#330 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Wednesday April 20)
Good morning and Happy Anniversary, Andrea!
That was a good idea 31 years ago. Let’s shoot for 31 more…
There are two several competing narratives about religious faith that are pitting us against each other. The vitriol and unpleasant jibes exchanged by adherents from one side or the other diminish our discourse and fail to recognize or the deep-seated beliefs of those who do not share one’s views. It is yet another example of the coarseness of our dialog. And yet, when one really takes a deep dive into the values of each side of this debate, it would seem that we really aren’t that far apart.
NARRATIVE ONE—FAITH
Faith is an ineffable concept difficult to understand within the context of scientifically provable facts. A case in point is a distinguished history professor of mine from college, Doyce Nunis. He was the most rational fellow I had ever met (well, other than, perhaps, my parents). But he was a devout Catholic who accepted religious dogma and the divine creation of the Bible. I asked him how someone of his fact-based historical and scientific perspective could possibly believe some of the biblical stories. He replied to the effect that “this is the beauty of faith—that one can find logic in everything through accepting relatively few ‘leaps of faith’ that provide meaning for one’s life.”
There is an uglier explanation of a faith-based morality and people who ground their value systems in religious orthodoxy. This is a view propounded by many on the secular left, many scientists, and others who have the hubris to claim they “know” the truth. Religious people are often dismissed as people prone to fantasy and absurd stories that have no basis in reality. Many see those of faith as having no independent thoughts, pushed here and there by clergy that continues to demand absolute fealty. These people often point to the millions of people killed over the year in the name of someone else’s God. They fail to consider all the good that has been brought—is being brought—to the world by religious oragnizations.
To many secularists, the faithful are naïve, uneducated, unsophisticated lemmings.
NARRATIVE TWO—SECULAR BELIEF
Human existence is difficult to comprehend, just as are the vastness of the universe and the inexplicable concept of “time.” For a secularist or atheist, they are taking what they believe is the braver of the available options by claiming that the concept of a supreme being is an illogical construct and that science alone allows for the randomness and chaos of the universe. Once one assumes that there is no scientific justification for the “unanswered questions” of the universe, one must find meaning and purpose through one’s own force of being.
There is an uglier version to describe those who establish their belief systems and their moral compass through non-religion-based philosophical constructs. To these detractors, they view an ethical system without religious framework, that establishes morality through logic or choice, are on the road to an immoral relativism. To them, the non-believers live in a world where morality is merely an option—and not a commandment. If one establishes one’s own moral system, then that relative morality can justify any number of immoral/despicable behaviors. For instance, to the Germans in the 1930s, there ostensibly were economic and political justifications for the reprehensible Nazi regime. They might well argue that it was, within the context of the 1930s, morally justifiable in their system to commit the Holocaust and pursue the devastation of World War II.
To many faithful, the secular humanists are not bound to a knowable standard of behavior and morality—who are unbound from the commandments of God.
AND THIS LEADS TO ANGER AND HATRED
If a religious person believes that a person not affiliated with a religious movement is a “godless heathen” and to a secular person or atheist, a religious person is a thoughtless follower, there isn’t much room to have a constructive conversation. I would maintain that one way to reach morality is no better than the other. It doesn’t really matter whether one adopts the tools to live a moral/ethical existence from the precepts of a religion or from Aesop’s Fables. What matters is that one exercises one’s moral compass judiciously and sensitively to others who may not share one’s views.
Our current moment, however, discourages understanding of “the other.” Many (most?) of our leaders seek to describe people from other tribes as fundamentally evil or at war with basic precepts of human decency. How we can combat the forces that divide us is something that perhaps can be learned from the Bible, which imparts, “that which is hateful to you, do not do unto your fellow man.” Whether religious or not, one must accept this fundamental wisdom.
A POLITICAL COMPLICATION
Many evangelical Christians have been active in the political arena, often in support of legislation and court cases intended to further their views of “social issues.” These issues seek to create an absolute boundary line for the faithful. If someone opposed gay marriage, professed to being opposed to abortion, or sought to “clean up” the books in schools and libraries, they were to be supported—regardless of their other believes or their moral flaws.
This fealty extended even to truly flawed individuals like Donald Trump, who has maintained no coherent ethical standard during his career, a serial sexual predator and liar, a man who was dishonorable and unsuccessful in business. I believe objectively can be seen as living the antithesis of a moral life lived in the service of others (just ask many of his contractors and employees). While today those running for office or seeking to demonstrate their bona fides still parrot the “stolen election” narrative. Yet that narrative may be cracking. There are those that believe that there are values greater than winning elections, causing them to question the unwavering support of the religious right. We will see how this plays out.
AND FINALLY
I have a friend who points out that Muslims, Christians and Jews may disagree on any number of things but they all agree on one thing—that is that there is one God. None of them has a conclusive justification for why their description of that God is superior to the God worshipped by the others. But what they can agree on is that there is only one.
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives: