doesn't include absolute "release" from all restrictions.
  • Freedom of speech has come to be valued for serving many different purposes. One is the frequently-well-earned criticism of government actions and officials. Another is the frank investigation of important yet taboo topics, in the proper context. A third is the nonviolent collision of disparate belief systems. To the individualistic modernized consumer, freedom of speech allows the exaltation and exposure of the central ego, whose nurture and actualization is the goal of existence. Moral standards for speech don't, and shouldn't, stop the achievement of these purposes.

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Worldview Fragment: restriction is freedom

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

All of the worldview fragments covered up until this one enjoy current (really perennial) popularity, but are also misleading or unbalanced in sometimes-subtle ways. Each fragment is commonly accepted by people who have nothing to do with Christianity. However, these fragments can sometimes confuse Christians who have heedlessly picked them up...or who simply haven't heard counterbalancing truths.

The worldview fragment "restriction is freedom" is different. It isn't popular, and least of all among the anti-religious. Its downfall isn't in being enticing yet somewhat false, but in being disconcerting yet somewhat true. Some practices and branches of Christianity have deeply embraced this fragment, while others "theoretically" agree with it but typically ignore it. Like the other fragments, it has been mixed with many compatible worldviews beside Christianity. And people and cultures have discovered it more or less independently of Christianity.

"Restriction is freedom" is a short name for the tricky belief that behavioral restrictions can lead to freedom from a detrimental influence. What makes it tricky is the juxtaposition of opposite concepts. On first hearing, it sounds nonsensical, like stating greater heat will cool someone off. How can someone claim to gain freedom by allowing less?

The solution to the contradiction is apparent after admitting the ultimate freedom of all people, free will to make significant decisions, is afflicted by a multitude of bondage-inducing interferences. Personal freedom is simultaneously inviolate and continually buffeted. The most extreme case is addiction, in which someone faces pains of withdrawal that would stoop just short of making the decision for him or her. The least extreme case is a whim or hunch, which vanish when brushed aside or not acted upon.

It's singularly foolish (or, if you prefer, supremely bold) to try to live consistently without recognizing and manipulating the extent of the opposing forces. The person who seriously wants to pursue a goal should observe the interconnectedness of decisions. One shaky, not even arguably evil, decision can lead to a situation that presents a genuine good-and-evil dilemma. Christianity admonishes people to flee temptation. Some of the "hard", "unreasonable" stances some Christians assume on certain activities may be due to the attempt to preemptively avoid opportunities to sin. Naturally, those Christians who can honestly, before God and self, claim total mastery/freedom over the related temptation(s), don't need to do so. To put this into non-Christian terms, a dieter shouldn't be surrounded by no-no foods, and a recovering alcoholic shouldn't be surrounded by problem drinkers. Willpower, especially supplemented by the Holy Spirit, is great, but hardly infallible. When it's weak from lack of practice or has a dismal record in one specific area, it shouldn't be counted on.

Freedom through restriction is beneficial for preventing tough settings, but it is a still more important weapon for breaking shackles that can't be outran: the inner life, with its lusts and compulsions. Many of these desires and drives are natural, and when exercised in the proper outlets could be considered neutral or holy. Once redirected into perversions or overindulged, however, the quality of innocence is gone: all that's left is a clinging urge to do wrong. At that point, someone is at civil war within him- or herself. The situation is serious. For Christians, who believe entanglement in sin produces spiritual death, the situation is literally deadly. Seeking out God, support of others, a renewed commitment to directing the impulse properly, and thoughtful contemplation/refocusing in the midst of the struggle will all be helpful.

Freedom through restriction is a more drastic technique. It entails foregoing not only unlawful gratification, but also lawful gratification, within well-defined limits. By doing this, greater control and strength are asserted. Power is restored to the person's soul, as the very fuel and habit of the specific lust is denied. Failure in carrying out the rule of restriction is treated similar to an actual sin, though not bearing the same weight of guilt: confession, pondering on the failure's root, and repentance. The goal is to train oneself to rely more fully on God during the time of restriction, and to put the problem into adjusted perspective. Interestingly, restricting the action of one inner weakness can lead to increased freedom from other inner weaknesses too. This is one explanation for the importance many Christians have placed on fasting, whether during Lent or in more frequent intervals.

As mentioned earlier, Christianity is not alone in its use of the "restriction is freedom" worldview fragment. Self-denial as a means to self-control is widely applicable. Although it may seem ridiculous in a culture whose attention is riveted on pursuit of pleasure (no matter the time or place of that culture), it in fact makes a lot of good sense.

Thursday, October 4, 2007

truth sources

Truth can come from many different sources. One group of sources, here to be referred to as "personal", is connected to oneself. This group includes personal experience, reason, intuition, and so forth. Other sources clearly fall into another group, here to be referred to as "extrapersonal", which is truth sources outside oneself. Individual truths from any of the sources in either group is potentially suspect. So is each truth source as a whole. However, speaking in general, the personal truth sources are less questionable than the extrapersonal truth sources.

The point is, someone else, who says one truth is "supported by the evidence" and that a second truth is "unsupported by any evidence", is an extrapersonal truth source to the listener. Moreover, the speaker is probably referring to one of his or her own extrapersonal truth sources, who in turn were referring to yet other extrapersonal truth sources, etc. This mesh of extrapersonal truth sources all referring to and trusting one another, here to be referred to as a "hive", has a more complicated value compared to other truth sources. Is a hive of five people referring to mere extrapersonal truth sources more trustworthy than one person who refers to a personal truth source? What if the one person's personal truth source is likely biased?

Someone in a hive may vehemently state a truth because it comes from the hive. He or she may also speak of evidence, when the "evidence" is purely extrapersonal yet reinforced by the hive--a refined version of hearsay and rumor. "Look at our hive. We all think the same way about this topic. If you disagree, you're ignoring the evidence, which is attested to by everyone in the hive." "Evidence" which came from some other source, which was passed on from some other source, which was passed on from other source, etc., is hive thinking masquerading as a personal truth source. Regard it as such.

"why a Holy God?"

Objections to Christianity (and similar belief systems) fall into two broad categories: objections against the existence of God, and objections against a particular conception of God. One of the objections in the second category, roughly summarized as "why a Holy God?", has many expressions. "Why would the master and creator of the universe care about what tiny humans do?" "How likely is it that an all-powerful, all-knowing Force is constrained by merely human morality?" "What does matter matter to an eternal Spirit?"

