We often hear people speak of our nation’s ‘Judeo-Christian heritage.’ As near as I can tell, when people say that, they are speaking of our culture’s traditional adherence to selected Christian doctrines (that’s the Christian part), and to the 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20 (that’s the Jewish part). I really think it’s as simple as that (although it is possible that some also have in mind Genesis 3).
The 10 Commandments, as the concept of a divinely-given law, are indeed important to many people in our country (even if few people actually know many of the individual 10 Commandments!). So much so, that many people advocate for their appearance in law courts and other official buildings. I’m not going to get into the church/state debate (at least not in this current blog series), but my point is that many take them to be the basis of our society and our society’s laws.
I want to make it clear that I think the 10 Commandments are indeed important and should be taken seriously. However, I stumbled on an interesting passage a little while ago from Deuteronomy 27. I won’t reprint the whole text this week, but it recounts the story of Moses, who, at the end of his life, gave the Israelites a new set of commandments that they were to write on stones and set up after they entered the Promised Land. I am wondering why this list of commandments in Deuteronomy is relatively unknown; that is, when we talk about our ‘Judeo-Christian heritage,’ I wonder why no one ever talks about Deuteronomy 27.
First, it is clear from the passage that Moses meant this list of commandments to be the basis for the law in the Promised Land. Thus, they were (or should have been) the legal foundation for the Jewish nation. Now, there is nothing to suggest that this made the list of commandments found in Exodus 20 irrelevant, but it seems that Moses regards this new list as having special importance for the future of the Jewish nation.
It is also a little awkward that the 10 Commandments from Exodus 20 are regarded as the basis of America’s laws, because 8 (out of 10!) of them are perfectly legal. And not only are they legal, but there is no cultural taboo against, say, coveting or working on the Sabbath. Furthermore, the two that are illegal in certain contexts, namely stealing and killing, aren’t at all particular to Christians or Jews. That is, every society that has ever existed for any length of time necessarily had some kind of injunctions against killing and stealing.
Interestingly, most of the commandments found in Deuteronomy are illegal in America. Or at least violating them is a cultural taboo, or could even get you sued. So, my proposal is this: let’s weave together Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 27, as this represents a more complete understanding of our Judeo-Christian heritage. More to come next week about how this might work.
7.14.2011
The After-Life: An Argument for Ignorance, Part IX
I began this series by reflecting briefly on Rob Bell’s book, which claims to reveal ‘the fate of every human who ever lived.’ In brief, he wants to convince us that there is no hell. On the other side of Protestant theology we have the conservative evangelicals, who claim that every person will experience eternal conscious torment in hell, unless they accept the Gospel (which I have been referring to as the Evangelical Hell Doctrine [EHD]). Indeed, they are so certain about this belief that it often makes an appearance on a list of official church doctrines, and it is thus what its members are expected to believe.
In the last weeks, I have not chosen one of these sides, but taken a different route entirely, namely, to claim that there is not really much information given about the negative side of the after-life in the Bible, and this is true of both the Jewish scriptures and the Christian New Testament. This is particularly problematic for Bell and the conservative evangelicals, because they tell us that their beliefs are formed entirely by Scripture.
Bell’s position strikes me as arrogant, but I reserved most of my disdain for the EHD, because in addition to the arrogance problem, they are making a dramatic, terrible claim about almost every person who has ever lived. If you are going to state that you know that another person is going to live in conscious torment, you really should have some good evidence for your claim. However, when we examined the passages that supposedly offered proof of the EHD, we found something different. There were three groups of passages. First, there a handful of passages in Matthew and one in Luke that say that you go to hell (or something like it) for moral failings such as neglect of the poor, and not for a lack of belief. There are also several passages that talk about how the unbeliever will someday die, or perish, or be destroyed, which is explicitly defined in Scripture as the opposite of living forever in torment. The third group of passages is from Revelation, which describe the eternal conscious torment of the devil and his worshippers. But nowhere do we find anything close to a passage that supports the EHD.
What I have to say next may sound like a joke, but it is not. When you experience what is sometimes called a ‘brain freeze,’ try to imagine that pain lasting forever. That pain is excruciating, but it is bearable because it lasts only a few sounds. But what if it never stopped? If you are a conservative evangelical, you are saying that you know for sure that something like this kind of pain will happen to almost every person who has ever lived. And, importantly, you are saying this without any Scriptural evidence.
Two parting notes before I start a new series next week. It strikes me that people who believe in the EHD should order their lives far differently than they do. For example, why in the world would you have children if you thought that there was a decent chance that one of them would be tortured forever? Why would you oppose abortion? Isn’t it better for a being to die as a fetus than to grow up and thus have a chance of being tortured forever? Also, why would you spend time with family, friends, church, leisure, travel, career, sports, hobbies, etc? Because if the EHD is true, life is an emergency, and the only point to it is to make sure that as few people are tortured forever as possible. I really wonder if anyone - including those who outwardly affirm it - really believes in the EHD.
In Scripture, we learn what kind of lives we should lead. If we are Christians, we should order our lives accordingly. What we are not told is what will happen to those ‘on the other side.’ And so, if we are honest, we will continue on in ignorance, as we must do already with very many issues.
In the last weeks, I have not chosen one of these sides, but taken a different route entirely, namely, to claim that there is not really much information given about the negative side of the after-life in the Bible, and this is true of both the Jewish scriptures and the Christian New Testament. This is particularly problematic for Bell and the conservative evangelicals, because they tell us that their beliefs are formed entirely by Scripture.
Bell’s position strikes me as arrogant, but I reserved most of my disdain for the EHD, because in addition to the arrogance problem, they are making a dramatic, terrible claim about almost every person who has ever lived. If you are going to state that you know that another person is going to live in conscious torment, you really should have some good evidence for your claim. However, when we examined the passages that supposedly offered proof of the EHD, we found something different. There were three groups of passages. First, there a handful of passages in Matthew and one in Luke that say that you go to hell (or something like it) for moral failings such as neglect of the poor, and not for a lack of belief. There are also several passages that talk about how the unbeliever will someday die, or perish, or be destroyed, which is explicitly defined in Scripture as the opposite of living forever in torment. The third group of passages is from Revelation, which describe the eternal conscious torment of the devil and his worshippers. But nowhere do we find anything close to a passage that supports the EHD.
What I have to say next may sound like a joke, but it is not. When you experience what is sometimes called a ‘brain freeze,’ try to imagine that pain lasting forever. That pain is excruciating, but it is bearable because it lasts only a few sounds. But what if it never stopped? If you are a conservative evangelical, you are saying that you know for sure that something like this kind of pain will happen to almost every person who has ever lived. And, importantly, you are saying this without any Scriptural evidence.
Two parting notes before I start a new series next week. It strikes me that people who believe in the EHD should order their lives far differently than they do. For example, why in the world would you have children if you thought that there was a decent chance that one of them would be tortured forever? Why would you oppose abortion? Isn’t it better for a being to die as a fetus than to grow up and thus have a chance of being tortured forever? Also, why would you spend time with family, friends, church, leisure, travel, career, sports, hobbies, etc? Because if the EHD is true, life is an emergency, and the only point to it is to make sure that as few people are tortured forever as possible. I really wonder if anyone - including those who outwardly affirm it - really believes in the EHD.
In Scripture, we learn what kind of lives we should lead. If we are Christians, we should order our lives accordingly. What we are not told is what will happen to those ‘on the other side.’ And so, if we are honest, we will continue on in ignorance, as we must do already with very many issues.
7.04.2011
The After-Life: An Argument for Ignorance, Part VIII
Next week I will make some conclusions, but this week I want to make one final observation about the attempt to derive the evangelical hell doctrine (EHD) from the Bible. There are a few passages in the New Testament that use the words ‘death,’ ‘destruction,’ or ‘perish’ to describe the fate of unbelievers. For instance, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says that “[t]hey will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord…” John 3:16 famously says that unbelievers will ‘perish,’ and Romans 6:23 says that “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” The one who holds the EHD has to believe that these are euphemisms; that is, Paul and John talk about mere death, but what they really mean is that these people will be alive forever while being consciously tortured.
These are two reasons that this is an irresponsible reading. First, if it is true that most people who have ever lived will suffer eternal, conscious torment, then such a truth would be the most important thing that we could ever discover. Therefore, we should expect the writers of the Bible to talk about this at every turn! But Paul never does, and John only does in Revelation when talking about worshippers of the beast and the devil. So are John and Paul holding out on us? Do they actually know that the fate of most people will be eternal conscious torment and yet do not tell us because it would be impolite? This seems absurd.
