Is there such a thing as an action that I perform that does not benefit me in some way? Many people conclude that there is not. From this, it is a short leap to the idea that all “love” is ultimately egoistic, and therefore that no love is agape, which is love that is supposed to give without consideration of itself.
The idea that all of our actions benefit us in some way is partly right, but also misleading. Let’s take an extreme example. Say someone reads an article about the sex-slave trade, where young girls are kidnapped and forced to labor in the most disgusting ways possible. Perhaps he becomes angry about this injustice, and decides to give money to an organization that works to break up sex-slave trade rings. Initially, it seems that he has done an altruistic thing: after all, he has contributed in a small way to improve the lives of others. But the moral skeptic points out that he also “feels good” about giving that money. As such, that action is ultimately egoistic. This analysis can be made for any moral action I do – I always benefit in some way.
On these terms, I agree that there is no such thing as altruism. There is, however, more to the story. Let’s say that there are two friends who learn about the tragedy of the sex-slave trade at the same time. When the first friend hears this, he becomes angry because he perceives this to be an unjust state-of-affairs that should be set right, while the second friend is generally apathetic toward the plight of these girls. It seems that most would agree that the first friend responded more appropriately than the second one in a moral sense. That is to say, the first friend is morally attuned to something in a way that the second friend is not.
So the skeptic who insists (correctly) that there are no purely altruistic actions now has a bigger problem: why did the first friend become angry over someone else’s situation? So there may be no altruistic actions, but there may be such a thing as altruistic indignation, for it often happens that someone gets angry over the unjust treatment another. Why is this?
The wise, or those who insist that that agape love does not exist, must explain how altruistic indignation arises from strictly natural causes. After all, if we are purely selfish at base, as the scientists insist, then altruism should not be possible. In the next three weeks, I will look at (and argue against) three potential explanations by the atheist that what appears to be altruism is not altruism after all.
1.28.2008
1.21.2008
2008 Listening Guide
[I'm taking a one-week respite from my probably-too-intense musings on the nature of love]
I know a lot of people struggle to find good music to listen to, so I’ve tried to simplify the process. All you have to do is diagnose your current mood through a little self-reflection, locate that mood in the left-hand column, and then look up the corresponding artist to the right. So, the following are meant to be plugged into the following formula:
“If you’re feeling _____, then listen to ______.”
Classy..................................................Elvis Costello
Transcendental.........................................Emmylou Harris
Like life is too complicated...........................Patti Griffin
Like you need to tell the world about something, but you don’t actually have anything to say.....................Rufus Wainwright
Residual Lower-Middle-Class suburban teen ang..........Nirvana
Optimistic about your chances of finding true love..........Sarah McLachlan
Pessimistic about your chances of finding true love.............Ryan Adams
Pessimistic about your chances of finding true love, but you insist on pretending you didn’t really care about that anyway................Lucinda Williams
Depressed, and you want to feel like that...............Elliot Smith
Depressed, but you want to feel better..................Sufjan Stevens
Like smoking at least three cigars by yourself in one evening.............Tom Waits
Like saving the fookin world...........................U2
Residual Upper-Middle-Class suburban teen angst.........Ben Folds
Better than everyone else, in an artsy way..............Radiohead
Better than everyone else, in a “Don Juan” way..........Damien Rice
Better than everyone who lives in the Midwest...........Bright Eyes
That life is too serious................................Fountains of Wayne
That life is too silly.................................Johnny Cash
I know a lot of people struggle to find good music to listen to, so I’ve tried to simplify the process. All you have to do is diagnose your current mood through a little self-reflection, locate that mood in the left-hand column, and then look up the corresponding artist to the right. So, the following are meant to be plugged into the following formula:
“If you’re feeling _____, then listen to ______.”