Any answers to this objection will probably be insufficient to convince the objector, especially one who doesn't believe in God at all. Nevertheless, the Christian has some reasons to remain unfazed by it.
  • Given that God is all-knowing, all-seeing, etc., is it really any more unbelievable that God is intimately aware of all aspects of creation? When someone can lift twenty pounds, what's questionable about positing that same person's ability to lift ten pounds? Ultimate awareness is ultimate awareness. Magnificence in the large includes, not precludes, interaction in the small. Put another way: assuming God can care about anything in the universe, why can't it be true that God cares about everything? God's plans may operate on the grandest scale, yet those plans can have roles for the tiniest participants.
  • Given that God is the creator of the universe, the more surprising outcome would be not caring about his creation. Is it more reasonable to suppose that God went "through the bother" of all that creating without actually caring about the result, or that affection for the creation motivated the act? It's certainly possible to think of God as winding up the universe like a timepiece, then leaving it alone to proceed without any further attention (smart people have really thought this). But if God is sentient and has somewhat comparable motivations to human creators, clearly God wanted the universe to happen--God had a strong interest in it dating from its inception. That interest probably continues.
  • The idea of a hard separation between the natural and the supernatural may not be well-supported by Christianity. Miracles presume that the supernatural can work in and with the natural. Sanctification is another recurrent indication. How can the notion of holy objects like a temple, an ark of the covenant, and so on be reconciled to a gap between God and creation? Saying that God's holiness, if it exists, has nothing to do with the universe, ignores or conflicts with the Christian accounts of how the supernatural hallows the natural. Assuming that a divide from the supernatural implies a divide from holiness also may be equating all supernatural beings with holiness, which is again not well-supported by Christianity's picture of the real demonic.
  • Moreover, the distinction between matter and spirit hits closer to "home" in the concept of the human soul. The body and soul must have some connection for the soul to matter; how can the seat of free will even be the seat of free will if it has no effect on the movements of the body? Just as the soul can interact with the body, so can God interact with the universe.
  • The seeming arbitrariness of the ultimate, divine God working according to the same morality as people is less stark after considering two points central to normal Christian doctrine. First, human morality's source is divine morality. God is good not only because that's God's nature, but also because the human concept of good originates from God. God acts justly not only because that's God's nature, but also because the human concept of justice originates from God. God shows mercy not only because that's God's nature, but also because the human concept of mercy originates from God. Second, human beings have been created in the "image" of God. Exactly what this refers to is mysterious. However, one of the common interpretations is that God created humans to have minds and souls that reflect (to a small degree) God's mind, and to share some of the same motivations and moral concerns. Humans were for fellowship with God. The point is that God doesn't resemble us through us imagining God; we resemble God through God purposefully creating us to do so.
  • The objection against a holy God derives some of its vigor from the perception that attributing human-directed holiness to God is like placing constraints on the one entity which should have none. This perception is too hasty. God's concern for the world doesn't eliminate the possibility of concern for the universe, or other worlds. In the same way, God's concern for humanity doesn't eliminate the possibility of concern for other creatures, or the world itself. We have the moral laws for people, since God has communicated to us. Laws and holiness for others may exist, too (angels, etc.?), but we don't need those. God's holiness has been shown and demonstrated to us, and God is not reduced.
  • A final reason, maybe the most important, why Christians think God cares about the actions of individual people, is (almost laughably) simple: God loves. Part of love is desiring that the beloved excels. Another part of love is desiring the beloved's safety and happiness. One narrow definition of holiness is functioning as it should. The intent of human holiness is to produce the outcomes planned for humanity in the beginning. Love and holiness are linked in God. God desires to impart this combination to people, for the benefit of all.

Friday, September 28, 2007

responsibility, innate goodness, and influences

Someone's opinion of who bears the Burden of Responsibility is a telling indicator of his or her outlook on life. When a person's moral Quality is deficient and therefore leads to deplorable actions, who should receive the ultimate blame? Should it be the person, or the way the person was nurtured? Should it be the person, or the irresistible compulsions within that person? Should it be the person, or the horrible situation thrust onto that person such that he or she had no other practical course? If more moderately apportioning blame in pieces, then where should the greatest piece of blame be placed? In short, is the person performing the action obligated or not to take responsibility, because of the influences that affect that person?

Clearly, Christianity and many other common belief systems that believe in divine judgment strongly lean toward the personal responsibility camp. (Divine mercy is also important, but the need for mercy emphasizes rather than minimizes the gravity of the judgment.) Maintaining the concept of ultimate personal responsibility is less common for secular belief systems that don't strictly believe in the objective existence of Good with a capital G or Judgment with a capital J. Secular belief systems have a deeper difficulty, too, which stems from not believing in the mere possibility of transcendent human identity, consciousness, and decisions. If humans are nothing more than materials, fundamentally speaking, then "making choices" is no more than a class of physical phenomena. Separating out "human choice" from the influences on that choice is as futile in the secular point of view as attempting to separate out the path of a terrestrial projectile from the influence of the world's gravity! Thus, the inherent difficulty of obtaining the necessary data and theories is the only barrier to creating a "moral calculus" that can compute what someone's decisions will be from the state of the matter that makes up him or her. The decision's influences are the decision.

Given that a completely secular point of view leads to that conclusion, then it's also apparent that the secular point of view has no basis for the notion of "innate" universal human morality. When a self-admitted, completely secular person tries to assert that people are "basically good", his or her perspective constrains that assertion to really mean any of several possibilities:
  • People are basically good because people are basically raised to be good, perhaps through a process of "society evolution" in which societies that don't instill "basic goodness" self-destruct or are crowded out by prosperous societies that do. This is the "nurture" way to believe in secular basic goodness.
  • People are basically good because of the usual genetic evolution. That is, people whose genes don't include "basic goodness" self-destruct (not producing offspring) or are crowded out by people whose genes do. This is the "nature" way to believe in secular basic goodness.
  • People are basically good because over time, as people mature, they discover that "basic goodness" is the most economic, cost-effective way to achieve their desires when interacting with others. This is the "economic" or "game theory" way to believe in secular basic goodness.
Those possibilities are by no means self-evidently true or supported by most of the actual historical evidence of humanity. Someone who wants to exclude supernatural reality but still believe people are "inherently good" is ignorant, misinformed, or deluded (I'm not too hesitant to apply those terms when they don't hesitate to apply those terms to me). As pieces of matter, people can only be neutral, or be good in the same fashion that rocks or bears can be good. The question of what characterizes a "blank slate" tabula rasa person is close to meaningless in a secular context. In the Christian context, the innate soul of a person mirrors God's capabilities of rationality and morality, is always free to choose regardless of material influences, but is prone to an evil elevation of itself.

Friday, September 21, 2007

"my reality is more real than yours"

In the spirit of the entry about reality disagreements, permit me to provide the service of reminding everybody that claiming a belief system's level of correctness based on its level of "reality" is talking in circles. One's belief system is an important factor in what one's overall concept of reality is.

Someone can't prove a set of propositions, like the content of a belief system, to be true without: 1) assuming the truth of one or more statements in the set (known as axioms), or 2) building on a true statement independent from and external to the set. The nature of reality is part of a belief system. Using a belief system's notion of ultimate reality to try to prove that belief system is ridiculous! It's comparable to a Christian claiming God exists because the Bible proves it (since the Bible's authority is grounded in God's existence, its authority can't logically prove God's existence on its own).