The second reason has to do with the Greek words being used. Those three passages I reference use three different Greek words for death, and when those words are used in other passages, they really just mean death – as in a complete end to life. For instance, the word translated ‘destruction’ in the 2 Thessalonians passage also shows up in I Corinthians 5:5, where Paul talks about “the destruction of the flesh,” which he contrasts with the “spirit [being] saved in the day of the Lord.” Or in John 3:16, the Greek word translated as ‘perish’ shows up in Matthew 5:29, when Jesus says that you should take out your right eye, because “it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell” (NKJV). In Jesus’ teaching in Matthew, then, perishing is the opposite of going to hell. So why would he use it in a radically different way in John without explaining himself? Did he just assume that we would get the message? In both of these passages, then, death is contrasted with ‘going to hell’; that is, perishing, or dying, or being destroyed is the opposite of living forever.
And so we have a handful or passages that mention hell or something like it. There are a few (mostly from Matthew, one from Luke) that mention hell as a place that you go for doing immoral works, and not for what you do or do not believe. Therefore, these passages cannot support the EHD. Then there are a few passages, all from Revelation, that describe literal, conscious torment. These, however, do not refer to regular unbelievers, but to the devil, worshippers of the beast, etc. Therefore, these passages cannot support the EHD. Then there are the passages I talked about today. They do (unlike the other two kinds of passages) talk about those who do not believe in the Gospel. However, they do not talk about hell as a destination for unbelievers; rather, they say that they will die, instead of having to endure some sort of everlasting torture. We can see that the Evangelical Hell Doctrine is unraveling fast. I want to make some concluding remarks next week.
These are two reasons that this is an irresponsible reading. First, if it is true that most people who have ever lived will suffer eternal, conscious torment, then such a truth would be the most important thing that we could ever discover. Therefore, we should expect the writers of the Bible to talk about this at every turn! But Paul never does, and John only does in Revelation when talking about worshippers of the beast and the devil. So are John and Paul holding out on us? Do they actually know that the fate of most people will be eternal conscious torment and yet do not tell us because it would be impolite? This seems absurd.
The second reason has to do with the Greek words being used. Those three passages I reference use three different Greek words for death, and when those words are used in other passages, they really just mean death – as in a complete end to life. For instance, the word translated ‘destruction’ in the 2 Thessalonians passage also shows up in I Corinthians 5:5, where Paul talks about “the destruction of the flesh,” which he contrasts with the “spirit [being] saved in the day of the Lord.” Or in John 3:16, the Greek word translated as ‘perish’ shows up in Matthew 5:29, when Jesus says that you should take out your right eye, because “it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell” (NKJV). In Jesus’ teaching in Matthew, then, perishing is the opposite of going to hell. So why would he use it in a radically different way in John without explaining himself? Did he just assume that we would get the message? In both of these passages, then, death is contrasted with ‘going to hell’; that is, perishing, or dying, or being destroyed is the opposite of living forever.
And so we have a handful or passages that mention hell or something like it. There are a few (mostly from Matthew, one from Luke) that mention hell as a place that you go for doing immoral works, and not for what you do or do not believe. Therefore, these passages cannot support the EHD. Then there are a few passages, all from Revelation, that describe literal, conscious torment. These, however, do not refer to regular unbelievers, but to the devil, worshippers of the beast, etc. Therefore, these passages cannot support the EHD. Then there are the passages I talked about today. They do (unlike the other two kinds of passages) talk about those who do not believe in the Gospel. However, they do not talk about hell as a destination for unbelievers; rather, they say that they will die, instead of having to endure some sort of everlasting torture. We can see that the Evangelical Hell Doctrine is unraveling fast. I want to make some concluding remarks next week.
6.29.2011
The After-Life: An Argument for Ignorance, Part VII
Last week I addressed one of the verses that the idea of eternal, conscious, punishment may come from. This week, I address the other two (or maybe three). One is Revelation 20, where John envisions a great and final judgment: “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life…And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was throw into the lake of fire” (vv. 12, 15).
The Evangelical Hell Doctrine (EHD), we may remember, says that those who do not believe in the Gospel will suffer eternal, conscious, torment, and apparently, this text is supposed to offer support. There are two important reasons that it does not. The first is that only a few verses later, John mentions which individuals are not in the book of life: “…the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable,…murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars…” (21:8). This list does not refer (at least exclusively) to those who have prayed the sinner’s prayer, as the EHD would have us expect (I have blogged about the relevance of character in another series, ‘A Theology of Love’). Thus, Revelations 20 and 21 cannot be used to support the EHD.
The second is that the result of being thrown in the lake of fire is frequently and simply referred to as “death” (v. 14). And since the text nowhere says or implies that those thrown in the lake of fire suffer eternal, conscious, torment, it would be quite a leap to believe that John meant to say that they experience eternal, conscious, torment, but just never got around to saying it. Such a detail is too important to leave out.
John actually does mention some who will experience eternal, conscious, torment, namely, the worshippers of the beast: “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshippers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name” (14:11). There are three others mentioned in chapter 20: “the devil…was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (v. 10). Thus, John specifically mentions that the devil, the beast, the worshippers of the beast, and the false prophet will suffer eternal, conscious, torment. And so are we to believe that John forgot to mention that detail just 5 verses later when describing the fate of those not in the book of life?
I want to emphasize that there are several other passages (in addition to Rev. 20) that imply that those who are not reconciled to God die, or perish, or are destroyed, in contrast to being tormented. I will consider those passages next week.
The Evangelical Hell Doctrine (EHD), we may remember, says that those who do not believe in the Gospel will suffer eternal, conscious, torment, and apparently, this text is supposed to offer support. There are two important reasons that it does not. The first is that only a few verses later, John mentions which individuals are not in the book of life: “…the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable,…murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars…” (21:8). This list does not refer (at least exclusively) to those who have prayed the sinner’s prayer, as the EHD would have us expect (I have blogged about the relevance of character in another series, ‘A Theology of Love’). Thus, Revelations 20 and 21 cannot be used to support the EHD.
The second is that the result of being thrown in the lake of fire is frequently and simply referred to as “death” (v. 14). And since the text nowhere says or implies that those thrown in the lake of fire suffer eternal, conscious, torment, it would be quite a leap to believe that John meant to say that they experience eternal, conscious, torment, but just never got around to saying it. Such a detail is too important to leave out.
John actually does mention some who will experience eternal, conscious, torment, namely, the worshippers of the beast: “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshippers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name” (14:11). There are three others mentioned in chapter 20: “the devil…was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (v. 10). Thus, John specifically mentions that the devil, the beast, the worshippers of the beast, and the false prophet will suffer eternal, conscious, torment. And so are we to believe that John forgot to mention that detail just 5 verses later when describing the fate of those not in the book of life?
I want to emphasize that there are several other passages (in addition to Rev. 20) that imply that those who are not reconciled to God die, or perish, or are destroyed, in contrast to being tormented. I will consider those passages next week.
6.21.2011
The After-Life: An Argument for Ignorance, Part VI
In part III of this series, I pointed out that the Evangelical Hell Doctrine (EHD) does not actually come from any passage of Scripture. But let’s focus mainly on the origin of the idea of eternal, conscious, torment. It seems that it comes from two passages. The first is Luke 16: 19-31, where Jesus tells the parable of an unnamed rich man and Lazarus, an extremely poor man. As the passage goes, after they both die, Lazarus goes to heaven, and the rich man goes to Hades, where he is “in anguish in this flame” (v. 24). To be sure, this passage is haunting, but two observations will show that this passage does not support the EHD.
First, we need to ask why the rich man ended up in torment, while Lazarus ended up ‘in Abraham’s bosom.’ The passage does not say, but it is obvious that we are meant to reflect on the contrast between Lazarus’ poverty and the rich man’s lack of sympathy for him (vv. 19-22). Then in v. 25, Abraham says to the rich man “remember that you in your life received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.”
The passage ends by Abraham explaining that the rich man’s relatives may avoid the place of torment by listening to ‘Moses and the prophets’ and repenting. So what, exactly, do Moses and the prophets say that would cause someone to repent? Well certainly there is much in the Jewish scriptures about taking care of the poor, and since that is the relevant transgression here, it is possible to believe that this is the important thing that Moses and the prophets would have said. But while the passage never says explicitly, we can be sure that Abraham wasn’t referring to the Gospel, because Moses and the prophets don’t talk about that. That means that Luke 16 cannot be used to support the EHD.
