Graduate 64: Without Excuse
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20)
"And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper... and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things." (Romans 1:28, 32-2:2)
--
In both these passages, humankind is declared to be without excuse in regard to their failure to acknowledge and obey God.
Do you think that's fair? Do you think that God really has made himself evident in creation? Do you think there really is enough evidence in the world for a reasonable person to conclude that God exists and is to be honored? Do you think we really are left with no excuse?
Of course, there are many people who make just this sort of objection to Paul's words. There isn't enough evidence, they argue. The case is inconclusive. I can't be held responsible if I am not convinced and converted.
This touches on a fascinating and complicated subject in epistemology--the ethics of belief. The basic idea is that just as we can make positive and negative evaluations of people's actions, so we can also make positive and negative evaluations of people's beliefs. In ethics, the morality of an action is evaluated. In epistemology, the epistemic propriety of a belief is evaluated.
(1) So consider your belief that the world is round. Do you have good grounds for believing that? Do you have ample evidence for your belief that the world is round? Have you considered defeaters and counter-evidence? On the whole, most of us probably think we have fairly good reasons for believing that the earth is round.
(2) Now consider the Nazis' belief that Jews are inferior and should be exterminated. Are there good grounds for believing that? Is there ample evidence for believing that? What are the relevant defeaters and counter-evidence? Actually, this may not be the best example because its easy to confuse epistemic reasoning from moral reasoning. The question being asked, relating to the ethics of belief, is: Is the Nazi in question acting epistemically-responsibly in holding his belief? This question is different from: Is the Nazi in question acting morally-responsibly in holding his belief? The questions may be related but they are distinct. So let's turn to a different example.
(3) Consider a person's belief that his or her favorite sports team will win the championship this year? I don't follow sports myself so I can't offer a specific example (which also means I can't offend anyone by poking fun at their team). But I suspect we all know someone who holds onto the belief, albeit misguided, that his or her team will win the championship, despite all evidence to the contrary. Is that person being epistemically responsible? (By the way, I'm not saying that a person should never root for the underdog. Sigh. All my analogies so far seem to be tainted in one way or another. This is one of the hard things about analogies in philosophy--trying to distill the essential point without a lot of additional and complicated baggage.)
So one way of phrasing the central question is: Is the believer acting epistemically-responsibly? Or is the believer being naive? Believing things he ought not to believe? Accepting evidence uncritically? Ignoring counter-evidence?
Another way of phrasing the central question is: Is the non-believe acting epistemically-responsibly? Or is the non-believer being unduly recalcitrant? Refusing to believe what he ought to believe? Being overly critical about evidence? Ignoring counter-evidence?
The size of the issues involved in this philosophical investigation are enormous and I will not delve into them here. Instead of focusing on that, I would like to direct your attention to two fairly simple, yet potentially-profound considerations. (Profound because people much smarter than me have written about them, and much more clearly than I will do here.)
--
I have touched on both these points in previous blog entries, but would like to bring them together here. The first goes back to a theme in Graduate 47: Reflection on Psalm 8. Consider, Paul says that God's "invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." But how much attention do we give to what "has been made"--to the natural world? We live in enormous cities, are constantly surrounded by buildings and other man-made structures, travel by car and bus and plane, spend most or all of our time indoors, and sit for hours in front of the television. Is it possible that we have fallen into the habit of ignoring a massive body of evidence--namely, THE WORLD? (And wouldn't we consider it epistemically irresponsible to be ignoring such a massive body of evidence?)
When was the last time you saw the stars? I mean, really saw the stars? I was up in the mountains of Washington in June 2007 and on a clear night I still couldn't see the stars because of one house on a neighboring hill that had this dreadfully bright porch-light (or something like that). The last time I remember really seeing the stars was in junior high on a church camping trip to Joshua Tree. That was over eight years ago. And I hope it goes without saying that seeing stars on television doesn't count. The sensory experience of seeing something on television, while it can be compelling, falls far, far short of the reality and is, frankly, not worthy to be compared.
When was the last time you really sat in nature? That's hard too, because to confront nature is to confront something unaccountably larger and other than oneself. And the modern spirit rebels violently against that. We don't like to feel small or insignificant; and if we cannot conquer the whole of Nature, we will settle with conquering one small corner of it. So we settle into our houses and surround ourselves with things that make us happy and gratify our wants; we focus on what will bring us satisfaction and contentment and shut out, as much as possible, if not entirely, the world of THE OTHER. Is it possible that we have cut ourselves off from yet another massive body of evidence--namely, everything that is outside of ourselves? (And wouldn't we consider it epistemically irresponsible to be ignoring such a massive body of evidence?)