The next time someone says "reality has a ____ bias", ignore it for the snide hooey it is.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

real disagreements about real things

Statements that correspond to reality are true, and statements that don't are false. I suppose most people would agree. Truth is objective.

Hence, who has more respect for truth: someone who acknowledges, perhaps even embraces, that disagreements about the truth imply that someone is wrong, or someone who would rather believe in a fluid and subjective "truth" for the magical result that everybody disagrees but nobody is wrong? When our irreconcilable ideas conflict, yet remain simultaneously true, the "truth" of those ideas means something entirely different than "corresponding to reality". And the consequence is our ideas being neither right nor wrong. What is the value of being "right" about the truth, while the opposite "wrong" ideas are also true?

A common objection is that "spiritual" truth is different in quality from "material" truth, so various spiritual "perspectives" can be right; this is the "all ways lead to God" mentality. It works in the abstract. Just picture the Higher Power as having diverse manifestations and every person having the inborn capability to connect to that Higher Power with diverse techniques. Unfortunately, it falls apart almost immediately when the "ways" and the "God" (gods?) are substituted with much different definitions by different people, such that it's nonsensical to keep thinking everybody's talking about the same stuff. If one person's god is named Larry, and the way to please Larry is to live soberly, but another person's god is named Curly, and the way to please Curly is to engage in revelry, how ridiculous is it to say that 1) either way will please either god, or merely 2) Larry and the Curly are the same god? (Don't even consider the savage god Moe who's pleased by the harming of infidels!) "Spiritual" truth must be similar to "material" truth in order for "truth" to have a consistent basis. Christianity opponents use an eerie echo of this same argument when they state that the content of Christianity (and, to be fair, every other religion) should be subject to scientific methods. They say that Christianity has no scientific proof. They and the Christians are alike in saying that Truth is Truth. Christians simply believe in a broader range of sources of Truth.

Alternatively, someone can compromise and harmonize spiritual disagreements by diplomatically asserting that everyone is partially right. Unfortunately, this too falls apart as soon as someone asks the follow-up question, "partially right about what?" Partially right indicates the state of being an approximation of reality. Isn't this meaningless unless the reality is known? Someone can't approximate what doesn't exist, and someone surely can't approximate anything at all without acknowledging the approximation to possibly be very weak. The point is, to say that everyone is partially right is to conceive a right ideal which partially matches what everyone thinks. That right ideal is the definitive truth, so we are back to saying that Truth is something in particular.

Don't minimize disagreements by pretending the disagreements don't exist or don't matter. Disagreements don't arise by accident, and each of the disagreeing parties has a stake in being right. To pretend otherwise is as presumptuous or arbitrary as those in the disagreement.

Saturday, September 15, 2007

a musical contradiction

Regardless of genre specifics, musical forms have long been criticized for being inherently unacceptable or at least unsuitable. For just as long, the defenders of each musical form have had a defense: notes, beats, chords, and instruments have no inherent meaning. In short, musical forms should be evaluated and enjoyed apart from lyrics, content, and context.

So be it. However, if someone uses that defense for a musical form, isn't it contradictory to then show automatic disdain for "Christian-ized" works in that musical form? If your musical form is really innocent fun because lyrics, content, and context don't matter, how can Christian lyrics or content or context change your opinion of a work in that musical form?

You can't have it both ways. Either your musical style is blameless and harmless because factors extraneous to the music are irrelevant, or Christians performing your musical style are patently ridiculous because the actual music is only a part of the total musical experience. Choose.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Worldview Fragment: middling morality

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The entry on False Amorality made the point that almost everyone has some morality, no matter how slight, exotic, or implicit. This statement will be met with zero shock both by practicing Christians and by anyone who vocally supports opposite ideas. However, it will be ignored or puzzled-over by the swath of people who see themselves not only as separate from the Christian or anti-Christian sides, but separate from any and all "inflexible, simplistic, dogmatic" sides. That is if they can be prevailed upon to (care enough to) express an opinion at all. They may "beg the question morally" when faced with a decision, refusing to trouble themselves with the underlying principles. When pressed, they will appeal to no moral authority beyond common-sense and personal conscience, or just say that everyone in the world should be respectful and nice to each other.

"Respectful" and "nice" are altogether worthier virtues than usually acknowledged, but even the actions and attitudes that these two entail aren't the same to all people. Is being "nice" just not hurting others intentionally, or is it actively helping them? What precise degree of sacrifice, whether time or money or effort, does "nice" demarcate? Similar questions plague "respectful". Is it respectful to always be formal until given permission otherwise, or to be informal and transparent so others feel welcome and at ease? How respectful must one be to one's opponents, and how should it be expressed? Moreover, how does one answer the charge of subcultures and counter-cultures, that insincere niceness and respectfulness are phony, even hypocritical?

"Common-sense" morality generally avoids extremes, because common-sense refers to the knowledge people have learned out of habitual exposure to everyday life and society. Unless someone has been habitually exposed to extreme morality, naturally they won't include it in common-sense. But it's also true that the common-sense morality absorbed by a spoiled rich person probably differs from the common-sense morality absorbed by a middle-class person, and both probably differ from the common-sense morality absorbed by a desperately-poor person. Common-sense morality varies by culture too. Each culture has its own moral blindnesses.

In the same way, an individual's common-sense will contain contradictory moral concepts as a result of the many shades of experiences which have shaped the individual over time. The opposite influences will press him or her to approach a tipsy middle ground of morality, a middling morality. This middle ground is characterized by someone believing in something, but only under certain conditions. The conditions enable him or her to simultaneously pick up moral notions from drastically different perspectives yet expect to combine them.

Middling morality is the expected outcome of someone drifting through a sea of ideas but clinging to none in the attempt to be "balanced" and "good enough". The prevalence of middling morality is in large part also what makes its content feel acceptable--just don't rock the boat, and everyone will get along swimmingly. Middling morality's top goal is to lead its practitioner down the road of greatest comfort. To determine what important causes to work on, what social ills to remedy, all one must do is select the ones that are most highly publicized and trendy. The point at which to apply the brakes to doing good is the point of great inconvenience or discomfort. Then ward off guilt by saying that "extreme" goodness is for the "saints" of the world (those freaks!). Similar tactics hold for fun activities: only weirdos would try to fool themselves into thinking through the wisdom of an activity instead of the pleasure it elicits. Doubly so for "immoral" activities that don't hurt anyone.

People who live by middling morality are fond of using hypocrisy as a shield against anyone who has professed a real commitment to living morally. "You say you're living a Good Life? What about this human shortcoming? Looks like it'd be more honest if you lived like me." In actuality, this charge of hypocrisy is empty, because it isn't backed by more than a cardboard cutout of moral superiority. It's better to set a high standard and fail, then to take the approach of middling morality, in which sincere goodness isn't even claimed and attempted. Middling morality is ordinary. It's prone to fads. It barely affects the world (or planet, if you prefer) at all because no deep sacrifice is involved. Middling morality's goodness, as well as its badness, is the true phony. Charges of hypocrisy are laughable from someone who plays at morality.