Second, it is very difficult to believe that this passage is supposed to be taken literally, for in the passage, the rich man is in the fire, looks up, sees Abraham, and starts a dialogue with him. Furthermore, he asks that Abraham send Lazarus down to put his wet finger on this tongue – a request that seems reasonable to him. It is odd to believe that any after-life really works that way (on anybody’s theology), leading us to the more reasonable belief that this passage was simply meant as a vivid reminder of how much God cares about our attitude toward the poor.
First, we need to ask why the rich man ended up in torment, while Lazarus ended up ‘in Abraham’s bosom.’ The passage does not say, but it is obvious that we are meant to reflect on the contrast between Lazarus’ poverty and the rich man’s lack of sympathy for him (vv. 19-22). Then in v. 25, Abraham says to the rich man “remember that you in your life received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.”
The passage ends by Abraham explaining that the rich man’s relatives may avoid the place of torment by listening to ‘Moses and the prophets’ and repenting. So what, exactly, do Moses and the prophets say that would cause someone to repent? Well certainly there is much in the Jewish scriptures about taking care of the poor, and since that is the relevant transgression here, it is possible to believe that this is the important thing that Moses and the prophets would have said. But while the passage never says explicitly, we can be sure that Abraham wasn’t referring to the Gospel, because Moses and the prophets don’t talk about that. That means that Luke 16 cannot be used to support the EHD.
Second, it is very difficult to believe that this passage is supposed to be taken literally, for in the passage, the rich man is in the fire, looks up, sees Abraham, and starts a dialogue with him. Furthermore, he asks that Abraham send Lazarus down to put his wet finger on this tongue – a request that seems reasonable to him. It is odd to believe that any after-life really works that way (on anybody’s theology), leading us to the more reasonable belief that this passage was simply meant as a vivid reminder of how much God cares about our attitude toward the poor.
6.08.2011
The After-Life: An Argument for Ignorance, Part V
Last week, I argued that ignorance is actually often a good thing, because knowledge – when that knowledge is useless – can do nothing but make us arrogant. For my money, this makes sense of why the Evangelical Hell Doctrine (EHD) is not actually in the Bible even once. I sometimes have this same conversation with Creationists. They say that Gen 1 (or Gen 2) must be a science lesson, because if it wasn’t a science lesson, it must be a waste of time, and God wouldn’t include anything in the Bible that was a waste of time.
This reasoning is not very good, because the first three chapters of Genesis tell us many, many important things that help us live godly lives. So even if there is no science there (as I believe), it is still certainly valuable. It is useful practical information for us to know, for example, that we humans have a responsibility to care for the earth, or that not trusting God leads to pain, etc, etc. The point is, a deep knowledge of Genesis 1-3 helps us order our lives. But how exactly would it make a difference in your life if the universe is 6000 years old or if it is 13 billion? What does that change? What are you going to do differently if one is true and the other is false? And since it is useless practical information, we should not expect God to tell us how old the universe is. As I said last week, I believe that God puts us on a need-to-know plan, and there are many things we do not need to know.
But some argue that knowledge of the EHD is actually important, because without such knowledge, there would be no evangelism. That is, it is helpful to know that some people might experience eternal, conscience torment, because that motivates us to share the Gospel. Honestly, I feel sorry for people like that. It seems clear from nearly any passage of Scripture that God intends to improve our earthly lives. I am not saying that there are no plans for an eternal life, but it is not possible to believe that the goodness of this life is unimportant to God.
Thus, it would be incredible for someone to say something like, “Well, I’m not going to share the gospel with that person unless I can be certain that she is going to experience eternal, conscious, torment if I do not.” When the matter is put that way, we may even wonder if that person even understands what it means to be a Christian.
This reasoning is not very good, because the first three chapters of Genesis tell us many, many important things that help us live godly lives. So even if there is no science there (as I believe), it is still certainly valuable. It is useful practical information for us to know, for example, that we humans have a responsibility to care for the earth, or that not trusting God leads to pain, etc, etc. The point is, a deep knowledge of Genesis 1-3 helps us order our lives. But how exactly would it make a difference in your life if the universe is 6000 years old or if it is 13 billion? What does that change? What are you going to do differently if one is true and the other is false? And since it is useless practical information, we should not expect God to tell us how old the universe is. As I said last week, I believe that God puts us on a need-to-know plan, and there are many things we do not need to know.
But some argue that knowledge of the EHD is actually important, because without such knowledge, there would be no evangelism. That is, it is helpful to know that some people might experience eternal, conscience torment, because that motivates us to share the Gospel. Honestly, I feel sorry for people like that. It seems clear from nearly any passage of Scripture that God intends to improve our earthly lives. I am not saying that there are no plans for an eternal life, but it is not possible to believe that the goodness of this life is unimportant to God.
Thus, it would be incredible for someone to say something like, “Well, I’m not going to share the gospel with that person unless I can be certain that she is going to experience eternal, conscious, torment if I do not.” When the matter is put that way, we may even wonder if that person even understands what it means to be a Christian.
5.31.2011
The After-Life: An Argument for Ignorance, Part IV
The last two weeks, I have been criticizing the picture of the afterlife that conservative Protestants try to sell, but you may remember that I started this series more as a response to Rob Bell’s liberal book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, And the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. What Bell’s position and the conservative one have in common, despite their incompatible conclusions, is their certainty in what they believe. They both are sure that they know what will happen ‘to every person who ever lived.’ I think this is wrong, because this is a matter about which we do not have certainty. But isn’t that a bad thing? Wouldn’t it be better if God clued us in on this important matter?
I want to focus this week on the virtue of ignorance. You may recall Jesus’ words to his disciples in Acts 1:8: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses…to the end of the earth” (ESV). My favorite word is that verse is ‘but,’ which indicates a contrast. So what is contrasted? In verse 6, the disciples ask Jesus when he will restore the kingdom to Israel. Then in verse 7, Jesus informs them that this is not information that is “for you to know.” Then the contrast word – ‘but’ – and then, “you will receive power” from the Holy Spirit.
What Jesus is implying is that when the disciples asked for that information, they were also asking for power. I believe that the old adage – ‘knowledge is power’ – is true. That means, at least partly, that when one has knowledge that another does not have yet want, the knower has power over the ignorant. This leads to another feature of knowledge: it “puffs up” (I Corinthians 8:1).
Now, there are some things we need to know if we are to live as Christians, but there are also a lot of things we do not need to know. One example, as discussed in Acts 1:8, is when the world will end. I think knowing ‘the fate of every person who ever lived’ is also an example. What these two pieces of information have in common is that they do not help us live as Christians. Thus, all they can do is to make us prideful.
I want to focus this week on the virtue of ignorance. You may recall Jesus’ words to his disciples in Acts 1:8: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses…to the end of the earth” (ESV). My favorite word is that verse is ‘but,’ which indicates a contrast. So what is contrasted? In verse 6, the disciples ask Jesus when he will restore the kingdom to Israel. Then in verse 7, Jesus informs them that this is not information that is “for you to know.” Then the contrast word – ‘but’ – and then, “you will receive power” from the Holy Spirit.
What Jesus is implying is that when the disciples asked for that information, they were also asking for power. I believe that the old adage – ‘knowledge is power’ – is true. That means, at least partly, that when one has knowledge that another does not have yet want, the knower has power over the ignorant. This leads to another feature of knowledge: it “puffs up” (I Corinthians 8:1).
Now, there are some things we need to know if we are to live as Christians, but there are also a lot of things we do not need to know. One example, as discussed in Acts 1:8, is when the world will end. I think knowing ‘the fate of every person who ever lived’ is also an example. What these two pieces of information have in common is that they do not help us live as Christians. Thus, all they can do is to make us prideful.
5.23.2011
The After-Life: An Argument for Ignorance, Part III
Last week I began addressing what I called the Evangelical Hell Doctrine (EHD): “All people who believe that Jesus died for their sins and was resurrected and accept this sacrifice will go to heaven, and all people who don’t believe and accept it will go to a place of eternal, conscious, torment.” This week I want to offer another criticism of the EHD.
You may have noticed that the EHD I gave was something that I constructed based on my own observation of most evangelical church doctrines, instead of a quotation from a passage of Scripture. Why? It is because there are no passages or verses in Scriptures in which this doctrine is articulated. There are passages that extol the virtues of belief in the Gospel, of course, but none of those passages mention anything like a disagreeable afterlife for non-believers, let alone a place of eternal conscious torment. There are also a handful of passages that mention hell or something like hell, and two or three that talk about a place of conscious torment, but in all cases, these passages talk about hell as a place for morally evil people, not for those who do not believe in the Gospel.