Key for understanding what I am saying is that I am not dealing just with lists of evidences, but also with our dispositions. It will not be enough, to silence my concerns, to take a weekend camping trip to the desert or to circulate a survey of your next door neighbors' religious beliefs. Hopefully, what we begin to see through this reflection is that there is a disposition in our modern mentality that is naturally opposed to seeing a world that is anything other than me-centered. And if God is the ultimate anti-thesis of me-centeredness, is it any wonder that so many me-centered people can't find Him.
C.S. Lewis does a masterful job of driving this point home in his (greatest fiction) book, "Till We Have Faces." The main character, Orual, deals with just this question of whether or not she had enough evidence to believe in and know about the real existence of the gods. But Lewis turns that question on its head and asks, instead: Is it because there wasn't enough evidence that Orual did not believe or because of her jealousy and selfishness that she refused to believe?
Who would deny that we are naturally self-centered people? But is it possible that that natural self-centeredness is actually a hindrance to seeing the world as it really is? To seeing reality as it really is? The eighth saying in Graduate 63: adagium maxima begins, "We live from our hearts." The dispositions of our heart do affect our ability to reason. The person who tries to ignore his feelings--to put them out of his life--only succeeds in blinding himself to the power and influence they exercise on his life, including his intellectual life. Before we accuse God of not giving us enough evidence, we need to look inside ourselves and ask whether we are open to receiving the evidence He will give us.
--
The second point is also developed with astonishing clarity by C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, in the first section entitled: "Right and Wrong: A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe." Consider what Paul says: "Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."
Do you realize that every time we pass judgment on someone, we presuppose some kind of universal moral law? There is more involved than just expressing personal preference. And this is made still more evident by the fact that when we are caught transgressing that law, our first reaction is to attempt to justify ourselves--to demonstrate why our actions represent an exceptional case and should not be counted as infringing on the norm. If we really believed there was no moral law, we would not place expectations on others; and if we really believed there was no moral law, we would not feel awkward about being caught in hypocrisy. But we do.
Now, it is at this point that people begin to divide. There are those who follow Lewis and Paul, and acknowledge how even our personal inconsistency and hypocrisy point to an overarching universal law and law-giver. But others will dismiss this argument with the anodyne assertion that, That is just the way things are.
But here again is where our modern dispositions can cloud our ability to see things clearly. Indeed, we have, as a culture, simply come to accept a disjointed and inconsistent reality. People say one thing and do another. Politicians never keep their promises. People of apparent integrity always have skeletons in their closets. The most spotless life masks the darkest stains. We have become so used to this that it no longer surprises us. We have come to accept mediocrity from everybody instead of striving for excellence. (See Graduate 52: Duplicity, Deceitfulness, and Darkness.)
We have allowed ourselves to forget that this is not the way things ought to be. But as far down this path as we have gone, we're still not thoroughly consistent. When people hurt us, we still react with anger. When we are caught hurting others, we still try to make excuses. This is, perhaps, the most dangerous kind and form of hypocrisy, because it so thoroughly justifies a complete self-centeredness. I can pursue my interests at the expense of others--attempting to force others to serve me--but can also weasel out of any attempt to impose on me accountability or responsibility, because there is no moral law. Of course it's inconsistent--but we've come to accept that.
And that is just the point. Lewis and Paul do not accept inconsistency. So they recognize that the way we behave reflects the existence of an absolute moral law. To deny that is to accept inconsistency, which some philosophers are willing to do in the abstract, but does it really work that well in real life. What is remarkable about Christianity is that it offers redemption and transformation (through a process) that moves us increasingly away from contradiction into consistency and integration with reality.
--
The evidence of creation and the evidence of morality. I used to be skeptical of these arguments, but I am learning to take them more and more seriously. Think about it: if you're not convinced by creation, is that because there's not enough evidence or because you have not really taken a good look at the evidence? If you're not convinced by the moral argument, is that because there isn't enough evidence or because you have chosen to accept a fundamental inconsistency?
Think about it. Where is your heart? Are you self-centered or other-centered? Are you really open to receiving revelation or are you just looking for any excuse to ignore the evidence?
--
Remember,
God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.