Classy..................................................Elvis Costello
Transcendental.........................................Emmylou Harris
Like life is too complicated...........................Patti Griffin
Like you need to tell the world about something, but you don’t actually have anything to say.....................Rufus Wainwright
Residual Lower-Middle-Class suburban teen ang..........Nirvana
Optimistic about your chances of finding true love..........Sarah McLachlan
Pessimistic about your chances of finding true love.............Ryan Adams
Pessimistic about your chances of finding true love, but you insist on pretending you didn’t really care about that anyway................Lucinda Williams
Depressed, and you want to feel like that...............Elliot Smith
Depressed, but you want to feel better..................Sufjan Stevens
Like smoking at least three cigars by yourself in one evening.............Tom Waits
Like saving the fookin world...........................U2
Residual Upper-Middle-Class suburban teen angst.........Ben Folds
Better than everyone else, in an artsy way..............Radiohead
Better than everyone else, in a “Don Juan” way..........Damien Rice
Better than everyone who lives in the Midwest...........Bright Eyes
That life is too serious................................Fountains of Wayne
That life is too silly.................................Johnny Cash
1.14.2008
Love is a Miracle, Part II
I began an investigation last time into the existence of unconditional love. We decided that this inquiry is important for the Christian because if it turns out that such love does not exist, then Christianity is foolish; conversely, the atheistic world-view would be threatened if we could find instances of love that are not reducible to biological or social phenomena.
There is undoubtedly much love in the world in certain forms. There are at least three Greek words translated as “love”: agape, philos, and eros. The latter two are related in that they have to do with desire. When one has eros or philos, one has a lack of something, which results in the desire to fulfill that lack. Eros is of course where our word ‘erotic’ comes from, and indeed, eros usually indicates sensual desire. Philos is the other side of the coin: it is characterized by non-physical desire, as this love seeks fulfillment in some way that is not sensual. For example, a philosopher is supposed to love wisdom, and Philadelphia is the city of brotherly love.
To these two words for love, the New Testament adds a third: agape. It is much more difficult to define, but it forms a remarkable contrast with the former two words for love in at least one important aspect. With eros and philos, there is always a desirer fulfilling a desire. Therefore, in the end, these kinds of love are always egoistic, or selfish. I will use this contrast to characterize agape love as altruistic, or focused essentially on others. Many ethicists claim that all human actions are ultimately motivated by eros or philos, and that therefore there is no room for any other type of love. This claim has some initial appeal. Take the example of the kind shopkeeper: one might be tempted to say that his kindness toward the people that come into his store is motivated by agape love, but the skeptic could just say that his kindness really comes from his desire to retain his customers, whether he realizes it or not. Even most friendships can easily be described as motivated by philos, because we desire the company of other people: a person with no friends feels lonely. If we had no desire for fellowship, we would not seek out friends.
It gets worse for the person who wants to believe in agape love: even Jesus seems to praise selfish actions: “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you” (Matt 5:3-4). Jesus here recommends going out of our way not to let our generosity be seen by people, because we will forfeit a greater heavenly reward. But if we seek a reward, even if it is eternal and not temporal, these kinds of actions are selfish.
These examples show that there is nothing wrong with selfishness in certain contexts. After all, it helps us become good friends, good neighbors, and good co-workers. But can I ever perform an action which doesn’t benefit myself in some way? And if I can’t, can I ever really say that I have purely unselfish or altruistic motivations? And if I never have altruistic motivations, can I insist that there is such a thing as agape love? And if there is no such thing as agape love, doesn’t this put Christianity in an awkward position?
There is undoubtedly much love in the world in certain forms. There are at least three Greek words translated as “love”: agape, philos, and eros. The latter two are related in that they have to do with desire. When one has eros or philos, one has a lack of something, which results in the desire to fulfill that lack. Eros is of course where our word ‘erotic’ comes from, and indeed, eros usually indicates sensual desire. Philos is the other side of the coin: it is characterized by non-physical desire, as this love seeks fulfillment in some way that is not sensual. For example, a philosopher is supposed to love wisdom, and Philadelphia is the city of brotherly love.
To these two words for love, the New Testament adds a third: agape. It is much more difficult to define, but it forms a remarkable contrast with the former two words for love in at least one important aspect. With eros and philos, there is always a desirer fulfilling a desire. Therefore, in the end, these kinds of love are always egoistic, or selfish. I will use this contrast to characterize agape love as altruistic, or focused essentially on others. Many ethicists claim that all human actions are ultimately motivated by eros or philos, and that therefore there is no room for any other type of love. This claim has some initial appeal. Take the example of the kind shopkeeper: one might be tempted to say that his kindness toward the people that come into his store is motivated by agape love, but the skeptic could just say that his kindness really comes from his desire to retain his customers, whether he realizes it or not. Even most friendships can easily be described as motivated by philos, because we desire the company of other people: a person with no friends feels lonely. If we had no desire for fellowship, we would not seek out friends.
