Lizard wrote an essay which appeared in last month's Spectacle in which he blamed a belief in God for the violence at Columbine High School. Walter Lee, a minister living in Texas who has also contributed a number of articles to the Spectacle, responded and the following exchange ensued.
Mr. Lizard,
I understand where you are coming from. I too am horrified by the violence done "in God's name." A prophetic voice, speaking "the word of God," can come from Charles Manson or Jim Jones as easily as from Martin Luther King. Unless people are grounded in some alternative concept of God, such voices cannot be refuted. Too many find them impossible to ignore.
If someone says, "Joe wants you to go down to the store," how do you respond? You may say, "Joe who?" You may say, "I don't care what this guy named Joe wants me to do." It would be very strange to declare that since you don't know Joe, and none of those you trust know this Joe, then Joe doesn't exist. You can no more "prove" the non-existence of God than others can prove the existence. In fact, the advantage goes to the positive case for to prove "a negative" is all but logically impossible. At best, you can say, "I see no evidence." In the end, all you can do is ignore the testimony of those you believe less than credible. Once a divine authority is invoked, only another divine message can compete. Read Jeremiah 27 and 28 for an interesting tale concerning this problem.
Certainly, you can attack the credibility of the bearer. Many of us "church folk" are open to criticism, and may be less than convincing as we testify to our experience of God. Few of us live up to the best of our ideals. On the other hand, how can another know? This is an age old question-- the credibility of witnesses. The boy who cries "Wolf" is not immune from telling the truth.
Moving to the issue of a basis for morality, I see tremendous problems with abandoning the transcendent. If you abandon the notion that God has laid out certain moral laws (Thou Shall Not Murder, Steal, etc.), what basis do you use? Reason? There are very few who kill or steal or whatever who do not feel justified by their own process of reasoning. There reasoning may be irrational to most, but it seems good to them at the time. An amoral person frightens me every bit, and perhaps more, than an immoral one. Just how would you reason with a person without evoking a transcendent standard?
"Thou shall not..." (Choose any moral standard you want to defend.) "WHY NOT?" says your child. "BECAUSE its wrong!" "What do you mean, 'wrong'? Seems pretty right to me at the present moment. Who are you to place your values ahead of mine?" "Well everybody knows its wrong." "What do you mean, 'everybody'? I don't." "Well, the vast majority are in agreement that its wrong." "So what" Majorities aren't always right, are they? During prohibition, the majority said 'no' to booze. Ten years ago, most of the states said 'no' to gambling. Now they sponsor lotteries. You're talking about law, but laws change. The law says its bad to carry a gun, unless of course, you're the law. Certainly, right and wrong are not directly related to the law. If so, how could bad laws ever be challenged by good people?" If you are not abandoning the concept of morality, what is its basis if not God? By what standard are these things moral or immoral?
"BECAUSE if everybody did it, society would come apart?" you say. Immoral behavior is not committed because people value society. People who do such things are driven more by passion and emotion and a desire for immediate self gratification than abstract logic. While the "God argument" is not rational (by definition), not everything is rational. Is love of an AIDS baby rational?
BECAUSE if you do it, we (society) will kill you or lock you away for a very long time? In other words, don't fear God-- fear the rest of us? An extension to such logic is Might Makes Right. You do what I say because I am bigger, stronger and have more people on my team. The issue of morality has disappeared. At this point its just about power.
I assert that all transcendent values are just as amorphous as the concept we call God. They are based on the intuition and experience of those who assert them. Some things are postulated because they are necessary to explain what we see and feel. (When was the last time you saw an electron, much less a quark?)
In fact, I will go far beyond asserting a concept. I will assert a personality called God. My assertion is based on my experience. That experience is not a constant, but there are times in my life when I have been embraced by a presence I can only call the God of the bible. But as I said above, a testimony to my experience is not likely to convince you or others of God's existence. At best, given time, I might convince you that I believe.
However, on the larger scale, I agree with Jean Rousseau as he writes in "The Social Contract" that if God did not exist, we humans would have to invent him. The God of his "civic religion" is sparse and undetailed, and in reality is a whole lot closer to the American stereotype of God than the God of the scriptures. Rousseau's God is the basis for transcendent values and thus provides a basis for under girding societal values. Whether a society can long exist, without a unifying deity, I don't know, but I know of none that has.
