When I was in school, I cheated on my metaphysics exam: I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me
PEG says:
To have a religion is to hold a belief about metaphysics. Either you believe that Allah is God and Muhammad is his Prophet or you don’t. If you do, and you eat pork, this will not make Muhammad more, or less, the Prophet. The two things aren’t related.
From where I sit, and with apologies for my firmness of tone, that’s almost completely wrong for most of the world’s religions. You are not a Jew because you hold particular beliefs; ditto for being a Hindu; ditto for being a Buddhist; ditto for any number of other religions. Sociologically speaking, religion is a matter of affiliation, and secondarily of practice, but for most of the world’s religions these two questions are formally the predominant ones, certainly more so than belief.
Christianity, of course, does define itself in terms of belief. But from the epistemological standpoint of PEG’s questioners, I think PEG is wrong about Christianity as well.
Consider: a man, in his heart, believes that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God, died for the world’s sins, and was resurrected to life eternal. Someone who believes this is some kind of Christian, yes?
Now consider that this man takes the following actions: to denounce Christianity as false and evil, publicly desecrate the host, and persecute Christians even to death.
We know such men exist. Why they do what they do may be debated. Perhaps one cannot bear the guilt of knowing what his God suffered for him, and he assuages his guilt by this kind of extravagant and violent rejection of what he knows to be true. (That would probably be Dostoevsky’s version of the character.) Another, perhaps, lives in a society in which Christians are generally persecuted, and it is fear that inclines him to join, even lead, the majority, against the dictates of his conscience. Undoubtedly there are myriad other examples, each with his or her own reason.
Now consider another man. He is a pious follower of the church. Prays daily. Tithes. Does frequent deeds of charity in the name of and through the organs of that church. In his personal life, he does everything he can to lead the life, if not of a saint or a martyr, then certainly of an exemplary follower and devotee of Christ.
But in his heart, he denies the divinity of Jesus, the historicity of the resurrection or any of the miracles.
Again, we know this man exists. Why doesn’t he announce to the world that he is not a Christian, and at least leave off from praying? Again, there could be many reasons. One has a sentimental attachment to the ceremonies she grew up with. Another lives in an overwhelmingly Christian community, and doesn’t want to rock the boat. Another wants to set a good example for his children, as his parents did for him, and doesn’t want to burden them with his unbelief. And so forth – again, any number of possible examples, each with his or her own rationale.
By PEG’s definition, the first type is a Christian, and the second is not. Religion is, he says, a matter of metaphysics – what you actually believe. I don’t think that’s a good definition of “religion” – but it’s a perfectly workable definition of “Christian” from an idealist rather than sociological perspective.
But from the outside, the only way I can judge either of them is by their actions. And even the statement, “I affirm that I am a Christian” is an action. It is not, in and of itself, a belief. It is a statement of belief – and speaking is an action.
When someone asks PEG, “How can you be a Christian and do X,” that person is doing exactly what PEG – by his own definition of religion – is asking them to do: understand the contents of his heart and judge his religion accordingly. Unpacking the question a bit, it goes like this: You say you are a Christian (an action). Yet you do this thing that, I thought, Christians considered sinful (an action). So either I don’t understand what Christians think you should or should not do, or I need to determine which action – your profession or faith or your act of sin – is a better guide for me to understand what you really believe.
PEG could answer in various ways. He could say: some Christians may consider X a sin, but I don’t, and I according to my faith I have the competency to make that judgement, so I see no contradiction. He could say: yes, it is a sin, and I struggle against it because I do believe it is a sin, but I am weak, and it is precisely because I know that I am weak that I am a Christian – so, again, there is no contradiction. He could also say: well, yes, I’m a “Christian” in the sense of affiliation with a church, but I don’t believe everything my church tells me to believe – I am competent to make my own calls on these questions, whether my church says I am or not.
And, depending on his answer, his interlocutor might decide, “yes, he is a Christian” or “no, he isn’t a Christian.” The purpose of the question is simply to get more information that bears on the question. So I don’t see why it’s baffling.
Perhaps the bafflement comes from the nature of the “X” in question. What if “X” wasn’t “joke about grabbing your wife’s boobs” but “cover up the crime of molesting little children by your own hierarchical subordinates.” If someone asked “How could bishop so-and-so do that, if he really is a Christian,” I should hope the answer would be, “indeed, his actions were gravely sinful, and if he doesn’t understand that then I, too, question the sincerity of his profession of faith.” Because if that isn’t the answer, then on what basis can anyone ever question the authenticity of someone else’s professed faith?