Monday, September 10, 2007

going backward to religious intolerance

Here's an outline of some of the "debates" I've read online about the worth of religion:
  • Ha! Religion! Bash bash!
  • Er...we would prefer if you didn't compulsively beat up on religion based on the slightest provocation.
  • You religious people keep complaining about sensitivity for your "sacred" fairy tales! How dare you even make a sincere attempt to defend yourselves! I wish the whole lot of you were wiped out! [expletive, expletive]
I'm mystified by the logic behind replacing "intolerant" religions with intolerance for religion. Nor do I comprehend how someone else's vehement hate toward me is expected to convince me that his or her belief system is kinder than mine.

There were times in the past (actually, in the present, too, depending on location) when official belief systems were not only mandated but also strenuously enforced. It was known as religious persecution. Societies chose to pioneer new lands rather than endure it. Needless to say, religious persecution hasn't succeeded.

Now we don't persecute people on account of their belief systems, and all are expected to coexist as harmoniously as they can. This is known as religious freedom, in which unity and tolerance are important values. A "progressive" who advocates the extinction of religious belief systems is a "regressive".

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

False Amorality

Pro-Christian people and anti-Christian people have common ground, despite protests to the contrary. They both have the distinction of caring at all about the topic. They both have important rallying points. They both have persuasive leaders and throngs of followers. They both must tussle with life's trials, whether physical, monetary, emotional, or relational. Most obviously, they're both human.

Not nearly as obviously, they hold some of the same beliefs about each other! A perennial example of this is the charge of "amorality", the belief that the other group has no (valid) morality. Having no morality is different from being immoral. An immoral person may be aware he or she has violated a moral, while an amoral person goes one step further by not acknowledging a moral's very existence or rationale. Amoral people are convincing bogeymen because they dare to deny the moral fabric that helps define one's understanding of personal and social reality.

Although someone who holds to a relatively looser morality may be prone to suspicions of amorality as defined above, someone with a relatively stricter morality also is. The amorality just operates in the opposite way. If someone can be amoral by ignoring moral codes out of disrespect for sensible principles, why can't someone be amoral by adding moral codes out of respect for nonsensical principles? To the atheist, theistic morality has no basis, so anyone who practices a theistic morality has no true morals. From the atheist's perspective, religious people are "amoral" and inspire the corresponding level of queasiness. An atheist may express this queasiness through a statement like "religious fundamentalists can't be reasoned with". Of course, "reasoned with" in this case may really mean "converted to my belief system" and the concept of "reason" may really be "reductionism", but this language confusion merely reiterates that the "amoral" chasm runs along fundamental lines.

Regardless of whose viewpoint the accusation of amorality (in the broadly-inclusive sense described here) comes from, clearly the accusation reinforces rather than bridges rifts between the accuser and the accused, who sincerely believe in one or the other. After all, if I state that you have no morality (likely in unflattering terms), or that your morality is worthless (again, likely in quite unflattering terms), we have nothing productive left to say on moral topics. Discussions about morality only apply to moral agents. Debates don't go anywhere if one or more debaters refuse to concede any points advanced by others, or even bother to listen. An assertion of amorality is a method to rebuff conversation.

Fortunately for people who want to keep a dialog open, perceived amorality is false more often than not. The distinction between real and false amorality can be subtle to spot, for anyone who hasn't tried:
  • Self-deception is more durable than steel. When a person loudly denounces any fixed standard of morality, the proclamation will be contradicted a few minutes later--as soon as that person is the victim of an immoral act. The selfish and/or manipulative will pull a con and refer to it as the shameful consequence of the sucker's foolishness, but will change their tune after the spoils are "unfairly" stolen by a double-crosser. Morality is present in people's beliefs no matter how they hide from it, and also no matter what they say to the contrary.
  • Another entirely unsurprising (to Christians) indication of the falsity of amorality is what happens in practice when people purposely choose to live by it. (The paradox of making a rule to not live by the rules shall be passed over.) Those who choose amorality tend to have trouble not "accidentally" running into the need for morality later. A household with no rules about chores except "if you see something that needs doing, do it" sounds deliciously laid-back. Depending on the level of commitment to community and the spiritual maturity of the household members, perhaps a set of monks, it might even work. For less disciplined and caring people, it might work temporarily. Isn't it incredibly naive to imagine that a household randomly picked out of a street would function this way for a significant length of time? The lazy would be lazy, the industrious would be industrious, the controlling would be controlling, the pushed-around would be pushed around. Morality isn't arbitrary. It's how human behavior works. Taking a more important example, couples who live together like husband and wife, yet eschew "outdated" marriage out of lust for independence, will find their own feelings betraying the depth of the bond. Part of the need for a marriage-level of commitment is to prevent the emotional, financial, and familial pain caused by either party tearing apart the relationship at will.
  • The danger of exposing someone to a differing morality or (sub)culture is the ease of mistaking, without any maliciousness, radically strange morality for amorality. Modesty is a prime example. Just because the customary clothing of a society covers up more or less than one's own doesn't imply the society has no concept of modesty. In any case, the problem in dressing provocatively is the sins of thought and action it incites, not the specific amount of the body it displays. Or consider swearing. It's only natural to assume that someone who casually swears about everything has no morality about what he or she says. He or she may have picked up the habit of swearing to attempt to convey that very impression, in order to seem threatening or free of scruples. But assuming amoral language use wouldn't necessarily be correct. The continually swearing person possibly could be very careful to not insult the weak, for instance. He or she could be the type who, in spite of saying that people should talk however they want, would without hesitation take offense at certain abominable statements. Swearing can demonstrate an appalling lack of respect for God and humanity; it must not be condoned. However, swearing is not an infallible mark of actual verbal amorality.
Amorality is not a helpful label to apply to people. It's not productive for reconciliation. It's not accurate, most of the time. In the Christian mindset, it's inconsistent with the universal love Christ preached and gave. He didn't damn people for knowing not what they did. He connected with them at their needs, at a point they understood, thereby enabling them to realize the worth of Him and what He offered. Then He told them to 1) repent, 2) follow Him. An "amoral" person may be more ready to hear the truth than the description would suggest.

Sunday, July 29, 2007

materialism summed up

Here's a perspective on materialism I once heard.

Material objects are dead. This means people who demonstrate love and devotion to material objects are loving dead things!

Now that is sick.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Worldview Fragment: just be yourself

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The "just be yourself" worldview fragment is defined as the belief that "each unique individual can have no greater ambition than to be and do what comes most naturally to him or her". Like other fragments, it's correct about some things but is not an example of unqualified truth.