"And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper... and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things." (Romans 1:28, 32-2:2)
--
In both these passages, humankind is declared to be without excuse in regard to their failure to acknowledge and obey God.
Do you think that's fair? Do you think that God really has made himself evident in creation? Do you think there really is enough evidence in the world for a reasonable person to conclude that God exists and is to be honored? Do you think we really are left with no excuse?
Of course, there are many people who make just this sort of objection to Paul's words. There isn't enough evidence, they argue. The case is inconclusive. I can't be held responsible if I am not convinced and converted.
This touches on a fascinating and complicated subject in epistemology--the ethics of belief. The basic idea is that just as we can make positive and negative evaluations of people's actions, so we can also make positive and negative evaluations of people's beliefs. In ethics, the morality of an action is evaluated. In epistemology, the epistemic propriety of a belief is evaluated.
(1) So consider your belief that the world is round. Do you have good grounds for believing that? Do you have ample evidence for your belief that the world is round? Have you considered defeaters and counter-evidence? On the whole, most of us probably think we have fairly good reasons for believing that the earth is round.
(2) Now consider the Nazis' belief that Jews are inferior and should be exterminated. Are there good grounds for believing that? Is there ample evidence for believing that? What are the relevant defeaters and counter-evidence? Actually, this may not be the best example because its easy to confuse epistemic reasoning from moral reasoning. The question being asked, relating to the ethics of belief, is: Is the Nazi in question acting epistemically-responsibly in holding his belief? This question is different from: Is the Nazi in question acting morally-responsibly in holding his belief? The questions may be related but they are distinct. So let's turn to a different example.
(3) Consider a person's belief that his or her favorite sports team will win the championship this year? I don't follow sports myself so I can't offer a specific example (which also means I can't offend anyone by poking fun at their team). But I suspect we all know someone who holds onto the belief, albeit misguided, that his or her team will win the championship, despite all evidence to the contrary. Is that person being epistemically responsible? (By the way, I'm not saying that a person should never root for the underdog. Sigh. All my analogies so far seem to be tainted in one way or another. This is one of the hard things about analogies in philosophy--trying to distill the essential point without a lot of additional and complicated baggage.)
So one way of phrasing the central question is: Is the believer acting epistemically-responsibly? Or is the believer being naive? Believing things he ought not to believe? Accepting evidence uncritically? Ignoring counter-evidence?
Another way of phrasing the central question is: Is the non-believe acting epistemically-responsibly? Or is the non-believer being unduly recalcitrant? Refusing to believe what he ought to believe? Being overly critical about evidence? Ignoring counter-evidence?
The size of the issues involved in this philosophical investigation are enormous and I will not delve into them here. Instead of focusing on that, I would like to direct your attention to two fairly simple, yet potentially-profound considerations. (Profound because people much smarter than me have written about them, and much more clearly than I will do here.)
--
I have touched on both these points in previous blog entries, but would like to bring them together here. The first goes back to a theme in Graduate 47: Reflection on Psalm 8. Consider, Paul says that God's "invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." But how much attention do we give to what "has been made"--to the natural world? We live in enormous cities, are constantly surrounded by buildings and other man-made structures, travel by car and bus and plane, spend most or all of our time indoors, and sit for hours in front of the television. Is it possible that we have fallen into the habit of ignoring a massive body of evidence--namely, THE WORLD? (And wouldn't we consider it epistemically irresponsible to be ignoring such a massive body of evidence?)
When was the last time you saw the stars? I mean, really saw the stars? I was up in the mountains of Washington in June 2007 and on a clear night I still couldn't see the stars because of one house on a neighboring hill that had this dreadfully bright porch-light (or something like that). The last time I remember really seeing the stars was in junior high on a church camping trip to Joshua Tree. That was over eight years ago. And I hope it goes without saying that seeing stars on television doesn't count. The sensory experience of seeing something on television, while it can be compelling, falls far, far short of the reality and is, frankly, not worthy to be compared.
When was the last time you really sat in nature? That's hard too, because to confront nature is to confront something unaccountably larger and other than oneself. And the modern spirit rebels violently against that. We don't like to feel small or insignificant; and if we cannot conquer the whole of Nature, we will settle with conquering one small corner of it. So we settle into our houses and surround ourselves with things that make us happy and gratify our wants; we focus on what will bring us satisfaction and contentment and shut out, as much as possible, if not entirely, the world of THE OTHER. Is it possible that we have cut ourselves off from yet another massive body of evidence--namely, everything that is outside of ourselves? (And wouldn't we consider it epistemically irresponsible to be ignoring such a massive body of evidence?)