This absence of mention of the EHD in Scripture is problematic for at least two reasons. First, Protestants in general (and therefore evangelicals) distinguish themselves from both Orthodox and Catholic Christians in part because they emphasize Scripture and de-emphasize tradition. Thus, for evangelicals, it matters less what tradition says and quite a lot what Scripture says.
Let me illustrate my point by talking about it from the other way around. There are certain Catholics who believe you go to heaven if you have taken the sacraments, and going to hell if you have not. Not in the Bible? No problem, they will say, this is what our tradition has believed for 2,000 years, and therefore we must accept it as true. This sounds a little suspicious to me, but at least it’s consistent. Evangelicals, however, can’t make this move. We should not let them say, “Well, we know the EHD is not actually in any passage of Scripture, but these are our traditional beliefs.” By their own admission, when Scripture and tradition are in tension, Scripture wins, every time.
Second, if there really were a way to know for sure who was going to experience eternal bliss and who was going to experience eternal conscious torment, such a thing would be the most important thing that anyone has ever discovered. And, if as the evangelicals believe, God wants this to be obvious to us, we should expect there to be a plethora of verses which unambiguously articulate the EHD. Or at least one. But none? It strikes me as very strange that a belief of such dramatic importance that is supposed to be obvious is nowhere to be found in Scripture.
You may have noticed that the EHD I gave was something that I constructed based on my own observation of most evangelical church doctrines, instead of a quotation from a passage of Scripture. Why? It is because there are no passages or verses in Scriptures in which this doctrine is articulated. There are passages that extol the virtues of belief in the Gospel, of course, but none of those passages mention anything like a disagreeable afterlife for non-believers, let alone a place of eternal conscious torment. There are also a handful of passages that mention hell or something like hell, and two or three that talk about a place of conscious torment, but in all cases, these passages talk about hell as a place for morally evil people, not for those who do not believe in the Gospel.
This absence of mention of the EHD in Scripture is problematic for at least two reasons. First, Protestants in general (and therefore evangelicals) distinguish themselves from both Orthodox and Catholic Christians in part because they emphasize Scripture and de-emphasize tradition. Thus, for evangelicals, it matters less what tradition says and quite a lot what Scripture says.
Let me illustrate my point by talking about it from the other way around. There are certain Catholics who believe you go to heaven if you have taken the sacraments, and going to hell if you have not. Not in the Bible? No problem, they will say, this is what our tradition has believed for 2,000 years, and therefore we must accept it as true. This sounds a little suspicious to me, but at least it’s consistent. Evangelicals, however, can’t make this move. We should not let them say, “Well, we know the EHD is not actually in any passage of Scripture, but these are our traditional beliefs.” By their own admission, when Scripture and tradition are in tension, Scripture wins, every time.
Second, if there really were a way to know for sure who was going to experience eternal bliss and who was going to experience eternal conscious torment, such a thing would be the most important thing that anyone has ever discovered. And, if as the evangelicals believe, God wants this to be obvious to us, we should expect there to be a plethora of verses which unambiguously articulate the EHD. Or at least one. But none? It strikes me as very strange that a belief of such dramatic importance that is supposed to be obvious is nowhere to be found in Scripture.
5.17.2011
The After-Life: An Argument for Ignorance, Part II
Last week, I identified the evangelical hell doctrine (EHD): “All people who believe that Jesus died for their sins and was resurrected and accept this sacrifice will go to heaven, and all people who don’t believe and accept it will go to a place of eternal, conscious, torment.” The next few weeks, I am going to introduce good reasons to believe that this doctrine is simply not Scriptural.
I’ll start with this teaching of Jesus: “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:14-16, ESV)
So there is an original flock. If you are a Christian in my tradition, you believe with me that this flock is made up of those who believe and accept the Gospel. But who are the members of the 'other' fold? I have heard speculation that these people may be the Jews, or at least some of the Jews. The Mormons claim that Jesus is talking about them, while still others say that this group must be those who live in unreached, remote parts of the world.
Perhaps one of these answers is right, perhaps all are, and perhaps none is. Perhaps there are two people in the other fold, perhaps there are billions. But here is an important thing to notice: Jesus does not tell us or even indicate who these ‘others’ may be. So for a reason unknown to us, Jesus felt that it was important to indicate that there were ‘others,’ but he also felt it unimportant to tell us who those ‘others’ may be.
But while it is impossible to be clear on the specifics, we do know some general things about the other flock. First, they were not members of the original fold. And, since the members of the original fold are those who believe and accept the Gospel, these ‘others’ must be people either who do not believe the Gospel (and hence do not accept the Gospel), or do not accept the Gospel (even though they believe it).
Second, these ‘others’ have exactly the same destiny as the original flock, for the two flocks will become ‘one flock’ in the end.
Third, although the other flock may not know or accept Jesus now, they “will listen to [Jesus’] voice.” Jesus is here continuing his metaphor of himself as the shepherd and us as sheep, for a shepherd’s voice is very intimate for the sheep. In fact (at least, this used to be true in ancient cultures), if a shepherd died, the herd of sheep that he was in charge of would be slaughtered. This is because the sheep recognize only one voice, and in the absence of that shepherd with whom they have been familiar their whole lives, there is no hope of getting the sheep to do anything. What this image suggests are people without a real, explicit recognition of the Gospel who nevertheless recognize Jesus’ voice (whatever that may mean non-metaphorically).
It is important to recognize that this verse alone shows that the second part of the EHD is false, because John 10:16 explicitly states that there are some who do not believe/accept to Gospel who will share a destiny with the original fold.
I’ll start with this teaching of Jesus: “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:14-16, ESV)
So there is an original flock. If you are a Christian in my tradition, you believe with me that this flock is made up of those who believe and accept the Gospel. But who are the members of the 'other' fold? I have heard speculation that these people may be the Jews, or at least some of the Jews. The Mormons claim that Jesus is talking about them, while still others say that this group must be those who live in unreached, remote parts of the world.
Perhaps one of these answers is right, perhaps all are, and perhaps none is. Perhaps there are two people in the other fold, perhaps there are billions. But here is an important thing to notice: Jesus does not tell us or even indicate who these ‘others’ may be. So for a reason unknown to us, Jesus felt that it was important to indicate that there were ‘others,’ but he also felt it unimportant to tell us who those ‘others’ may be.
But while it is impossible to be clear on the specifics, we do know some general things about the other flock. First, they were not members of the original fold. And, since the members of the original fold are those who believe and accept the Gospel, these ‘others’ must be people either who do not believe the Gospel (and hence do not accept the Gospel), or do not accept the Gospel (even though they believe it).
Second, these ‘others’ have exactly the same destiny as the original flock, for the two flocks will become ‘one flock’ in the end.
Third, although the other flock may not know or accept Jesus now, they “will listen to [Jesus’] voice.” Jesus is here continuing his metaphor of himself as the shepherd and us as sheep, for a shepherd’s voice is very intimate for the sheep. In fact (at least, this used to be true in ancient cultures), if a shepherd died, the herd of sheep that he was in charge of would be slaughtered. This is because the sheep recognize only one voice, and in the absence of that shepherd with whom they have been familiar their whole lives, there is no hope of getting the sheep to do anything. What this image suggests are people without a real, explicit recognition of the Gospel who nevertheless recognize Jesus’ voice (whatever that may mean non-metaphorically).
It is important to recognize that this verse alone shows that the second part of the EHD is false, because John 10:16 explicitly states that there are some who do not believe/accept to Gospel who will share a destiny with the original fold.
5.09.2011
The After-Life: An Argument for Ignorance, Part I
I just finished Rob Bell’s controversial new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, And the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. His central idea is that hell -- understood as a destination for people of eternal, conscious, torment -- is incompatible with God’s character; hence, such a place cannot exist. None of his arguments are new (and he readily admits this), as they are arguments that we sometimes hear about salvation from mainline Protestants and liberal Catholics. Bell, however, already has a significant following within the evangelical community, and so when those arguments came from his pen, they become newly controversial.
I am starting a blog series that is not so much a direct, point by point response to any of Bell’s arguments, but rather a broader response to the kinds of conclusions he comes up with. We don’t have to go any farther than the subtitle to realize that Bell is making some spectacular knowledge claims here – about ‘the fate of every person who ever lived.’ Now of course the subtitle is intentionally obnoxious (that’s what gets people to pick up the book while they perusing Barnes and Noble), but it is not false to say that Bell is making these kinds of bold claims.