Each individual is precious and rare, is worthy of a chance, and has a distinct set of talents. Christianity contradicts none of those assertions. Jesus mixed with all layers of society, particularly the "worthless scum". The complete non-exclusivity of the Gospel (subject to academic arguments about "predestined elect", but leave that aside for the moment) is implicit in the idea of the Great Commission, confirmed by events/councils in Acts, and preceded by Jesus' merciful interactions with Gentiles. The wide range of spiritual fruits and virtues, along with the Bible passages about the importance of unity among the diversity of the Body of Christ (the Church), illustrate the value of what only each individual can bring to the whole.

On the other hand, Christianity without earnest repentance and sincere shame for sin is not Christianity. Loving oneself, and everything about oneself, is a questionable ideal which is actually loathed in practice. Who hasn't wished for vain, arrogant snobs to receive their comeuppance? How often is someone blinded to his or her own weaknesses by blind self-love? The greatest tragedy is when someone closely identifies with his or her sin, thereby loving it like a body part or "pet".

Of course, he or she is somewhat right in that belief, since Christianity teaches that sin is natural for people. Someone who sins "naturally" still sins. A "natural" sin may be committed with relatively purer intentions than a "premeditated and consciously-chosen" sin, but the act remains the sick product of a sick being. Moreover, the more "natural" sins someone commits, the greater the evidence someone is naturally twisted. In short, to "just be yourself" when faced with a decision may not be an innocent proposition (although it may be).

Not "just being yourself" when faced with a decision could seem ridiculous to those who believe in a companion worldview fragment, "people can't change". And once again, even such a minor fragment is partially helpful and partially misleading. It's more accurate to claim "people can change, but change is hard". Many fail to change simply because they don't try enough. Then they succeed for a while, but don't sustain the change because they fail to be vigilant against the forces (within and without) that originally kept the old self/behavior so consistent. Drastic, lasting change is an easy dream but a hard endeavor. The Good News, for the Christian who really is trying, is the forgiveness offered to the confessor--forgiveness not granted in order for the sinner to sin again but granted in order for the contrite to begin anew (again).

Yet another objection arises. If Christians are trying so hard to change themselves into a group that acts uniformly, thinks uniformly, feels uniformly, then won't the result be a boring, homogenized mass of lukewarm mush? It's an honest question with several answers. For one thing, the parts of themselves that people leave behind aren't any good. Any good qualities of those parts stick around, in greater purity, due to not being weighed-down or held-back by dross. As all the members learn how to live harmoniously, they're enabled to form a stronger, better-functioning society, a society in which everyone can "be themselves" without worry because it is safe and caring. Perhaps the best response to the charge of boring uniformity is the irresistible uniqueness etched into a soul. One person can't be hammered and shaped into another, or at least not by breaking one of them. All are imperfect; when made perfect, perfection will shine in a specialized, finite way through any one of them.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Worldview Fragment: life without rules

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The "life without rules" worldview fragment can be summarized, if not concisely, as follows: "Living according to a set of rules or customs only produces an elaborate fantasy existence in which real humanity is all but absent." Some punchier statements in the same vein are: "rules are meant to be broken", "show me a rule and I'll show you a hypocrite", "have fun by ignoring the rules for once", "rules are for tools or dupes", "might makes right", "rules are dead so following them makes one dead".

Here are first some positive aspects to this worldview fragment:
  • Life is complicated. Rules will necessarily be insufficient to cover all situations. Therefore, it's beneficial to realize that rules are not enough, but principles nevertheless enable one to confront new decisions. This is unavoidably true within Christianity. The Bible is old. It was originally written to people who lived much differently than those in the present. Christians who attempt to live out every exact word of the Bible, while having good intentions, are in my opinion taking on the unneeded burden of preserving a nonexistent past (a past with its own set of downsides). Rules are limited, so rules aren't everything.
  • A central Christian doctrine is the human inability to be holy apart from God. Rules come after salvation. Once again, mere rules aren't sufficient. In fact, in Jesus' teaching He replaced the rules regulating actions with still-harder rules regulating attitudes and thoughts! By this He acknowledged the insufficiency of (those) rules.
  • Speaking frankly, some rules truly are pointless and ridiculous. Judging objectively whether a rule has a good reason, as well as when an exception is called for, is a mark of maturity. Notice that saying "Rule 4c is not applicable right now because of _____" is still far different from saying "Rule 4c is never applicable because rules are never applicable".
As usual, the principal problem of this worldview fragment lies in how it has been applied, as expressed in the set of related statements above. It is prone to spreading certain inaccuracies:
  • To be generally dismissive toward rules is to misunderstand the general purpose of rules, which is enhancing life. When someone knows that a particular action is dangerous or at the very least has undesirable consequences, the ethical response is to create a rule forbidding it. On the other hand, if a particular action leads to a greater good, the ethical response is to create a rule mandating it. Serving customers in the order of arrival is a good rule to promote timely, fair service all around. An alternative, such as serving whichever customer successfully tackles the others to the floor, would not be as good.
  • Rules may feel like the enemy of passion or desire, because rules can stifle. The error is in not acknowledging the value of this stifling effect in producing personal freedom. Freedom is choosing what will be, so someone who always listens to desire isn't as free as he or she may claim. Merely consenting to desire at every turn is a subtle bondage in which desire is one's master. Christians (and other myriad belief systems) have recommended the discipline of fasting as a great aid in this context. Although I don't think fasting regularly is necessary, I trust those who report that fasting is invaluable from time to time.
  • Moderation's "dirty little secret" is how it can increase enjoyment of desire. Indulgence without moderation sooner or later is self-defeating. Addicts of any stripe know this intimately. As movie critics point out, there is nothing as tedious as nonstop action. A little modesty goes a long way. Binges can dull experience and also fatigue the person who's binging. To take a common example, consider fire. Fire is a powerful tool for light and warmth. Too much (uncontrolled) fire is a tool for destruction.
  • The saddest element of this worldview fragment is the tendency for its disregard for rules to ripple into a disrespect for the mental faculties connected with rules. That is, someone who subscribes to the "rules are a prison" belief is more likely to elevate the importance of his or her "gut" over rational judgment. Does anyone doubt what disasters could result? For some decisions, the difference may not matter much. Yet the compulsive rule-breaker, whose insistence on "living free by shooting from the hip" leads him or her to throw caution away, sooner or later may discover the harshness of some of reality's rules. Risks are part of life, but stupid risks should not be. Some personalities naturally err on the side of overconfidence, while some naturally err on the side of fearfulness. Neither error is worse than the other, although people with a dramatic flair will insist that taking stupid risks is better than taking no risks.
The thrill people experience from ignoring rules is really the thrill of living dangerously. "Look at me! I'm disobeying a rule. I wonder what could happen?" The thrill people experience from living "outside the lines" is really the thrill of being cut off from meaning, purpose, authority, and responsibility. This thrill speaks to the human ambition to be "like God", to be beyond good and evil. Unfortunately, it also happens to be absurd. God isn't beyond good and evil either. Moreover, life is dangerously thrilling on its own. All one must do is seek it out. The true "elaborate fantasy existence" consists of smashing or ignoring rules in order to pretend the Good needs the Bad to be interesting.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Worldview Fragment: All you need is love

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The worldview fragment I have named "all you need is love" could be precisely summed up as "affection, compassion, appreciation, and goodwill are sufficient to achieve lasting utopia". Who could argue with this? What past recipient of such kind feelings would doubt their effectiveness? How many people have been transformed thereby?

