Thoughts on morality: part 1

 Let me start by saying that I do not believe that morals are subjective. I believe that there are certain moral statements that we can make which are binding for everyone at all times. I won't be discussing those in this post or how I arrived at that position. I simply wanted that out of the way so that I am not accused of preaching something I am not. 

There are a number of ethical theories which have been purposed for arrive at morals for individuals and society. Many of them don't compete as much as they try to offer better answers. In fact, a number of them can be said to supplement one another. That said, most ethicists push their theories as exclusive. But there is one that probably gets pushed as exclusive more than any other. That would be divine command theory. Most religions do this, but in America Christianity would be the religion that does the majority of the pushing. This is the religion I will address mainly in these posts if I address any at all.

The first line of attack Christian apologists will take is to point out that without a divine law giver morality is subjective and arbitrary. There are two problems with this. The first is that this is merely an assertion. Is it true that without a divine law giver morality is subjective and arbitrary? On the surface it could seem that way. But ethicists who have been wrangling with these ideas for centuries would certainly beg to differ. Typically, what the apologist is doing here is making a distinction between subjective and absolute morality, not subjective and objective morality. It is really objective morality we should be concerned with. It is true that some people believe in subjective morality, and a few years ago it was all the range at universities, but no one today takes it very seriously. It simply doesn't work and anyone, giving it even a modicum of thought, knows it. But here the apologist is being a bit dishonest because they are making it seem that the argument is about subjective vs. objective morality when he or she really isn't wanting to talk about objective morality at all. 

The second problem is best summed up with the question, "so what?".  As I stated in the beginning, I don't believe morality is subjective. If morality were truly subjective it would be a rather terrible situation. People would just being doing stuff because they wanted to do stuff, there could be no accountability and society would completely break down. Of course, subjective morality isn't even possible, but let's pretend for a moment that it is. So what? It doesn't follow that because not having a divine law giver means morality would be subjective therefore there must be a divine law giver. If morality is truly subjective, then it is subjective. The end. It is the burden of the Christian to prove there is a moral law giver. They cannot do this by pointing out what we would rather not have and show how having a god would make things better and then declaring "Here he is!" It simply doesn't work that way.  You might as well ask a child if they would rather have a world with Santa or without Santa. Their answer won't prove Santa's existence, even if having a Santa would be ethically the best option. 

Low hanging fruit

 "Where do you get your morals from?" This is a gotchya question Christians ask nonchristians frequently enough to be borderline comical. Street evangelists such as Ray Comfort and Frank Turek love to use this trope in an attempt to prove that without a moral law giver morals are subjective and ungrounded. 

The problem with this sort of questioning is that it is simply picking at low hanging fruit. Most people, including Christians, have never given the topic of ethics much thought. Even if you were to ask most Christians on the street as to where they get their morals from you will will, at best, receive one of two answers: the Bible or God. But these two answers (which are really only one answer: God), don't really answer the question. They simply put off the question one more step, just as the nonreligious would do if you gave them a chance.

When the nonreligious are ask this question, "I dunno" is typically the only answer Christians are expecting and, regardless of the actual answer, the only one they hear. At least, that is the only answer the ilk of Comfort are recording. But if given half the chance they will give more of an answer and many of them do. It may not be the answer they like and it may arguably not be a good answer, but it will be a better answer than "I dunno".  They may say, "My parents", or "The law", or "My heart", or "My brain", or any number of other answers. But here the Christian will no doubt argue that these answers are not good enough because they are subjective and arbitrary. But this is where my original point comes to the front. Christians are making a similar mistake when using divine command theory as their moral framework. Simply saying, "Because God" doesn't excuse them from explaining where they get their morals from. All they've done is put the question off into the distance a bit. Is there really a God? Where does God get his morals from? Why should we trust him? Which God are we talking about?, etc. Christians make a whole lot of assumptions when asking their questions.

The apologist will have answers for this, of course. However, we aren't talking about them, we are talking about apples to apples and therefore we must interview the man and woman on the street. I bet if we interview a dozen christians we will discover that few if any will have a good answer to this question. In fact, most will have the equivalent of, "I dunno". Something like, "Because he's God and God is moral".   