What I am sympathetic with is Bell’s attack on the traditional fundamentalist/evangelical understanding of salvation and hell. For clarity, let me summarize what I will call the evangelical hell doctrine (EHD): “All people who believe that Jesus died for their sins and was resurrected and accept this sacrifice will go to heaven, and all people who don’t believe and accept it will go to a place of eternal, conscious, torment.”
Bell’s doctrine is obviously opposed to the EHD, but what the two doctrines have in common is that they make confident assertions about how God will handle things in the afterlife. What I will argue in the coming weeks is that such claims can never be supported by Scripture; they are based on wishful thinking (or you could call it ‘hope’ if you want a fancier word), but not much more.
I am starting a blog series that is not so much a direct, point by point response to any of Bell’s arguments, but rather a broader response to the kinds of conclusions he comes up with. We don’t have to go any farther than the subtitle to realize that Bell is making some spectacular knowledge claims here – about ‘the fate of every person who ever lived.’ Now of course the subtitle is intentionally obnoxious (that’s what gets people to pick up the book while they perusing Barnes and Noble), but it is not false to say that Bell is making these kinds of bold claims.
What I am sympathetic with is Bell’s attack on the traditional fundamentalist/evangelical understanding of salvation and hell. For clarity, let me summarize what I will call the evangelical hell doctrine (EHD): “All people who believe that Jesus died for their sins and was resurrected and accept this sacrifice will go to heaven, and all people who don’t believe and accept it will go to a place of eternal, conscious, torment.”
Bell’s doctrine is obviously opposed to the EHD, but what the two doctrines have in common is that they make confident assertions about how God will handle things in the afterlife. What I will argue in the coming weeks is that such claims can never be supported by Scripture; they are based on wishful thinking (or you could call it ‘hope’ if you want a fancier word), but not much more.
4.18.2011
Climate Change, Part Three
I have been criticizing some of the strategies and excesses of climate science. Now, I want to focus my criticism on those non-scientists who are certain that climate change is a hoax.
One of the most obvious signs of conservative disdain shows up every time it snows; the blogosphere, Fox News, and talk radio just explode. Surely, the existence of snowfall proves that the earth is not warming, they insist. What could be more obvious?
Well, three things. First (and I’ll try to say this without being condescending), snow does not indicate coldness in the air. Snow is simply precipitation when the air temperature is 32 degree or less. So, let’s say that it snowed when it was 30 degree on February 1, 2011, but didn’t snow when it was 29 degrees on February 1, 2010. That means that it was warmer on that day in 2011 than 2010, even though it snowed in 2011 and not 2010. Got it?
Second, the worst fears of climate scientists are that the global temperature will rise 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the 21st century. What does this mean? Certainly it means that you can’t go outside and predict whether the planet is warming based on how the temperature feels to you. This is change we’re not going to feel.
Finally, and most importantly, the theory is called global warming and not local warming. That is to say, no scientist is predicting how the temperature will change in your little city or neighborhood or area of the country. Rather, they are talking about global temperature rise. So, for you climate deniers, you can’t say, ‘Oh, look, it’s colder this January than last January in my state. Therefore the world is getting colder, not warmer. On the contrary, since we are talking about global warming, you must factor in the warming temperature of say, the Arctic, before drawing any conclusions about temperature change.
My point is this: no rational person should make judgments about climate change if those judgments are based primarily on their personal observations of local temperatures. And for the love, snowfall doesn’t tell us anything.
One of the most obvious signs of conservative disdain shows up every time it snows; the blogosphere, Fox News, and talk radio just explode. Surely, the existence of snowfall proves that the earth is not warming, they insist. What could be more obvious?
Well, three things. First (and I’ll try to say this without being condescending), snow does not indicate coldness in the air. Snow is simply precipitation when the air temperature is 32 degree or less. So, let’s say that it snowed when it was 30 degree on February 1, 2011, but didn’t snow when it was 29 degrees on February 1, 2010. That means that it was warmer on that day in 2011 than 2010, even though it snowed in 2011 and not 2010. Got it?
Second, the worst fears of climate scientists are that the global temperature will rise 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the 21st century. What does this mean? Certainly it means that you can’t go outside and predict whether the planet is warming based on how the temperature feels to you. This is change we’re not going to feel.
Finally, and most importantly, the theory is called global warming and not local warming. That is to say, no scientist is predicting how the temperature will change in your little city or neighborhood or area of the country. Rather, they are talking about global temperature rise. So, for you climate deniers, you can’t say, ‘Oh, look, it’s colder this January than last January in my state. Therefore the world is getting colder, not warmer. On the contrary, since we are talking about global warming, you must factor in the warming temperature of say, the Arctic, before drawing any conclusions about temperature change.
My point is this: no rational person should make judgments about climate change if those judgments are based primarily on their personal observations of local temperatures. And for the love, snowfall doesn’t tell us anything.
3.23.2011
Climate Change, Part Two
Last week I described a substantial problem I had with climate science. This week, I want to focus on a complaint I have about the way in which climate science is presented – i.e., the style, not the substance.
It seems that conservatives in general think that the theory of global warming is some kind of hoax. This allows them to say that we don’t need a big, world-wide government solution (because there is no problem), and government should relax their environmental rules, so that the free market can operate unimpeded. So, what possible evidence will it take to change their minds?
For the optimistic liberal, I have some bad news for you: there is no such evidence. The idea that the free market doesn’t need any guidance from government is fundamental to their belief system, and it is very, very, difficult to get someone to admit that a fundamental belief that they have is wrong. The scientific community doesn’t seem to understand this. They just keep doing research, publishing articles, etc, hoping that some evidence that they produce will finally get the conservatives to admit that they were wrong about global warming.
This will never happen. So instead of wasting time trying to produce new evidence in hopes that some of that evidence will be convincing, we need to shift the environmental conversation to other, less controversial issues. For instance, our oceans are in big trouble, we are running out of room to store our trash safely, our aquifers are being depleted by our desire for meat, the world is running out of arable land, and, as we learned last week, nuclear energy needs greater security. These are just a few of the dozens of issues confronting our generation as the world’s population continues to rise with no end in sight.
What these problems have in common is that they are not really controversial. But since conservative believe that climate science is ‘junk science,’ and scientists and the media associate environmental concerns with global warming, the result is that conservatives are hostile to any environmental concerns. This is why the conversation about the environment has to start with concerns that are not controversial – such as dirty air, toxic pollution, etc. Even conservatives will have to admit that we need laws to prevent such things. These should be ‘common ground’ issues.
It seems that conservatives in general think that the theory of global warming is some kind of hoax. This allows them to say that we don’t need a big, world-wide government solution (because there is no problem), and government should relax their environmental rules, so that the free market can operate unimpeded. So, what possible evidence will it take to change their minds?
For the optimistic liberal, I have some bad news for you: there is no such evidence. The idea that the free market doesn’t need any guidance from government is fundamental to their belief system, and it is very, very, difficult to get someone to admit that a fundamental belief that they have is wrong. The scientific community doesn’t seem to understand this. They just keep doing research, publishing articles, etc, hoping that some evidence that they produce will finally get the conservatives to admit that they were wrong about global warming.
This will never happen. So instead of wasting time trying to produce new evidence in hopes that some of that evidence will be convincing, we need to shift the environmental conversation to other, less controversial issues. For instance, our oceans are in big trouble, we are running out of room to store our trash safely, our aquifers are being depleted by our desire for meat, the world is running out of arable land, and, as we learned last week, nuclear energy needs greater security. These are just a few of the dozens of issues confronting our generation as the world’s population continues to rise with no end in sight.
What these problems have in common is that they are not really controversial. But since conservative believe that climate science is ‘junk science,’ and scientists and the media associate environmental concerns with global warming, the result is that conservatives are hostile to any environmental concerns. This is why the conversation about the environment has to start with concerns that are not controversial – such as dirty air, toxic pollution, etc. Even conservatives will have to admit that we need laws to prevent such things. These should be ‘common ground’ issues.
3.03.2011
Climate Change, Part One
Recent polls have shown that as many as 41% of Americans believe that global warming news is ‘exaggerated,’ which is probably a nice way to say that around 41% of Americans think that the theory of global warming is BS. Not surprisingly to any of my regular blog readers, I am not a climate change skeptic, although before I defend my position in the next weeks I want first to state my dissatisfaction with global warming science.
It doesn’t take a scientist to know that the weather on our planet is not the same as it has been in recent decades. You have only to look at photographs, graphs and tables of melting polar and glacier ice to realize that something is going on – but what? Scientific consensus is that the climate is changing because of greenhouse gas emission, and, as I will explain next week, this is a respectable theory.