Let me state immediately that love is a huge part of Christianity, too, although as I (I'm an analytical male, by the way) understand it, Christian love is less about feelings than about action: love is expressed by doing what is best for the object. I have the impression that love is the lifeblood, the heart-and-soul of Christian life. As the Bible reiterates, love is the most important and desireable quality or virtue one should pursue, but love in this sense is much more than a feeling. The array of possible meanings denoted by love can make communication tricky, which is why I grasped about for four alternative words to use in the definition in the previous paragraph. For convenience I will use the acronym ACAG to reference those words, affection, compassion, appreciation, goodwill.

All that having been said, the worldview fragment "all you need is love", as defined above, is incorrect:
  • One difficulty is that ACAG are simply not constants. When someone who is close, whether emotionally or even just physically, lashes out for the flimsiest reason(s), ACAG tend to evaporate. In those moments, self-control and a determination to preserve the relationship's peace--not ACAG--must act as substitutes.
  • Other problems can arise when ACAG are directed more strongly at one party than another, because a bias or preference is the natural result. If an argument or other need for mediation occurs, neutrality won't be present out of ACAG (if both claim to be the "victim", isn't it hard not to side with whichever party "deserves" more consideration or has "earned" more sympathy?). An obvious retort is that ACAG must be directed at all people equally to be any good, but the honest shall readily confess to feeling more benevolent toward the victim of an unprovoked attack than toward the aggressor, to purposely take an extreme example.
  • Wise folks have observed the close connection between the emotions of love and hate. (The opposite of love is not hate but indifference.) Love and hate have similar physical manifestations, can turn into each other with alarming ease, etc. Lovers turning into angry maniacs is one of the most prevalent ways of creating drama in any medium. In a love triangle, "love" may be the sole cause of the hostility ("betrayed by my best friend and my girl!"). The point is that the two A's of ACAG, affection and appreciation, when left unrestrained, can transmute into the most awful of passions.
  • On what could be thought of as the other end of the spectrum, mere ACAG are not much help in the endless examples of the minute details of existence. Newlyweds will discover this quite soon after the wedding, if not during the wedding's planning stage. For instance, what US state will one live in? Someone can't be in two distinct places simultaneously, no matter how much ACAG someone has. Take a smaller example. What color should a wall be? Assuming that a combination of colors on the same wall is not a possibility (probably due to being too garish), the wall can only be one or the other, regardless of how much ACAG someone has. Tragically speaking, if "all you need is love", more marriages would last longer.
ACAG are great, in Christians or anyone else. However, Christianity is more than ACAG and the associated Christmas carols. It has to be, if it claims to be a workable solution to the Human Condition, and if it claims to have a (feasible) heaven. A Christian whose Christianity does not go beyond ACAG should really drop his or her pretense to the label--if ACAG was all Jesus had to carry out to save the world, why did He bother with that business about repentance and the cross?

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Grand Self-Deception

Any belief system is subject to charges of hypocrisy, a disagreement between proscribed and actual behavior, but regardless of its widespread press it's no more than one of the many breeds of deception and self-deception. Just as I've read that courage is the foundation for a good deed, self-deception may be the foundation for bad deeds. Self-deception enables typically-well-intentioned people to perpetrate evil without admitting or confessing it (to themselves, anyway). More importantly, entire groups of people can undergo self-deception at once. In fact, I am beginning to wonder if self-deception on a grand level operates as the duct-tape, buttress, or girder--perhaps even the mainspring--for society and culture. In the following I'm not writing from an exclusively Christian perspective but attempting to express a range of values.
  • Consider the concept of sexiness, which is a goal for fashion and dance and media. The very word contains its real meaning, "sex". And sexiness is a positive quality, correct? After all, we're just animals, so refusing to embrace sexiness without restriction would be unhealthy and prudish! But wait--being perceived or treated as a "sex object" is definitely not positive, correct? History and past customs have shown how awful it was when people were reduced to the state of functioning as objects, so we're proud to have advanced past that point. Aren't we? Self-deception is the rescue from this dilemma. Self-deception enables us to pretend that sexiness has nothing to do with sex. The trick is to be provocative without thinking too hard about what is being provoked, see?
  • Consider the concept of spirituality. Through spirituality people can reach a deeper level of existence. They can transcend. They can find the god within. They can communicate beyond the grave or use sixth senses. This is much better than those busybodies who rush around focusing on just what they can directly sense, correct? But wait--science and technology have taught us to toss out superstitions. Gods are human inventions that function as crutches for the weak-minded or weak-spirited. The supernatural is for the gullible, correct? Isn't it? Self-deception is the rescue from this dilemma. Self-deception enables us to pretend that spirituality has nothing to do with the superstitious supernatural. The trick is to be spiritual without thinking too hard about spirits, see?
  • Consider the concept of personal freedom. Each person does all the harmless things he or she wants, without worry of oppression from others. Moreover, each person can pursue happiness as he or she wishes, and believe whatever world narrative he or she likes. The public should give the private free rein, correct? But wait--certain goals can only be reached as people work together. Democratic government doesn't reflect the will of the people unless the people put in effort. Some individuals are powerless to care for themselves. All economic transactions require more than one participant. Someone's personal life interferes with his or her ability to work. Duty and responsibility are what separate a functioning social system from anarchy, correct? Activities people must do? Self-deception is the rescue from this dilemma. Self-deception enables us to pretend that personal freedom is more important than duty and responsibility. The trick is to do whatever you want because it's your right to do so, but donate leftover resources to meet the minimum demands of duty and responsibility of a "decent" person, see?
  • Consider the concepts of marriage and family. In so many cases, marriage and family end badly. Career offers an upward-progressing path, while marriage is the definition of a relationship that stays the same. Outside marriage, sex is a recreational activity. Inside marriage, sex turns into a monotonous chore. Children hamper someone from achieving his or her goals. The exciting years are before marriage, because marriage is "settling down". It makes no sense for people to be trapped by outdated, traditional norms, correct? But wait--large segments of the market are devoted to products for kids and raising them. On holidays, families gather to spend time together. Some people depend so heavily on family support it borders on exploitation. Without good families, humanity's future is in doubt. Sentimental media extol the preciousness of family. Over time, many single people grow desperately lonely. Marriage and family are extremely significant spurs to personal growth and adulthood, correct? Self-deception is the rescue from this dilemma. Self-deception enables us to pretend that the totally unfettered, single, self-centered person relishing life and career is accomplishing as much as if not more than the married shlubs who are discovering how demanding authentic love is. The trick is to view personal relationships in terms of emotional profit rather than as difficult but incredibly rewarding adventures, see?