You do not need to prove the non-existence of God, any more than you need to prove there isn't a polka-dot dragon living in my bedroom. That which cannot be shown to exist should be assumed to be nonexistent. (Please don't dredge up discussions about radio waves, atoms, etc. We CAN prove they exist -- or, at least, that there's SOMETHING that fulfills predicted effects of these phenomenon. I'd be quite happy to believe in a God I couldn't see, touch, or otherwise experience if anyone could propose an experiment which required His existence to complete. (You also need to prove that his nature is as described in the human book of myth of your choice. After all, if there IS a God, that still doesn't mean the Christian bible, or the Koran, or the Elder Edda describe him/them accurately. Suppose there is an all-powerful being watching over us...in the same way we watch an ant farm, with morbid curiosity. Would you still worship him?)
Personal experience? Meaningless. The asylums are full of those who claim to have personally spoken to God. (Odd, isn't it, that they are almost never believed -- even by those who claim to believe in God? Normally, if a phenomenon is in doubt, personal testimony counts for something, but anyone who claims to speak regularly to God is usually condemned as a loony. Funny, that...)
It's also worth noting that God is something it is implicitly understood must be BELIEVED in. No one ever asks, "Do you believe in New York City?" or "Do you believe in hot dogs?". But God exists only in belief.
As for the social need -- any society which can only exist based on a lie is a society which has no right to exist. If humanity needs a lie to sustain it, we are a failure as a species and deserve to become extinct.
I do not kill, rob, rape, pillage, or otherwise commit crimes. Yet I do not believe in the transcendant. Tell me -- why don't I?
For that matter, if you suddenly became an atheist, would you start killing, maiming, and lootng? Is fear of punishment the ONLY thing keeping you moral?
Let's go back to first principles. I exist. I feel both pain and pleasure. Pain is a warning;pleasure a reward. Pleasure means "You're doing good." Morality, in turn, is the system by which I make decisions. Why do I need morality? To make the right decisions. What are the right decisions? Those which create pleasure, not pain. Morality must guide me to make decisions which will bring me pleasure;the worth of any system of morality is how well it achieves that goal.
Therefore, my personal happiness is my ultimate standard of morality. To be happy, I must live in accordance with my nature. My nature is: I am a human being. It is my nature to live by reason, not by force. To live by force is to attempt to be something other than what I am, a path which can only lead to my eventual destruction.(Pain/unhappiness) A lion cannot become a herbivore. A shark cannot fly. A human cannot live, except by reason -- at least not live as a human is supposed to live. A lion might survive for some time on carrots -- but it would not be living as a lion should live.
So, in answer to your question:
"Why should I be moral?"
"Because it is the only way to be human."
(Most of what people think of as 'morality' is nothing more than tribal custom, of course)
Lizard wrote:
You do not need to prove the non-existence of God, any more than you need to prove there isn't a polka-dot dragon living in my bedroom. That which cannot be shown to exist should be assumed to be nonexistent. (Please don't dredge up discussions about radio waves, atoms, etc. We CAN prove they exist -- or, at least, that there's SOMETHING that fulfills predicted effects of these phenomenon. I'd be quite happy to believe in a God I couldn't see, touch, or otherwise experience if anyone could propose an experiment which required His existence to complete.
It is interesting that so many who propound the fundamentals of scientific inquiry neglect the canons of science which limit its realm to the natural order. To dismiss any area of life not subject to scientific testing as "non existent" is like the person who looses his car keys and refuses to look any place other than under the street light because you can't see a thing where its dark.
You also need to prove that his nature is as described in the human book of myth of your choice. After all, if there IS a God, that still doesn't mean the Christian bible, or the Koran, or the Elder Edda describe him/them accurately. Suppose there is an all-powerful being watching over us...in the same way we watch an ant farm, with morbid curiosity. Would you still worship him?)
This is a valid point-- one that I have made many times. It is the fly in the ointment of the "proofs of God" made by Aquinas and Anselm. One of the things that attracts me to the scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the broad, sometimes mutually exclusive, God who can only be described as mysterious. It fits with my experience.