But the word ‘because’ is an important word, and it makes all the difference. Philosophers know (and scientists are supposed to know), that cause and effect analyses are quite difficult, even when there is a large sample size. For example, the theory that smoking causes lung cancer was certainly a worthwhile theory when it was first proposed (whenever that was, exactly). But you can’t just conclude that smoking causes lung cancer from one dead smoker, for the simple reason that you must control for variables. For instance, does the brand of cigarette matter? Does the amount smoked per day matter? Does the number of years as a smoker matter? Does the age that the smoker started smoking matter? Does it matter that the smoker lived next to a factory with high vapor admissions? Does it matter whether the smoker also had asthma before he started smoking? And of course, I could go on.
Today we can safely say that we have controlled for a sufficient number of variables to infer that smoking is the cause of lung cancer. But what if our sample size is not millions of smokers, but one single earth? And what if the only member of our sample, the earth, is 4.5 billion years old (our best current estimate)? This wouldn’t be much of an issue, but human beings happen to live for only 80 years or so, making billion year estimates impossible. Scientists tell us that they do have temperature records embedded in ice, but the oldest glaciers are only 800,000 years old.
I think we have to at least admit that these two facts alone significantly complicate any cause/effect analysis, and I would respectfully request that scientists stop using the ‘k – word.’ We human beings know far less than we usually claim.
It doesn’t take a scientist to know that the weather on our planet is not the same as it has been in recent decades. You have only to look at photographs, graphs and tables of melting polar and glacier ice to realize that something is going on – but what? Scientific consensus is that the climate is changing because of greenhouse gas emission, and, as I will explain next week, this is a respectable theory.
But the word ‘because’ is an important word, and it makes all the difference. Philosophers know (and scientists are supposed to know), that cause and effect analyses are quite difficult, even when there is a large sample size. For example, the theory that smoking causes lung cancer was certainly a worthwhile theory when it was first proposed (whenever that was, exactly). But you can’t just conclude that smoking causes lung cancer from one dead smoker, for the simple reason that you must control for variables. For instance, does the brand of cigarette matter? Does the amount smoked per day matter? Does the number of years as a smoker matter? Does the age that the smoker started smoking matter? Does it matter that the smoker lived next to a factory with high vapor admissions? Does it matter whether the smoker also had asthma before he started smoking? And of course, I could go on.
Today we can safely say that we have controlled for a sufficient number of variables to infer that smoking is the cause of lung cancer. But what if our sample size is not millions of smokers, but one single earth? And what if the only member of our sample, the earth, is 4.5 billion years old (our best current estimate)? This wouldn’t be much of an issue, but human beings happen to live for only 80 years or so, making billion year estimates impossible. Scientists tell us that they do have temperature records embedded in ice, but the oldest glaciers are only 800,000 years old.
I think we have to at least admit that these two facts alone significantly complicate any cause/effect analysis, and I would respectfully request that scientists stop using the ‘k – word.’ We human beings know far less than we usually claim.
2.23.2011
Are Unions Still Important?
Unions are dying, and that is a measureable fact. Today, only 7% of the American workforce is a member of a union, down from 35% just a few decades ago. But it this good, or bad?
The strict capitalist will say it is good, because unions disrupt the free market. Because of unions, they say, the market cannot set the true price of labor, and thus, the owner-class has to artificially inflate the cost of goods. The moderate capitalist will respond by saying that unions prevent a downward spiral. The owner class wants to pay the worker the lowest wage possible. Thus, the worker will work more and more cheaply, in more and more dangerous working conditions, until finally there is no middle class left that can afford any goods and services. In the end, then, everyone, including those in the owner class, ends up poor.
I believe that the second argument is correct. I think that there is good evidence that the existence of collective bargaining saved capitalism from itself during much of the 20th century.
However, it does not follow that because unions were important in the past that they will always be important. I don’t have studies or statistics, but I do have my own experience to share. In between undergrad and grad school, I worked for a small business that manufactured and sold chemical cleaning products. There were about 75 full time employees, and no one thought about unionizing – we just didn’t need to. The owners of the company were extremely concerned about employee safety, and we were given a decent wage, medical benefits, educational opportunities, and a 401K.
I think that this is because the owners of that business knew that if they didn’t offer those things, the talented employees would simply go work somewhere else. But this opportunity has not always existed for people (and in some cases and in some areas of the country and the world, it still doesn’t exist). For example, 50 years ago, it probably would have been too complicated (socially, economically, and otherwise) for the metal worker unhappy with his compensation package simply to pick up and move to a different area of the country.
Today, however, the world is mobile. People change jobs and even careers all the time because they are unhappy with their current job. This forces the owner class to provide safe, comfortable working conditions and decent wages. So, while I disagree strongly with the strict capitalists that unions undermine capitalism, I don’t know if we still need them.
Any liberals more educated on the subject than I want to educate me about why I'm wrong here?
The strict capitalist will say it is good, because unions disrupt the free market. Because of unions, they say, the market cannot set the true price of labor, and thus, the owner-class has to artificially inflate the cost of goods. The moderate capitalist will respond by saying that unions prevent a downward spiral. The owner class wants to pay the worker the lowest wage possible. Thus, the worker will work more and more cheaply, in more and more dangerous working conditions, until finally there is no middle class left that can afford any goods and services. In the end, then, everyone, including those in the owner class, ends up poor.
I believe that the second argument is correct. I think that there is good evidence that the existence of collective bargaining saved capitalism from itself during much of the 20th century.
However, it does not follow that because unions were important in the past that they will always be important. I don’t have studies or statistics, but I do have my own experience to share. In between undergrad and grad school, I worked for a small business that manufactured and sold chemical cleaning products. There were about 75 full time employees, and no one thought about unionizing – we just didn’t need to. The owners of the company were extremely concerned about employee safety, and we were given a decent wage, medical benefits, educational opportunities, and a 401K.
I think that this is because the owners of that business knew that if they didn’t offer those things, the talented employees would simply go work somewhere else. But this opportunity has not always existed for people (and in some cases and in some areas of the country and the world, it still doesn’t exist). For example, 50 years ago, it probably would have been too complicated (socially, economically, and otherwise) for the metal worker unhappy with his compensation package simply to pick up and move to a different area of the country.
Today, however, the world is mobile. People change jobs and even careers all the time because they are unhappy with their current job. This forces the owner class to provide safe, comfortable working conditions and decent wages. So, while I disagree strongly with the strict capitalists that unions undermine capitalism, I don’t know if we still need them.
Any liberals more educated on the subject than I want to educate me about why I'm wrong here?
2.09.2011
Explaining Religious Belief, Part Four
[Editor’s Note: I ran out of steam on this one, due to a newborn and a dissertation due date. This blog will be my last in this series before moving on to the global warming controversy (hint: both sides really annoy me) and then tax policy].
There have been several attempts by the skeptic to explain religious belief - two that I have addressed in some detail (seeking comfort, regulating ethical behavior) and some I haven’t (evolutionary by-product, seeking meaning in life, seeking power, etc). I have only a final observation: we may observe that it is unlikely that all of those theories could be true. For example, if religious belief were a by-product of evolutionary development as some claim, that would seem to undermine that claim that religion was invented as a way to regulate ethical behavior. Or if religion was invented merely as an attempt to gain power and control people’s minds (think Gary Oldman’s character in The Book of Eli), then it doesn’t seem possible that religion was invented for the sake of comfort.
I say this because atheists and agnostics seem to think that they are on the same page, and congratulate each other on ‘exposing’ religion. You may over-hear this sentence in coffee shops: “Well, I just think religion is….” And then everyone at the table fills in the blank differently: “…an attempt to control people’s minds, ….an evolutionary development, ….a futile quest for meaning in a meaningless world.” I’m all for dialogue and disagreement, of course, but in this case, those in the dialogue seem to be content to know that they have the same opinion (i.e. that religion belief is misguided). But they simply seem to gloss over the fact that their various justifications for their common opinion are incompatible.
And I’m not just thinking of the undereducated agnostics in coffee shops, but also of highly educated anthropologists and sociologists who write important books on the subject. What we have to keep in mind is that scholarship on the origin of religion is constantly contradicting previous scholarship. I think that this should make us skeptical of any attempt to ‘sum it up,’ – that is, to present some grand narrative that claims to explain the origins of religious belief in general. It seems that every direction I turn, I hear someone offering a new and better theory about the origin of religion, which in turn is undermined by a newer and even better theory. Perhaps this tells us something about this ubiquitous human phenomenon.