Now, PEG may simply be saying that formal statements of affiliation or belief should always be taken at face value. If someone says he’s a Christian, there’s nothing to discuss: he or she is a Christian. But what if the person who says so was never baptized properly? What if the person who says so also denies the divinity of Jesus or the historicity of the resurrection – but persists in asserting he or she is a Christian. Should that assertion be taken at face value? If so, then what happened to PEG’s original claim that “religion” is a matter of the content of belief? But if not, then we’re back to judging actions by some external standard: this is what Christians do – in this case, the kinds of statements they make – to show that they are, indeed, Christians.
And if that is the case, then I have to ask why these particular actions are favored. Compare two bishops: one covers up the rape of children and believes that this was the right thing to do. The other denies the historicity of the resurrection, and believes that this, too, is the right thing to do. Are we supposed to judge the authenticity of people’s Christianity by the orthodoxy of their formal faith statements (which are, again, actions, statements of belief, not the beliefs themselves) but not by any of their other actions? Really?
It seems to me that the only safe place to go from PEG’s premise – that Christianity is a matter of belief, of metaphysics – is to conclude that nobody can know whether anybody else is really a Christian; that, indeed, it’s exceptionally difficult to know if you yourself are a Christian. That strikes me – as a non-Christian – as an admirable place to go, and an excellent addition to PEG’s standard answer to his questioners. “How can you do X if you are a Christian?” “Well, I like to think I am a Christian, and I believe I am one, but maybe I’m not.”
It is worth pointing out that for what you call Hindus, the point you’re making is profoundly untrue, and in fact it’s basically what I tell my children is the most essential difference between our tradition and the Abrahamic faiths, and I know many of us do the same (although I concede that the nature of “Hindus” is profoundly changing right now and a new kind of chauvinism is appearing.)
“Hindu” is not our word, and we have no scriptural word for ourselves as a people nor a really clear concept of ourselves as a people; Jews to Muslims are something very else in that regard. It’s an old faith, and had a centuries-long tradition of tolerance based on that concept: God is as God is, like a law of physics, and your particular belief pattern didn’t much alter that. As such the faith adapted and incorporated many local or regional figures of divinity historically, and strange hybrids proliferated, so my quite orthodox grandmother used to keep a portrait of Saint Anthony with her at night, or fakirs easily incorporate “Hindu” motifs into Islamic practice.
I think what you say holds for the Abrahamic faiths, and from my outsider’s perspective appears to be particularly true of the Jewish sects therein, which facilitates the common phenomenon of unreligious Jews who nonetheless profoundly value their Jewish identity. But it’s alien to Hinduism and to some strands of its offshoot, Buddhism.
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 19, 08:07 PM · #
“Sociologically speaking, religion is a matter of affiliation, and secondarily of practice, but for most of the world’s religions these two questions are formally the predominant ones, certainly more so than belief.”
Yes. And even Christianity is not always such a matter of belief as it is sometimes made out to be, often by Christians themselves who don’t read their founding documents too carefully. That’s why I used to be annoyed when the Religion section of a local newspaper changed its name to the Faith section. Shows just how ignorant newspaper people can be about religion. Or perhaps it was a part of a grand conspiracy to relegate religion to the corner of personal, inner life that can be put under the heading, “Faith.”
(The only reason I am no longer annoyed by this usage is that I no longer subscribe to the print editions any of those left-wing propaganda sheets that call themselves newspapers.)
— The Reticulator · Aug 19, 08:45 PM · #
But, Reticulator, the reason you’re in a bind is exactly the one I pointed out above: In many ways “Hinduism” and Buddhism are faiths not religions, and as the country changes, the presentation is going to change to reflect that, no? Unless you want to have a section of the paper that’s sort of designated as not of interest to me, which would be weird. Again, “Hindus” in some communities are, I concede, shifting a bit towards the Abrahamic model (and so become affiliated with “a” temple that has special events for “its” congregation and so on) but it’s still more uncommon than not.
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 19, 09:48 PM · #
BOOM.
It seems I’ve been thoroughly schooled.
Let me sleep on it though, Noah. And thanks for a great post.
— PEG · Aug 19, 09:54 PM · #
Noah,
A couple of comments on a well-written and interesting response to PEG.
1) I actually don’t think that in the real world these characters exist:
“Consider: a man, in his heart, believes that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God, died for the world’s sins, and was resurrected to life eternal. Someone who believes this is some kind of Christian, yes?