Saturday, June 9, 2007

Kirk Cameron

Consider this a comment or plea to the Web at large.

Knock off the Kirk Cameron jokes.

Stop saying he's turned into a nut, or he's been brainwashed, etc. People have beliefs, but not everybody professes the same set. Again, people have beliefs, but not everybody is passionate about their beliefs. Neither the content nor the strength of someone else's beliefs grants you the right to treat him or her with disrespect. Go ahead and disagree with someone; tolerance means you allow that person to believe what they wish. But I would call for a tougher standard than tolerance: no personal attacks, no "you have different beliefs therefore you're somehow mentally-deficient" remarks.

Even speaking in a merely practical sense, which strategy is more likely to bring others around to your point of view: heaping scorn on every other alternative and those who believe in them, or acknowledging the real reasons people believe differently and then showing how your beliefs are a better fit?

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Pursuit of Happiness as Worldview Fragment

This blog's intent is to throw some light onto the fault line(s) between Christianity and current U.S. culture. While the title "Christianity Unbowed" correctly indicates that the blog's focus is on the Christian side of the line(s), I think looking at the other, more fashionable side makes sense from time to time, if only to contrast the Christian side.

Of course, just as the Christian side is really a diverse collection of ideas that happen to share a strong connecting thread, so with the non-Christian side. A non-Christian viewpoint under analysis is therefore more accurately described as a worldview fragment than a definite and explicit worldview. Calling a viewpoint a "fragment" is not a subtle insult but a suitable label for a set of ideas that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. Moreover, since people commonly believe in an implicit set of ideas (living an "unexamined life" and all that), those implicit ideas don't claim to be more than fragments anyway. Also, a set of ideas may be logically or conceptually compatible with any number of complete worldviews, which again points to that set constituting a worldview fragment.

The Pursuit of Happiness is a worldview fragment defined as "the goal of human existence is the pursuit or maximization of happiness". This worldview fragment has undeniable popularity and lack of controversy. In politics in any democracy, the Pursuit of Happiness is an excellent platform to assure some votes, when promising it to at least a majority. On a personal level, nothing could be more natural than seeking pleasure and avoiding pain; animals do it.

Yet the Pursuit of Happiness has an easy application beyond the personal level, too: if the goal is to increase all happiness (of sentients), any personal decision that would lessen someone else's happiness level is wrong. The principle is then "do whatever you like to pursue happiness, on the condition that those actions don't make anyone else unhappy". Therefore the Pursuit of Happiness tells us that the ultimate moral question for a society to ask is whether a personal action hurts anyone; if so, disallow it, if not, ignore it so the personal Pursuit can continue without interference. What could be easier?

I'm not discussing this worldview fragment to discredit it, but to relate it to Christianity. Here are some areas to consider.
  • One needn't read too far into the Bible to realize that the goal of existence is not defined by each person's pursuit of happiness. Rather, the goal of existence is defined by the Creator of existence, who knows what is best. And this goal...
  • ...is not necessarily happiness as people imagine it to be. Paradise was people living in perfect harmony with God, their own natural drives, other people, and their surroundings. Without that paradise of harmony intact to serve as a guide and support, people have proceeded to have an incredible array of erroneous ideas about everything, including what real happiness is. Confessing one's errors is the essence of humility. God is good. One statement I have read is the suggestion that human-defined happiness is in actuality aiming too low.
  • The Bible's ideas about community may seem strange, too. Individualism and independence are highly cherished ideals/rights for protecting citizens from the excesses of government, but we must also acknowledge the collective and dependent nature of humanity. This doesn't stop with the tribes and kingdoms of the Old Testament but continues into the New Testament, when Jesus declares the arrival of the "kingdom of heaven" and the group of Christians takes on the name "Body of Christ". As a result, the boundary line between public and private Christian holiness is blurry. In this context, the notion of my Pursuit of Happiness not affecting someone else's Pursuit of Happiness (for good or bad) is nonsensical.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Agent of Harm?

Of the statements one may hear or read about Christianity or religion, one is almost shocking or laughable in its overgeneralization: "Religion is an agent of harm". I've tried to express the statement in its purest form, because the variations are legion; some say "blight" or "pestilence" or "plague", and not all with the same level of virulence. In some cases, it's even irreverently humorous to hear, when someone more or less switches from saying "all viewpoints should be respected" to saying "I spit on the religious viewpoint" without acknowledgment of any contradiction...

In my opinion, an overgeneralization is hardly worth discussing, because by definition each side has evidence, and the only fallacy is one side ignoring contrary evidence. I'll just cover some evidence on both sides of the overgeneralization. First, some reasons why the simple assertion, "religion is an agent of harm", is not true. Obviously, I'm heavily biased on this side.
  • The opposite statement, "religion is an agent of aid", clearly has some evidence, and since the two statements contradict one another, therefore neither can be absolutely true. Charity is a religious virtue, followed by innumerable believers who continually give. Moreover, principled religious believers have worked to rectify systemic social problems like slavery. To try to say that religion played no part in their beliefs and actions is ridiculous; their own quotes disprove that.
  • Serene happiness requires a sense of purpose. Religion is a common way of meeting that need. Christians might even go so far to say that other ways of obtaining purpose are relatively ineffective and unsatisfying. "Man cannot live on bread alone". In any case, the fact that religion fills a (existential?) void in life is evidence that religion is not all harmful.
  • Stable societies are upheld by their institutions. While I would argue that Christianity is meant to be treated as far more than one of many social institutions (institutions in which people participate just because it's what people do), religion generally has traditionally played an important role in the majority of cultures. Religion is often, if not directly at least indirectly, a basis for ethics, customs, etc. People have a tendency to take religious elements and embellish them (witch-hunting? angels?) like any other cultural artifact, but that again is evidence for the importance of religion in culture. If a society is stable, and religion is (likely) a part of that society, then religion may be serving as a stabilizing force. There is a negative way to view this effect, expressed as "religion is the opium of the people", but that's reality for ya. It transcends categories.
  • A possible companion statement of "religion is an agent of harm" is the somewhat more modest "without religion, on the whole the world would be better off". Here are a few responses. 1) Religion is so entwined into human existence, this speculation borders on meaningless fantasy (try asking "would the world be better off without government?"). 2) Instead of trying to imagine a world without religion, one could calculate religion's "net worth" by tallying and comparing its upsides and downsides. Must it really be said that such an undertaking would be extremely inconclusive, not to mention subjective? I mentioned this when I offered some thoughts on the Crusades. 3) Is the "track record", measured by whatever metrics, of non-religious people uniformly superior to religious people? I don't think so. In fact, the Christian doctrine of human depravity would lead me to believe that religious or not, people can find ways to be desperately wicked. Also, people often say that someone believes in something "like a religion". Is it at all surprising such beliefs would be subject to many of the same objections as religions per se?
Now, some reasons for why "religion is an agent of harm" is true. Someone else would probably be more qualified to fill in this section, but here goes. I can't help myself offering immediate counterarguments to these points, sorry.
  • Among certain personalities in particular, religion can be twisted (some easier than others) into a justification for atrocities. Sadly, the killing of heretics and infidels is well-documented and oft-referenced. The counterargument is that disturbed individuals, who are truly motivated by revenge or delusion or power, would act maliciously with or without a veneer of religious justification. For someone on a rampage, religion's role is dubious in the same way a violent video game's role is dubious.
  • "Religion blinds people to reality" is an argument that is a perennial favorite, especially for the "if I can't experiment on it or measure it, it don't exist!" crowd. And as usual, there is a nugget of truth. Religious people have been known to act irrationally. Yet I fervently affirm irrationality is not a prerequisite of faith. People of faith should act rationally, with faith suppling a larger context for the facts instead of a replacement for the facts. For instance, I don't believe people of faith are obligated to trust someone who has proven to be untrustworthy every time. However, if someone sincerely wishes to repent of his past deeds, showing genuine resolve, I believe people of faith are obligated to offer that person a chance to earn new trust. Consider the difference between optimism and pessimism. The facts are the same, but one's outlook on those same facts is radically different. I agree that it's harmful for religion to blind people to reality, because religion should not be escapist. However, I strongly disagree that faith implies blindness. Those who say they don't believe in religion based on lack of proof also may just be evasive.
  • Intolerance is another popular accusation of damage wrought by religion. Nugget of truth? You betcha. Intolerance is something I dislike too! As I've already said, though, this argument applies to more than religion. Any time someone believes in anything, there is an opportunity to not grant others the same freedom.
  • This last reason is the counterpoint to the second reason for religion not being harmful, sense of purpose. Those who follow their (non)belief systems to the logical conclusion may state that there's no reason for religions. Whether or not it's right, it's a self-consistent position to take. If there is no afterlife, and humans are animals with oversized brains, and abstractions in general are to be valued not as independent but as pragmatic entities, and ethics are created in the same way art is created, and all of existence is a fortunate accident, then religion is rather pointless and wasteful, isn't it? There is no existential void. There is no such thing as purpose; it's a question devoid of concrete meaning. The best thing to do, when such concerns overwhelm, is to lie down until they go away or drown them out with pleasure or pain. If this is reality, if this is all there is, then religion is an agent of harm because it gives answers to nonexistent questions and thereby distracts from real questions, where "real" means "artificial" or "man-made". Ready to believe this?