There have been several attempts by the skeptic to explain religious belief - two that I have addressed in some detail (seeking comfort, regulating ethical behavior) and some I haven’t (evolutionary by-product, seeking meaning in life, seeking power, etc). I have only a final observation: we may observe that it is unlikely that all of those theories could be true. For example, if religious belief were a by-product of evolutionary development as some claim, that would seem to undermine that claim that religion was invented as a way to regulate ethical behavior. Or if religion was invented merely as an attempt to gain power and control people’s minds (think Gary Oldman’s character in The Book of Eli), then it doesn’t seem possible that religion was invented for the sake of comfort.
I say this because atheists and agnostics seem to think that they are on the same page, and congratulate each other on ‘exposing’ religion. You may over-hear this sentence in coffee shops: “Well, I just think religion is….” And then everyone at the table fills in the blank differently: “…an attempt to control people’s minds, ….an evolutionary development, ….a futile quest for meaning in a meaningless world.” I’m all for dialogue and disagreement, of course, but in this case, those in the dialogue seem to be content to know that they have the same opinion (i.e. that religion belief is misguided). But they simply seem to gloss over the fact that their various justifications for their common opinion are incompatible.
And I’m not just thinking of the undereducated agnostics in coffee shops, but also of highly educated anthropologists and sociologists who write important books on the subject. What we have to keep in mind is that scholarship on the origin of religion is constantly contradicting previous scholarship. I think that this should make us skeptical of any attempt to ‘sum it up,’ – that is, to present some grand narrative that claims to explain the origins of religious belief in general. It seems that every direction I turn, I hear someone offering a new and better theory about the origin of religion, which in turn is undermined by a newer and even better theory. Perhaps this tells us something about this ubiquitous human phenomenon.
1.03.2011
Explaining Religious Belief, Part Three
Another attempt to explain the origin of religious belief appeals to ethics; essentially, the theory says that God was invented in order to encourage us to behave. This theory begins with the observation that a certain amount of fear is often necessary to ensure ethical conduct. Prison is partly justified because we want to lock up people we are afraid of, but prison is also meant to strike fear into potential law-breakers. That is, we want potential law-breakers to think “Gee, if I steal this car stereo, I might be caught and then have to go to jail. I don’t want to go to jail. Therefore I will not steal this car stereo.”
Even though this system works fairly well, it is certainly not perfect. The obvious shortcoming is that the law is not omniscient, and so if law-breakers believe that they can outsmart the law, then they will not hesitate to commit the illegal action. With children, we have solved this problem with Santa Claus. Parents discipline their children when they catch them being bad, but we can’t always catch them. So we teach the song “he knows when you are sleeping/ he knows when you’re awake/ he knows when you’ve been bad or good/ so be good for goodness sake.” This leads some to infer that God is to adults what Santa Claus is to children.
Last week, I dismissed the theory that religion was introduced for the sake of comfort as implausible on the face of it. This time, I cannot be so dismissive, because we can indeed observe instances in the Scriptures when God is introduced in order to ensure ethical conduct. For example, if a Hebrew caught his friend doing something immoral, he might ask, “Do you not fear God?” This kind of fear is greater on two levels: first, God is omniscient, so unlike the law, God sees all. And second, God has the power over life and death, unlike any human power.
Do you believe that religion was invented for the sake of giving us orderly societies? Why? And if you (like me) do not share this belief, how would you respond to this kind of skeptic?
Even though this system works fairly well, it is certainly not perfect. The obvious shortcoming is that the law is not omniscient, and so if law-breakers believe that they can outsmart the law, then they will not hesitate to commit the illegal action. With children, we have solved this problem with Santa Claus. Parents discipline their children when they catch them being bad, but we can’t always catch them. So we teach the song “he knows when you are sleeping/ he knows when you’re awake/ he knows when you’ve been bad or good/ so be good for goodness sake.” This leads some to infer that God is to adults what Santa Claus is to children.
Last week, I dismissed the theory that religion was introduced for the sake of comfort as implausible on the face of it. This time, I cannot be so dismissive, because we can indeed observe instances in the Scriptures when God is introduced in order to ensure ethical conduct. For example, if a Hebrew caught his friend doing something immoral, he might ask, “Do you not fear God?” This kind of fear is greater on two levels: first, God is omniscient, so unlike the law, God sees all. And second, God has the power over life and death, unlike any human power.
Do you believe that religion was invented for the sake of giving us orderly societies? Why? And if you (like me) do not share this belief, how would you respond to this kind of skeptic?
12.15.2010
Explaining Religious Belief, Part Two
[Note: I am mostly finished with job applications and my dissertation, so I am going to pick up a blog series that I started some time ago.]
Here is the general topic:
[If someone is an atheist, then he or she owes us an explanation about why nearly everyone who has ever lived has held to some kind of religious belief. There are, of course, several such attempts (five, as I count them) that I will review one by one over the next several weeks.]
Perhaps the most common way to explain religious belief is as a quest for psychological comfort. After all, it is common to hear people saying that their faith has helped them through hard times, or parents telling their children about heavenly bliss when they confront the death of a loved one or a pet. The mere existence of those Precious Moments dolls in a child’s room seems to emphasize this. Undoubtedly, then, there are many people who are religious believers today because religion makes them feel good.
There are continual cultural references to this idea, but the most sustained critique I can think of comes from The Invention of Lying. In that movie, Ricky Gervais’ character is the only member of the human race who has the capacity to lie. And, since everyone else only tells the truth all of the time (they don’t know any different), they believe everything that Gervais says. In an effort to comfort his dying mother during her last moments, he describes her after-life in heaven. He intends this as a white lie to make her last few moments bearable, but others overhear his story and ask him to describe this ‘heaven’ in more detail. So, he is forced to give a systematic account of the after-life, which he has made up entirely. And since no one is aware that he is lying, his story about heaven becomes dogma.
This is obviously meant as a reconstruction of the process of inventing religion; 1) some guys just made it up in an effort to comfort the masses, 2) it got written down, and 3) it came to be considered the word of God.
What is undoubtedly true is that some – perhaps many or most – religious people have accepted much religious dogma because it makes them feel good. But whether this explains the religious belief of some people is not the question I want to ask. I am asking a deeper question, namely, “Why is there religious belief at all?”
It seems to me unbelievable that religion was merely invented in order to make people feel good about their afterlife prospects. I say this because many religious people (pantheists) do not even believe that your personal identity survives death. The rest, the monotheists, rely on books that are absolutely unsettling. How do you read Revelation and feel comforted? Pick a passage from the Jewish Scriptures and read it – feel good yet? My point is that if the Bible were written in order to offer people comfort, the authors did a very, very, poor job. If I were in Gervais’ position and got to completely make up a religion for the sake of comfort, the religion that I would make up would have nothing but love, angels, smiles, and hugs. That is not even close to what we find in the Bible.
Here is the general topic:
[If someone is an atheist, then he or she owes us an explanation about why nearly everyone who has ever lived has held to some kind of religious belief. There are, of course, several such attempts (five, as I count them) that I will review one by one over the next several weeks.]
Perhaps the most common way to explain religious belief is as a quest for psychological comfort. After all, it is common to hear people saying that their faith has helped them through hard times, or parents telling their children about heavenly bliss when they confront the death of a loved one or a pet. The mere existence of those Precious Moments dolls in a child’s room seems to emphasize this. Undoubtedly, then, there are many people who are religious believers today because religion makes them feel good.
There are continual cultural references to this idea, but the most sustained critique I can think of comes from The Invention of Lying. In that movie, Ricky Gervais’ character is the only member of the human race who has the capacity to lie. And, since everyone else only tells the truth all of the time (they don’t know any different), they believe everything that Gervais says. In an effort to comfort his dying mother during her last moments, he describes her after-life in heaven. He intends this as a white lie to make her last few moments bearable, but others overhear his story and ask him to describe this ‘heaven’ in more detail. So, he is forced to give a systematic account of the after-life, which he has made up entirely. And since no one is aware that he is lying, his story about heaven becomes dogma.
This is obviously meant as a reconstruction of the process of inventing religion; 1) some guys just made it up in an effort to comfort the masses, 2) it got written down, and 3) it came to be considered the word of God.
What is undoubtedly true is that some – perhaps many or most – religious people have accepted much religious dogma because it makes them feel good. But whether this explains the religious belief of some people is not the question I want to ask. I am asking a deeper question, namely, “Why is there religious belief at all?”