Now consider that this man takes the following actions: to denounce Christianity as false and evil, publicly desecrate the host, and persecute Christians even to death.”
If the guy truly believed in Christ, then he just wouldn’t take the actions you describe except in maybe the most extreme circumstances (e.g. believers in Soviet Russia who had to denounce religion and maybe even “persecute Christians” — but they would try with all their might to temper the persecution anyway they could — there is a reason we venerate martyrs in the Church).
2) Your second example makes much more sense to me, especially when the Church had worldly power and where it is important to one’s social status to belong to a church.
3) You say, “If someone asked “How could bishop so-and-so do that, if he really is a Christian,” I should hope the answer would be, “indeed, his actions were gravely sinful, and if he doesn’t understand that then I, too, question the sincerity of his profession of faith.” Well, that is not a bad answer, but the other answer you gave up above and put in the mouth of PEG would also apply: “yes, [the bishop knows] it is a sin, and [he] struggles against it because [he does] believe it is a sin, but [he is] weak, and it is precisely because [he knows he is] weak that [he is] a Christian.” This second answer isn’t quite as satisfying as the first, because it doesn’t first acknowledge the depths of moral depravity the bishop had to have fallen to have committed his sin (basically allowing moral “filth” into the Church as our current Pope called it) — but nevertheless we don’t know to what extent the bishop struggled with his conscience or is now begging God for forgiveness every day.
4) Which leads me to a qualified endorsement of your premise that we should judge a person’s religious belief both by their metaphysics and their practice.
— Fake Herzog · Aug 19, 11:51 PM · #
There are always people who regard religion as an institution, like nationality, and a source of pride, but never consider that faith should be part of it. There are others who have faith but do not seek affiliation in an institutional setting. And there are those for whom religion is the source of their being, involving a personal relationship with God that entails the process of changing with the aim of becoming holy. St. Augustine said, “Lord, you made our hearts restless until they rest in you.” People will always worship something. If it is not God, then it is an idol whether that idol be oneself, food, alcohol, lust, clothes, gambling, drugs, etc. We are made for worship. The willingness to let go of self is the first step to faith. In our coddled culture, where power is enshrined, being humble is being countercultural. When everyone is a movie star, what room is there for God? The history of humans is pretty dismal when you think of all the hypocrites who claim religious faith and operate as cruelly and selfishly as possible. What is the surprise here? Satan quoted the Hebrew scriptures to Jesus in the temptation in the desert. That did not make Satan holy or scripture demonic. Evil frequently masquerades as saintliness. You have to sharpen your spiritual antenna to maintain the proper discernment. That does not mean that everyone is the same and nothing means anything. Nihilism is not a faith. Faith takes a lot of work and courage. People with a focus on themselves to the exclusion of everyone else may prefer not to make the effort. Faith has never been cool whereas righteous indignation at pretenders of faith makes us feel that somehow there is something hypocritical about the religious so why should we be religious. Does anyone pray any more? Does anyone believe that prayer is efficacious? We have died before our physical deaths. T.S. Eliot wrote “We are the hollow men.” St. Paul wrote we are temples of the Holy Spirit. Which would you rather be?
— LDM · Aug 20, 12:15 AM · #
On what basis should they?
— Ch3t · Aug 20, 02:08 AM · #
Jeez, Noah, do you ever do anything with brevity? You quote PEG in the first paragraph, but I don’t see how your long post really refutes what PEG said: if we eat pork, or blaspheme, somehow Mohammed or Jesus are no longer Mohammed or Jesus. Do you refute that idea somewhere in your post? If so, I missed it.
— jd · Aug 20, 02:18 AM · #
I quibble on one narrow point; Noah says: “You are not a Jew because you hold particular beliefs; ditto for being a Hindu; ditto for being a Buddhist; ditto for any number of other religions.”
This is not true at least about Buddhism (and I suspect Hinduism); at least not in Noah’s “formal”, rather than sociological sense. In general Buddhism has no formal induction or membership rule, nor any law punishing apostates. Many people at the edges of Buddhism (disclaimer: including myself) call themselves “not religious” even though our beliefs are much more orthodox than those of many “non practising Christians”.
— Adrian Ratnapala · Aug 20, 05:29 AM · #
Adrian, I mentioned that above with respect to Hinduism, but I think it’s actually not strictly true of Buddhism, just because there is a proliferation of Buddhisms. What you’rs saying is obviously true of Therevada and some other schools; I think there are a couple of exceptions though just because Buddhism itself has become so diverse.
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 20, 03:01 PM · #