Personal experience? Meaningless. The asylums are full of those who claim to have personally spoken to God. (Odd, isn't it, that they are almost never believed -- even by those who claim to believe in God? Normally, if a phenomenon is in doubt, personal testimony counts for something, but anyone who claims to speak regularly to God is usually condemned as a loony. Funny, that...)
Meaningless? Do you have any experience that is not personal?
The asylums in the former Soviet Union were full of people who didn't accept the mythology of the gracious Mother State. What asylums are for is locking up people outside of society's norms. In our day and age, few are locked up because they speak to (or even listen to) God. They are locked up because they present a danger to themselves and/or others. Many who stand on the frontiers of a paradigm shift are considered "crazy." The church, as well as secular culture, has been guilt of such pr0tective reaction. I do not attempt to defend the church in this regard. We have been guilty as charged. But your asylum argument doesn't wash unless you are willing to assume that the norm in any age is always right.
It's also worth noting that God is something it is implicitly understood must be BELIEVED in. No one ever asks, "Do you believe in New York City?" or "Do you believe in hot dogs?". But God exists only in belief.
Going back to a scientific model, consider the wave/particle debates on the nature of light. Quantum physics has demonstrated that the mode of observation effects the results of the experiment. If you "believe" that they are particles, they act like particles. If you "believe" they are waves, they act like waves. In the same way, when you raise children, if you believe that they are good and trustworthy, they often turn out that way. If you believe they are bad, it can effect the outcome.
Most of us believe in constructed reality. Do you believe in the Government of the United States-- in terms of its existance, not its operation? There was a time when it didn't exist. Then it did. People came together and said, "Let there be government." They signed paper. They acted as if this phenomena was real. Institutions are "objectivated realities." We don't debate their existence. If I asked you to show me the government of the United States, you could show me people who are carrying out various functions of the government, but you could not show me the government itself. Perhaps I am wrong, so I ask? Can you?
Perhaps I am leaving myself open to the criticism that God is an "objectivated reality." I assume that risk, but I can show you as much "evidence" for God as you can show me evidence of the Government of the United States. Comments?
As for the social need -- any society which can only exist based on a lie is a society which has no right to exist. If humanity needs a lie to sustain it, we are a failure as a species and deserve to become extinct.
I would assert that all societies are based on lies-- or at least partial truths. If you claim otherwise, point me to any society that has the totality of truth. That society, by defintion, is as perfected as it can be. Therefore, any growth or change within that society, is bad, by definition. What you do is pick one particular "lie" and lift it up and deny it as a basis of society. Taking your above statement at face value is a declaration that we as a species don't deserve to exist. That is exactly what the New Testament teaches. We live, not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of grace. For that, I live in gratitude to the mystery of who and what sustains us.
I do not kill, rob, rape, pillage, or otherwise commit crimes. Yet I do not believe in the transcendant. Tell me -- why don't I?
I can't. That's what I was asking you. The basis for morality without God?
For that matter, if you suddenly became an atheist, would you start killing, maiming, and lootng? Is fear of punishment the ONLY thing keeping you moral?
That is a moot question. You ask me to deny my experience and speak in the hypothetical.
Let's go back to first principles. I exist. I feel both pain and pleasure. Pain is a warning; pleasure a reward. Pleasure means "You're doing good."
The punishment of pain is YOUR criteria? Would you take a drug that numbs you to pain and brings you pleasure in the short term if you KNEW that in the future, you would develop cancer or some other terrible pain producing disease? If you broke your leg, would you forego therapy because it was painful? Somehow, I believe you will admit that your statement is incomplete.
Morality, in turn, is the system by which I make decisions. Why do I need morality? To make the right decisions. What are the right decisions? Those which create pleasure, not pain. Morality must guide me to make decisions which will bring me pleasure; the worth of any system of morality is how well it achieves that goal.Therefore, my personal happiness is my ultimate standard of morality.
You would fit right in with a stereotypical picture of fundamentalist Christianity. They would say that eternal pleasure-- heaven-- is that which they are seeking. That which leads to heaven is ultimately moral.
To be happy, I must live in accordance with my nature. My nature is: I am a human being. It is my nature to live by reason, not by force.