It gets worse for the person who wants to believe in agape love: even Jesus seems to praise selfish actions: “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you” (Matt 5:3-4). Jesus here recommends going out of our way not to let our generosity be seen by people, because we will forfeit a greater heavenly reward. But if we seek a reward, even if it is eternal and not temporal, these kinds of actions are selfish.
These examples show that there is nothing wrong with selfishness in certain contexts. After all, it helps us become good friends, good neighbors, and good co-workers. But can I ever perform an action which doesn’t benefit myself in some way? And if I can’t, can I ever really say that I have purely unselfish or altruistic motivations? And if I never have altruistic motivations, can I insist that there is such a thing as agape love? And if there is no such thing as agape love, doesn’t this put Christianity in an awkward position?
1.06.2008
Love is a Miracle, Part I
Is there any such thing as love?
This is the sort of foolish and naïve question that children might ask. ‘The wise’ never worry about such things. By ‘the wise,’ I mean the anthropologists, the biologists, the geneticists, and above all the philosophers, who by definition make their living by loving wisdom. For the biologist and geneticist, love is merely a programmed survival instinct. For the anthropologist, love is the invented oil that lubricates social interactions and gives shape to traditions, while the philosophers are all too eager to agree with either or both of those diagnoses.
There are several different things I could mean by ‘love,’ and I will give some distinctions next time. But for now, it is enough to say that I am referring to the kind of love ‘without conditions’ that the New Testament writers can’t seem to stop talking about. John says that “love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love…” (I John 4:7,8). Paul, after saying that love is greater than faith (I Cor. 13), goes onto to anticipate John’s writings: for him, as for John, the unmistakable evidence of the presence of God in one’s life is the presence of love (Gal. 5:22). And conversely, a life without love always indicates the absence of God (Gal 5:19-20).
So it is that love is central for New Testament Christianity. Therefore, if the wise are successful in their attempts to reduce love to biological or social mechanisms, Christianity (along with many other religions) would be the most pervasive, extravagant, and scandalous deception in Western history. To appropriate Paul, we should be pitied in the worst way, perhaps the way a parent might pity a child who discovers that Santa Claus never leaves presents at his house. That child deserves pity because he must come to terms with the fact that something he has believed strongly his whole conscious life, even in the face of adversity, turns out to be wrong.
But we should also look at the issue the other way around. If there is such a thing as love after all, ‘the wise’ have an accounting problem on their hands. How can they account for the fact that love ended up in the world? When asked whether there is love, it is tempting to give an immediate and sharp “YES!” After all, we all love our children, spouses, and parents with unconditional love, right? Don’t we show love to the neighbor across the street when we invite her for parties even though she continues to be un-neighborly? Don’t we manifest true love when we are nice to our co-worker even while he is rude to us? I want to resist an easy answer, because this question, it turns out, is complicated. The wisdom of the world has given us an important challenge.
This is the sort of foolish and naïve question that children might ask. ‘The wise’ never worry about such things. By ‘the wise,’ I mean the anthropologists, the biologists, the geneticists, and above all the philosophers, who by definition make their living by loving wisdom. For the biologist and geneticist, love is merely a programmed survival instinct. For the anthropologist, love is the invented oil that lubricates social interactions and gives shape to traditions, while the philosophers are all too eager to agree with either or both of those diagnoses.
There are several different things I could mean by ‘love,’ and I will give some distinctions next time. But for now, it is enough to say that I am referring to the kind of love ‘without conditions’ that the New Testament writers can’t seem to stop talking about. John says that “love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love…” (I John 4:7,8). Paul, after saying that love is greater than faith (I Cor. 13), goes onto to anticipate John’s writings: for him, as for John, the unmistakable evidence of the presence of God in one’s life is the presence of love (Gal. 5:22). And conversely, a life without love always indicates the absence of God (Gal 5:19-20).
So it is that love is central for New Testament Christianity. Therefore, if the wise are successful in their attempts to reduce love to biological or social mechanisms, Christianity (along with many other religions) would be the most pervasive, extravagant, and scandalous deception in Western history. To appropriate Paul, we should be pitied in the worst way, perhaps the way a parent might pity a child who discovers that Santa Claus never leaves presents at his house. That child deserves pity because he must come to terms with the fact that something he has believed strongly his whole conscious life, even in the face of adversity, turns out to be wrong.