It is important that Christians, if they truly want to evangelize the masses, that they start having honest conversations with the people they are evangelizing. Stop with the gotchyas and start putting yourself in the other person's shoes. Be honest and stop with the trickery. It really doesn't set a good example for the person you are supposed to be representing. 

The practical joke

 The little paper dixie cups full of water were everywhere in the office. In every corner, covering the desk, under the desk, on the chair, surrounding the wastepaper basket, on the shelves, everywhere. The only place there weren't any was a space to allow for the office door to close.

This was a practical joke set out by the office's occupant by his workmates. When he arrived from his weeklong vacation he was forced to take each soggy cup one at a time and place it in a bucket. By the time he was done the floor, the desk and his cloths were as soggy as the cups. He was not a happy camper. However, his workmates were more than happy with their efforts.

The end.

Don't blame the crazies

 All through history the insane have been the favorite punching bag for many of society's ills. If someone did something truly horrible, then the person was most certainly insane. Not much has changed. Our 45th president drove this point home on more than one occasion, blaming domestic terrorist attacks on the mentally ill, despite constant assurances by mental health experts that such is not the case.

Without a doubt, mentally ill people can be violent and have committed terribly crimes. But such cases are rather rare when compared to similar crimes committed by people who are not mentally ill. But my point of this article isn't to argue that point. Rather, I want to discuss a defense I hear given for the mentally ill committing domestic terrorism. It goes something like this, "Only someone who is mentally ill would kill a bunch of people". They will qualify this with the words "random" and a location such as school, nightclub, restaurant, concert, etc. The logic, in their minds, is solid. Since shooting up a bunch of innocent random people is something only a crazy person would do, crazy people are responsible for doing it. QED. 

Of course, this opinion, whether someone is "crazy", is completely subjective. Many times the attacker takes their own life. Therefore, professionals are typically left with anecdotal data to try and make some sort of diagnosis with. But more often than not, the person isn't found to be insane. But that doesn't stop the nonexpert and the man on the street from making their own diagnosis. And, well, the President said it so it must be true.

They other thing we have to ask our selves is, are there any cases in which a person killing a bunch of other people is not considered the act of an insane person? What about a soldier following orders? What about a police officer who is being attacked? What about a woman who is the victim of a home invasion? "But that is different!", someone might object.  But why? Why is it different? Because they are being attacked? Because they are following orders? Because of the rules? Ultimately, the "reasons" are arbitrary. All the parties believe they are justified in doing what they do. That is, they have reasons, right or wrong, for committing the acts they do. Attaching the epitaph of "crazy" to one and not the other is merely one of convenience for us and nothing more.  It helps give us an easy answer to an act we would rather have a different answer to than the obvious one. You see, with the other acts we don't mind the answers. The soldier, policeman, and the woman are all doing noble things. Things we would like to think we would do in their shoes. Things that most of our society consider good. However, the terrorist is doing something we can all agree is horrific. Something no one likes to imagine themselves doing. So the last thing we want to admit is that we have the capability to do that very thing. If we can convince ourselves that the terrorist is something other than ourselves, i.e., crazy, then we can comfort ourselves with the thought that we could never be that person. But once we admit that they were perfectly in their right minds (and they most likely were), we are forced into a very uncomfortable reality. One we are desperate to avoid at all costs.

The 'H' Word

 Christianity, like many, if not all religions, suffer from the general problem of its adherents being unable to live up to its ideals. Or, if we were being honest, less desirous to do so. This may sound harsh, but it is an honest assessment of over forty years of observation. Christianity makes a lot of claims for itself and demands for its disciples that, when taken seriously, lead to a rather odd and difficult life that very few people find palatable for very long. This isn't to say there aren't groups who haven't come closer than others to living out the ideal, and for longer periods of time. It is only to say that, by and large, most do not. That is, unless you are planning on being a monastic, you probably aren't going to take the teachings of your religion very seriously except in a very few and specific areas.