Where in the world do you get this idea? If you look at the human mouth, it is clear that human beings are carnivores. All carnivores rely on force. They kill. If you look at human history, can you substantiate the idea that humans by nature live by reason and not force? If you look at the world-- Kosovo, the London Bombings, Columbine High School, the Middle East, Pakistan/India-- where are the examples of reasons and the abandonment of force.
To live by force is to attempt to be something other than what I am, a path which can only lead to my eventual destruction.(Pain/unhappiness) A lion cannot become a herbivore. A shark cannot fly. A human cannot live, except by reason -- at least not live as a human is supposed to live. A lion might survive for some time on carrots -- but it would not be living as a lion should live.
I would certainly agree that humans desire to understand the world in which they live. They have created various sets of frameworks in which "logic" is exercised. As long as these frameworks hold for them, they ask no difficult questions. It is when they reach the boundaries, that true growth take place. What you are saying is that you have a framework that works for you. You express serious discomfort with those who assert alternative frameworks. Because "pleasure" is your criteria, you denounce the possiblity that any world other that the one of your choosing causes you to be "pained" their world must be bad. I suggest that you subjectively choose "objectivism" as the virtuous route, and in so doing, you are falling into the trap you accuse the religionist of maintaining.
So, in answer to your question:"Why should I be moral?"
"Because it is the only way to be human."
(Most of what people think of as 'morality' is nothing more than tribal custom, of course)
Certainly, there is comfort in living within the tribal norms. Lots of reinforcement and people to tell you that it is good. Morality almost always involves pushing back the limits of the tribe and opening people to greater possibilities. When people do that, they tend to be crucified.
Any comments?
The main problem with the 'God exists because I personally experienced his Transcendant Glory' is that there's millions of people who will make that claim -- but they're experiencing different Gods. Consider:
Christian: I know the God of the Bible is the true one, because I have personally felt his presence within me.
Muslim: There is no God but Allah, and I know this, for I have felt his presence.
Now then -- these statements CANNOT both be true. One of these people (or in my opinion, both) is confusing some other sensation for the prescence of their Deity. Allah and Yahweh cannot both exist, at least not unless you want to get into New Age/Pagan/etc 'all Gods are just faces of the same thing' sort of blather, which, while useful in an ecumenical society, lacks something in terms of religious passion)
Now then -- how can it be determined, objectively, WHICH 'personally transcendant' experiences are valid, and which aren't? If it cannot be done, how do you KNOW yours are 'real'? Because they 'feel' real? So do the other guys. He 'feels' the prescence of his God as much as you do -- but your God says his God doesn't exist! And vice versa.
So many people believe in God, it must be true? The single largest religion on Earth is Buddhism, not Christianity. There are 600 million Hindus who believe in Krishna and Kali, but not Jesus and Yahweh. In the past, the mightiest Empire on Earth worshiped Jupiter and Mars, and the ancestors of CS Lewis fought them off with prayers to Cuchulain.(sp) (If we can derive anything from this, it's that people like pat, easy, answers to lifes' questions. "I don't know, and neither does anyone else" doesn't seem to satisfy.)
Further, it's my genuine belief that, in fact, no one believes in God. They say they believe. They may even believe they believe. But deep down in the pit of their stomachs, they know He isn't there. A race of people which is compelled to touch a newly painted park bench just to see if the paint really is wet, like the sign says, isn't going to accept, internally, the existence of something which not only can't be shown to exist, but which claims it is a sin to even try to prove its existence. As the person I was writing to noted, God is a SOCIAL construct -- he is necessary (in some peoples' minds) as a means of providing social order. Societies such as the USSR or National Socialist Germany substituted similair abstractions ("The Workers", "The Master Race") as means of control.
We cannot have a free and moral society until an ethical code based on observable, objective reality is derived, taught, and internalized. I offered one;there may well be better ones. A moral credo that rests on the revealed will of a non-existent deity is, ultimately, a moral credo that rests only on the most charismatic self-proclaimed spokesman for that deity. Even "Do that, and you'll got to jail" is a superior basis for society.
As one final note, I will posit that the nations prisons probably contain a disproportionately small number of agnostics and atheists, disproving the notion that atheism leads to immoral behavior. Has anyone studied this?