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Humility

Of all the barriers that can prevent a person from connecting with God, pride is one of the strongest. While pride is as old as the very first person, I seem to see growing acknowledgment and acceptance of personal pride as a normal state for someone to be in. And what I mean by "pride" may not be what you think.

At this point I will digress to address a reaction some people may have, which I've heard before: "Christians lecturing others about pride? That's ridiculous. What group is more arrogant about its own morality, or more vocal about the way other people should behave?" There's a germ of truth in that, no doubt. I agree that even when advising non-believers about moral issues, Christians should not be haughty about it. Rather, they should always keep in mind their own reliance on God's grace, not to mention the clear Biblical assertion that teaching the Law, without teaching redemption through Jesus, "brings death" because a person in his or her natural state will fail to live holy. The Christian mission is not to sort out Us from Them - and then derive satisfaction that God will only protect Us from Hell! That is a perversion of Christianity that also has the tendency to redirect attention to external behavior instead of the internal condition of the soul. (On the other hand, it is not prideful for someone to contribute to a conversation about what is right and wrong as long as it is done in a non-hostile fashion; refer to the Tolerance entry. Pride is viewing oneself as superior, but being without pride does not mean having the lowest common denominator of moral ideals.)

So pride has its own way to smuggle itself into an unwary Christian, and in general nobody is invulnerable from pride. However, particular flavors of pride are becoming steadily more acceptable in the culture around me. Pride is the vice of exalting oneself, especially above God.
  • Intellectual pride. By this I don't mean pride taking place in the intellect, as all real virtues and vices take place holistically (even "passion" sins like lust or anger aren't real vices unless the sinner feels the impulse in the flesh, allows the impulse to adversely affect his mental judgment, and chooses to obey the impulse in his soul or will). Intellectual pride is clinging to the basic belief that knowledge and wisdom have no "God component". Another way of stating this is that the intellectually proud believe that their own faculties are sufficient, apart from God, for arriving at all truth - even if they don't know everything on their own power, they think they could. A result of intellectual pride is the inability to trust the substance of Christian thought. However, I think it's also incorrect for someone to veer into gullibility by deactivating his or her brain! Earnest believers should be thorough in weighing and testing what others say about God, because such matters warrant it. The pride is not in carefully considering what other sources of knowledge, including God and His body the church, seem to say, but in not considering those other sources at all.
  • Moral pride. Moral pride is the attitude of making up one's own rules as one sees fit. A telling but unsurprising observation is that the morally proud often profess the precise set of morals and values that match their behavior. The morally proud person who has rage problems will tell you personal expression is the right and privilege of each individual. The morally proud person who embezzles will tell you wealth redistribution is a prime way to make society fairer. Moreover, the morally proud reserve the right to shift their set of rules, perhaps whenever convenient. The Christian answer to moral pride is to derive one's holiness from the Holy God, of course. But the opposite, also incorrect, extreme of moral pride is moral rigidity and the resulting inability to operate in the wide region of the "gray", meaning everyday situations in which moral decisions are hard.
  • Economic pride. Economic pride goes beyond money, which is ultimately merely a medium of exchange anyway; economic pride is separating resource considerations from God, whether the resource is a job, a vehicle, another personal possession, inborn talents, or is in fact money. Economic pride consists not only of withholding resources from God, but also manifests in the failure to trust God in any dealings with those resources, whatever the expression of that trust may be.
  • Intentional Pride. In other words, pride of intention or pride pertaining to intention. Intentional pride is when one's intention is solely determined by oneself. People intend to accomplish goals with their actions, whether the goals are large or small, important or trivial. The intentionally proud believe that they are and should be completely self-directed in all they do. Christians believe differently, of course. Calling any part of the Trinity "Lord" should be more than a habit or custom or figure of speech. Some parts of the Bible go to the point of characterizing Christians as "slaves", slaves to righteousness and to the Savior. In my opinion or taste, applying the word "slave" to humans who: 1) have been freed from the corrupting influence of sin, and 2) presently and for eternity share existence with a benevolent God, is quite misleading. Anyway, the point is that Christians have Someone to answer to, so they cannot have intentional pride, pride of intention.
The above qualities may seem directly opposed to the vibes emanating from current and even past US culture. Deep humility is hard to achieve and maintain in any culture throughout history (rooted as it is in fallen human nature), but it is still if not more necessary here and now. Humility is also one of the firmest dividing lines between Christians and the rest, regardless of to what degree the rest call themselves "Christian". The conflict between humility and pride strikes at the issue of control, so it is pivotal.