When I was young I, like so many, foolishly though that the teachings of Scripture, all of them, were meant to be followed and adhered to. All of them. I am not saying I did this consistently or well, but I did feel and teach they were to be followed and made various attempts to do so. For example, Jesus taught that we are not to worry about where we were to live, wear, eat or even worry about tomorrow,

"Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’  For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble." (Matthew 6:25-34)

To my wife and I this resulted in never buying a house, never getting life insurance, no savings, no retirement, etc. Why? After all, God was going to take care of us. Besides, to do any of those things was to demonstrate a huge lack of faith in our God. 

It wasn't until years later that my wife and I really started noticing that most Christians we knew had large savings, life insurance plans, house loans and more. Why weren't they following Scripture like we were?

Because of my reading of Scripture I never voted. Why? Because the Bible taught that the government was establish by God,

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." (Romans 13:1)

 Yet all the Christians we knew voted. In fact, the church we attended admonished all its parishioners to get out and vote every election season. 

We sold all of our possessions and moved into a Christian commune (twice!) because of the book of Acts, we spanked our kids because of the book of Proverbs, my wife wore a head covering because of 1 Corinthians 11, my wife submitted to me and I was the head of the household because of...well...the entire bible. Yet, few Christians we knew followed any of these teachings. And the ones we knew of chose other passages to ignore. 

I am not writing all of this to show you how good we were or to call all Christians to repent and align themselves with the teachings of Scripture. Quite the opposite. I now know that most of the teachings of Scripture aren't worth following in the first place. Head coverings, spankings, submission, slavery, genocide, anti-scientific claims like miracles, supernatural claims, and so on, are the imaginings of superstitious and uneducated men who simply didn't know any better.  I am writing all of this because it is time we acknowledge this and stop being hypocrites, pretending we are following the teachings of a 2,000 year old book when, in fact, we are not. Not even close. 

 

Think about death

 Death is one of those topics people are reticent to talk about. For most, the only way they feel comfortable about broaching the subject is in the context of religion. Most religions allow us to consider death not as something final, the end of life, but rather as a doorway to a new and improved life. 

What do you do if you don't believe there is anything after this life? What comfort is there? The answer is rather simple and stoic: There is nothing, so just resign yourself to it and enjoy what you have now. This seems a fairly decent answer both for the religious and the atheist. So many of us focus so much on the after that we impede our now. The adage, "Live like there's no tomorrow", has some merit here. Not that we shouldn't plan for tomorrow, but that we should live in a way that focuses on the present in such a way that as we draw closer to the end (whenever that might be) we aren't filled with regret for what we did or did not do. 

This is where thinking about death can be helpful provided it is done gently and in the right context. Constantly ruminating to the point of depression and despair would be unhelpful and even dangerous. But spending time understanding death as the end (even if you ultimately don't believe it is) can be helpful.  Understanding that our after life will be no different than the millions of years that existed before we were born can give us a better perspective of our lives. We aren't all that important. Most of the world - enough to say 'all' - does not know or care that we exist. In fact, it will only take a few short generations for us to be completely forgotten from memory. Even if we take pictures and video log our lives, it is doubtful anyway would care to see them.  

Should this fill us with despair? No. It should humble us and inspire us to focus on the here and now. Influence those around us by respecting and loving them. Leave a legacy for those who follow us, not because they remember us but because they have been influenced to work, think and behave in better ways than if we hadn't been in their lives. 

So take time to humbling understand your place in this life and then go out there and do something good for others and yourself. 

Optimistic pessimists?

I use to think monastics (monks and nuns) where all perpetual pessimists. Black garments, mournful chanting, fasting, talk of sin, death and demons. But I realize now this isn't pessimism at all. At least, not when looking at these things from their point of view.  Now that I've gotten to participate in the Orthodox church and have met some monks and have spoken to my daughter who has met a few nuns I have come to see the incessant, almost to the point of embarrassment, celebratory spirit to be found among these folk and, indeed, the Church as a whole. Glorifying God, enjoying communion with saints, singing songs of celebration, the death of sin, the reversal of death and the defeat of demons and Satan himself. The pessimism I once saw was the result of me transposing my ideas onto that of the monastics. As soon as I started to participate in the life they enjoy I began to see things from their perspective. I too started to become an optimist. 

Why does God allow Suffering?