But we should also look at the issue the other way around. If there is such a thing as love after all, ‘the wise’ have an accounting problem on their hands. How can they account for the fact that love ended up in the world? When asked whether there is love, it is tempting to give an immediate and sharp “YES!” After all, we all love our children, spouses, and parents with unconditional love, right? Don’t we show love to the neighbor across the street when we invite her for parties even though she continues to be un-neighborly? Don’t we manifest true love when we are nice to our co-worker even while he is rude to us? I want to resist an easy answer, because this question, it turns out, is complicated. The wisdom of the world has given us an important challenge.
1.01.2008
2008 Re-launch
Dear Friends,
Back by unpopular and popular demand, I have decided to resurrect my blog. Last year I posted a few heretically orthodox notes about poverty, hell, homosexuality, and environmental vegetarianism. It was fun, but I stopped writing in July because of time issues associated with having too many jobs and taking care of a newborn. Now, however, I am ready for another year. Some notes for ‘08:
-I changed the name of the blog from "The Orthodox Heretic" to “The Orthodox Heretic Weekly” to reflect my new-found commitment to blog twice every fortnight.
-These blogs are also linked in my Facebook account, and you can subscribe to the blog there.
-I will try to limit my blogs to 3-4 paragraphs, suitable for 5-minute reading.
-Not to be paternalistic, but you should forgo the ordinary New Year’s resolutions and make a commitment to read this blog weekly:) Besides, weighing 10-15 lbs. too much only helps you fit in better with everyone else.
-Please send the link to the blog to anyone who:
1) is or is thinking about becoming heretically orthodox or orthodoxically heretical
2) is or is thinking about becoming curious about orthodox heresy, or
3) hates or is thinking about hating Christians, heretics, or Christian heretics.
Here are some topics I plan on addressing this year:
-Love and Ethics
-Worldviews
-I’ll try to limit my blogs about the presidential election, because the last thing the world needs is another person blogging about the candidates, but I won’t be able to help myself all the time.
-Intelligent Design
-Moral Vegetarianism
-Abortion
-Any suggestions?
Here are some topics I will not be blogging about:
-Whether we should greet others with “Happy Holidays!” or “Merry Christmas!” (because really, who gives a crap?)
-Whether Bush should have cut child health care funding (because that would be a very short blog)
-Whether the Dixie Chicks had their Free Speech rights violated when their overly-Republican and overly-zealous fan base stopped coming to their shows (because NO, and “Ha! Ha!”)
Back by unpopular and popular demand, I have decided to resurrect my blog. Last year I posted a few heretically orthodox notes about poverty, hell, homosexuality, and environmental vegetarianism. It was fun, but I stopped writing in July because of time issues associated with having too many jobs and taking care of a newborn. Now, however, I am ready for another year. Some notes for ‘08:
-I changed the name of the blog from "The Orthodox Heretic" to “The Orthodox Heretic Weekly” to reflect my new-found commitment to blog twice every fortnight.
-These blogs are also linked in my Facebook account, and you can subscribe to the blog there.
-I will try to limit my blogs to 3-4 paragraphs, suitable for 5-minute reading.
-Not to be paternalistic, but you should forgo the ordinary New Year’s resolutions and make a commitment to read this blog weekly:) Besides, weighing 10-15 lbs. too much only helps you fit in better with everyone else.
-Please send the link to the blog to anyone who:
1) is or is thinking about becoming heretically orthodox or orthodoxically heretical
2) is or is thinking about becoming curious about orthodox heresy, or
3) hates or is thinking about hating Christians, heretics, or Christian heretics.
Here are some topics I plan on addressing this year:
-Love and Ethics
-Worldviews
-I’ll try to limit my blogs about the presidential election, because the last thing the world needs is another person blogging about the candidates, but I won’t be able to help myself all the time.
-Intelligent Design
-Moral Vegetarianism
-Abortion
-Any suggestions?
Here are some topics I will not be blogging about:
-Whether we should greet others with “Happy Holidays!” or “Merry Christmas!” (because really, who gives a crap?)
-Whether Bush should have cut child health care funding (because that would be a very short blog)
-Whether the Dixie Chicks had their Free Speech rights violated when their overly-Republican and overly-zealous fan base stopped coming to their shows (because NO, and “Ha! Ha!”)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)