Key for understanding what I am saying is that I am not dealing just with lists of evidences, but also with our dispositions. It will not be enough, to silence my concerns, to take a weekend camping trip to the desert or to circulate a survey of your next door neighbors' religious beliefs. Hopefully, what we begin to see through this reflection is that there is a disposition in our modern mentality that is naturally opposed to seeing a world that is anything other than me-centered. And if God is the ultimate anti-thesis of me-centeredness, is it any wonder that so many me-centered people can't find Him.
C.S. Lewis does a masterful job of driving this point home in his (greatest fiction) book, "Till We Have Faces." The main character, Orual, deals with just this question of whether or not she had enough evidence to believe in and know about the real existence of the gods. But Lewis turns that question on its head and asks, instead: Is it because there wasn't enough evidence that Orual did not believe or because of her jealousy and selfishness that she refused to believe?
Who would deny that we are naturally self-centered people? But is it possible that that natural self-centeredness is actually a hindrance to seeing the world as it really is? To seeing reality as it really is? The eighth saying in Graduate 63: adagium maxima begins, "We live from our hearts." The dispositions of our heart do affect our ability to reason. The person who tries to ignore his feelings--to put them out of his life--only succeeds in blinding himself to the power and influence they exercise on his life, including his intellectual life. Before we accuse God of not giving us enough evidence, we need to look inside ourselves and ask whether we are open to receiving the evidence He will give us.
--
The second point is also developed with astonishing clarity by C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, in the first section entitled: "Right and Wrong: A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe." Consider what Paul says: "Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."
Do you realize that every time we pass judgment on someone, we presuppose some kind of universal moral law? There is more involved than just expressing personal preference. And this is made still more evident by the fact that when we are caught transgressing that law, our first reaction is to attempt to justify ourselves--to demonstrate why our actions represent an exceptional case and should not be counted as infringing on the norm. If we really believed there was no moral law, we would not place expectations on others; and if we really believed there was no moral law, we would not feel awkward about being caught in hypocrisy. But we do.
Now, it is at this point that people begin to divide. There are those who follow Lewis and Paul, and acknowledge how even our personal inconsistency and hypocrisy point to an overarching universal law and law-giver. But others will dismiss this argument with the anodyne assertion that, That is just the way things are.
But here again is where our modern dispositions can cloud our ability to see things clearly. Indeed, we have, as a culture, simply come to accept a disjointed and inconsistent reality. People say one thing and do another. Politicians never keep their promises. People of apparent integrity always have skeletons in their closets. The most spotless life masks the darkest stains. We have become so used to this that it no longer surprises us. We have come to accept mediocrity from everybody instead of striving for excellence. (See Graduate 52: Duplicity, Deceitfulness, and Darkness.)
We have allowed ourselves to forget that this is not the way things ought to be. But as far down this path as we have gone, we're still not thoroughly consistent. When people hurt us, we still react with anger. When we are caught hurting others, we still try to make excuses. This is, perhaps, the most dangerous kind and form of hypocrisy, because it so thoroughly justifies a complete self-centeredness. I can pursue my interests at the expense of others--attempting to force others to serve me--but can also weasel out of any attempt to impose on me accountability or responsibility, because there is no moral law. Of course it's inconsistent--but we've come to accept that.
And that is just the point. Lewis and Paul do not accept inconsistency. So they recognize that the way we behave reflects the existence of an absolute moral law. To deny that is to accept inconsistency, which some philosophers are willing to do in the abstract, but does it really work that well in real life. What is remarkable about Christianity is that it offers redemption and transformation (through a process) that moves us increasingly away from contradiction into consistency and integration with reality.
--
The evidence of creation and the evidence of morality. I used to be skeptical of these arguments, but I am learning to take them more and more seriously. Think about it: if you're not convinced by creation, is that because there's not enough evidence or because you have not really taken a good look at the evidence? If you're not convinced by the moral argument, is that because there isn't enough evidence or because you have chosen to accept a fundamental inconsistency?
Think about it. Where is your heart? Are you self-centered or other-centered? Are you really open to receiving revelation or are you just looking for any excuse to ignore the evidence?
--
Remember,
God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.
posted by Metaphysician_delta | 4:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home