 This is the first post in a series exploring questions atheists have concerning the claims of Christianity. Sometimes they are questions, sometimes accusations, but out of respect I will try to phrase each post as a question. My hope is to offer something for Christians and atheists to think about, including myself. Also, let me offer this caveat to keep in mind as I explore these questions: I spent most of my life as a protestant Christian. However, now I am an Orthodox Christian. Eastern Orthodoxy predates Protestantism by over fifteen hundred years. All of the questions (or accusations) I have heard from atheists have been leveled at a protestant view of Christianity. Although I may talk about protestant views, I will be answering from primarily an Orthodox perspective as best as I am able. 

The question usually takes the form of:

If God is all powerful, all knowing and all loving, why does he allow such terrible suffering?

I have thought of this a lot and I am afraid my answer is going to be less than satisfactory to all parties. Why? Because there simply is no good answer to this question. Not because there isn't one, but because we are incapable of understanding both the question and, I suspect, the answer if one were provided by a God that is so different then ourselves.

To clarify,  the question runs into a roadblock before it even gets started when using the word "God". Its use makes a whole lot of assumptions that need to be addressed before it can have any real meaning.  The words after "God" try to define who or what we are talking about, but even these words make assumptions. First, do we really understand who this God is? The Bible attempts to give us some definition by offering descriptions. But the Bible itself is a book written to humans by humans who were being inspired by a being that is so far above us that understanding him is a challenge that will probably never be overcome. Even though the Bible describes God, we tend to miss qualifiers that are important to recognize before we start rattling off descriptors and declaring God as understood.

The prophet Isaiah wrote:

For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Centuries later the Apostle Paul wrote:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?

 It was the scholasticism, a creation of Latin Catholicism, that influenced the theology of the Reformation and Protestanism (This is an oversimplification, but the broad stroke here is accurate). Here the church, both Catholic and Protestant came to believe God could be understood (albeit, not completely) by intellectual exercise. This doesn't mean we shouldn't use our intellects. We can't help but do so. But it gave a greater weight to the intellect than was healthy when it comes to understanding God. This was primarily a Western problem that continues to this day. 

The Eastern church did not take this approach. It took a more, in my opinion, humble approach. For example, the creation of apophatic theology gave the Church the ability to talk about God's qualities without losing the understanding that God was so far above us as to make questions involving God difficult, if not impossible, to answer. At least, to answer in a way that would satisfy our desires for an answer.

To give some examples, the statement, "God is holy" was rephrased, "God is holy in a way that we are not".  Or, "God is eternal" as "God is not finite".  This makes sense because we are unholy and finite. We know what that means. We don't understand what holy or eternal means in their fullness because we only have ourselves as a reference point. 

Because of this, trying to say, "God is this, so why does God allow...?" is not only difficult  but impossible to answer. The best we can say is, "I don't know".  But it is in trying to answer this question by Christians and atheists from a protestant point of view that causes real suffering.  When a tragedy, such as a tsunami, occurs I have heard Christians declare that God was punishing sin, such as homosexuality. Or, in the case of children, that God spared them the suffering of this world. Or that God knew the child would grow up to be destined for an eternity of fire, brimstone and worms, so he took her before that could happen. On the other hand, I have heard atheists put forward that bad things happen in a naturalistic system and therefore there probably is no God.  Without arguing which idea is true, both are at least unhelpful to those who are actually experiencing the tragedy, at most they are boarding on the abusive. The fact is, we just don't know why these things happen. We know a lot of things about God in a very, very limited way, but we don't know enough to give definitive answers. At least the atheist understands this. Unfortunately, most Christians do not and try to give answers that display their own ignorance of the questions being asked.

So, to the atheist and protestant, I would suggest both are assuming far too much when asking such a question. I don't blame the atheist, here. They are simply parroting what protestants have been saying for hundreds of years. Therefore, it is up to Protestants to begin to reframe the dialog in a way that is both humble and less adverse to ignorance. 

Like I said at the beginning, it is unlikely this explanation is going to satisfy either party. But it is what the ancient church, for the most part, has taught and, in the East, what she has always taught. The best we can do, when it comes to tragedy and suffering is to sympathize with the sufferer and love them.