It seems to me unbelievable that religion was merely invented in order to make people feel good about their afterlife prospects. I say this because many religious people (pantheists) do not even believe that your personal identity survives death. The rest, the monotheists, rely on books that are absolutely unsettling. How do you read Revelation and feel comforted? Pick a passage from the Jewish Scriptures and read it – feel good yet? My point is that if the Bible were written in order to offer people comfort, the authors did a very, very, poor job. If I were in Gervais’ position and got to completely make up a religion for the sake of comfort, the religion that I would make up would have nothing but love, angels, smiles, and hugs. That is not even close to what we find in the Bible.
10.04.2010
Explaining Religious Belief, Part One
If someone is an atheist, then he or she owes us an explanation about why nearly everyone who has ever lived has held to some kind of religious belief. There are, of course, several such attempts (five, as I count them) that I will review one by one.
My interest in this issue was renewed recently when I heard about an interesting scientific study attempting to explain the human tendency for religious belief as an effect of natural selection. I will get more into this issue in a few weeks. Obviously, such a claim would be significant for the religious believer; however, if true, it would also pose problems for those who want to explain away religious belief as somehow disingenuous. I will begin next week by addressing the attempt to explain religious belief as a desire for comfort.
My interest in this issue was renewed recently when I heard about an interesting scientific study attempting to explain the human tendency for religious belief as an effect of natural selection. I will get more into this issue in a few weeks. Obviously, such a claim would be significant for the religious believer; however, if true, it would also pose problems for those who want to explain away religious belief as somehow disingenuous. I will begin next week by addressing the attempt to explain religious belief as a desire for comfort.
9.24.2010
Theories of Government, Part VI: What Do the Democrats Believe?
What unites the Democratic party is not obvious. Previously, I said only that they cannot be thought of as ‘socialists-light,’ as might be tempting, for this implies that the Democrats desire government solutions, which they do not. A better analysis is that Democrats are willing to use government as a way to make its citizen’s lives better.
To both the religious and economic conservative, the above statement is offensive. Religious conservatives see government and religion as engaged in a fundamental war for hearts and minds; we must either believe that religion can improve people’s lives, or that the government can. For the life of me, I do not see why this is an “either/or” thing. I believe strongly that local, personalized, religiously-based solutions are a better way to improve people’s lives than any government solution can be, when those solutions are available.
The problem, of course, is that those solutions are not always available. For example, in the health care debate, there were a few town-hall type debates where cancer patients who had been kicked off of their insurance publically asked Republicans leaders (Cantor and Boehner, as I recall), “What am I supposed to do now?” The answer was that “You should see what private charity/church resources are available.” So does Boehner expect us to believe that some local church is going to pay tens of thousands of dollars in medical costs as some kind of ministry to a single person? I’ve been to a lot of churches in my life, but I’ve never been around one that had an extra $100,000 lying around to help someone with their medical bills.
A similar analysis is available in the case of the free market. Free market solutions to problems are preferable when those solutions are available. But consider the above case. I consider it morally reprehensible that rescission (canceling someone’s insurance policy) is a legal option for insurance companies (rescission is appropriate when the person intentionally committed fraud on his application. However, the practice of rescission, before yesterday, occurred sometimes even when there was no fraud). Let’s assume that rescission is a problem (you’re free to disagree with me about this, but I am also free to think of you as a horrible person): is there a free market solution for rescission? No, there is not. Insurance companies are not going to keep sick people on their roles out of the goodness of their hearts. If they can legally dump someone, they are going to; furthermore, they are acting appropriately, for their only job is to make as much money as possible within the parameters of the law. The government’s job is to change laws when those laws don’t make a damn bit of sense.
To both the religious and economic conservative, the above statement is offensive. Religious conservatives see government and religion as engaged in a fundamental war for hearts and minds; we must either believe that religion can improve people’s lives, or that the government can. For the life of me, I do not see why this is an “either/or” thing. I believe strongly that local, personalized, religiously-based solutions are a better way to improve people’s lives than any government solution can be, when those solutions are available.
The problem, of course, is that those solutions are not always available. For example, in the health care debate, there were a few town-hall type debates where cancer patients who had been kicked off of their insurance publically asked Republicans leaders (Cantor and Boehner, as I recall), “What am I supposed to do now?” The answer was that “You should see what private charity/church resources are available.” So does Boehner expect us to believe that some local church is going to pay tens of thousands of dollars in medical costs as some kind of ministry to a single person? I’ve been to a lot of churches in my life, but I’ve never been around one that had an extra $100,000 lying around to help someone with their medical bills.
A similar analysis is available in the case of the free market. Free market solutions to problems are preferable when those solutions are available. But consider the above case. I consider it morally reprehensible that rescission (canceling someone’s insurance policy) is a legal option for insurance companies (rescission is appropriate when the person intentionally committed fraud on his application. However, the practice of rescission, before yesterday, occurred sometimes even when there was no fraud). Let’s assume that rescission is a problem (you’re free to disagree with me about this, but I am also free to think of you as a horrible person): is there a free market solution for rescission? No, there is not. Insurance companies are not going to keep sick people on their roles out of the goodness of their hearts. If they can legally dump someone, they are going to; furthermore, they are acting appropriately, for their only job is to make as much money as possible within the parameters of the law. The government’s job is to change laws when those laws don’t make a damn bit of sense.
9.06.2010
Theories of Government, Part V: What do the Republicans Believe?
If the socialists believe in complete government control of the economy (and society, in the case of Communists), and true libertarians believe in a severely limited role for government, then what do the Republicans believe? It is tempting to say that the Republicans are libertarians-light, as I suggested in the first post in this series; that is, they basically have a ‘small government’ philosophy, but are more tempered about it. I no longer believe that this is true.
A better summary of the Republican philosophy is something like this: “We believe in small government, except for when we don’t.” For example, they believe in small government except when they tried to defeat health care reform by arguing that it would cut Medicare (I thought they hated Medicare?). Or take warrant-less wire-tapping. I am fine, as any normal person should be, with warranted wiretapping (let’s get those terrorists!). But warrant-less wiretapping means that the executive branch spies on any citizen it wants too, for any reason whatsoever, without having to explain those reasons to the legislative or judicial branches. All Republicans I know supported this, although it’s hard to imagine how the government could get any bigger and more intrusive than that.
Or some other philosophy busters: the Americans with Disabilities Act, the proposed federal amendment banning gay marriage, the jaw-dropping expansion of the federal deficit under Reagan and both Bushes (it declined slightly under Carter and actually turned in a surplus under Clinton), and a highly-desired federal amendment to ban abortion (not a state-by-state law, as it was before Roe).
We could multiply examples, but my point is that the idea that a ‘small government’ philosophy guides the GOP’s policy positions just flatly contradicts history. The truth is that, in the end, I have more respect for the strict libertarian. It’s just ridiculously frustrating to talk to a Republican, because they just keep making up the rules as they go along. For example, it was a complete waste of time to try to talk to a Republican during the heath-care debate, because as I alluded to before, they just kept saying how health care reform would cut Medicare. The libertarian, on the other hand, believes in principles, and it is possible to have a fruitful discussion about principles, even if those principle are, as I tried to argue last week, unrealistic.
A better summary of the Republican philosophy is something like this: “We believe in small government, except for when we don’t.” For example, they believe in small government except when they tried to defeat health care reform by arguing that it would cut Medicare (I thought they hated Medicare?). Or take warrant-less wire-tapping. I am fine, as any normal person should be, with warranted wiretapping (let’s get those terrorists!). But warrant-less wiretapping means that the executive branch spies on any citizen it wants too, for any reason whatsoever, without having to explain those reasons to the legislative or judicial branches. All Republicans I know supported this, although it’s hard to imagine how the government could get any bigger and more intrusive than that.
Or some other philosophy busters: the Americans with Disabilities Act, the proposed federal amendment banning gay marriage, the jaw-dropping expansion of the federal deficit under Reagan and both Bushes (it declined slightly under Carter and actually turned in a surplus under Clinton), and a highly-desired federal amendment to ban abortion (not a state-by-state law, as it was before Roe).
We could multiply examples, but my point is that the idea that a ‘small government’ philosophy guides the GOP’s policy positions just flatly contradicts history. The truth is that, in the end, I have more respect for the strict libertarian. It’s just ridiculously frustrating to talk to a Republican, because they just keep making up the rules as they go along. For example, it was a complete waste of time to try to talk to a Republican during the heath-care debate, because as I alluded to before, they just kept saying how health care reform would cut Medicare. The libertarian, on the other hand, believes in principles, and it is possible to have a fruitful discussion about principles, even if those principle are, as I tried to argue last week, unrealistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)