Questions for Glenn & Howard, and a quote from philosopher Mary Midgley

"Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net> writes: ...there is no way to
determine good or bad in a philosphical view, other than by internal
inconsistency.

ED: Before you [Glenn] and Howard [Van Till] discuss "philosophy" and
"theology" and "internal consistancy" further, I would like to hear each
of your views on how you determine "good" and "bad" using the Bible.
(Isn't that what you should be discussing? You both place stress on the
Bible, don't you, to differing degrees?)

Here are some questions I have for both of you:

1) Can you find any verses in the Bible that say polygamy, concubinage,
slavery, or genocide are always and everywhere “sins?” According to the
Bible such practices seem perfectly acceptable to “God,” even
praiseworthy, depending on the circumstances. Is that being "consistent?"
 

2) Whether you take the Bible's lessons literally or metaphorically, God
is portrayed as flooding the whole world, sending fire down from heaven,
famines and pestilences, commanding the deaths of men, women, children,
and beasts. Imagine how such actions would have stained the reputation of
the devil. Do such actions appear "consistent" with "God" being very much
better than the devil?

3) Why do you think Christian theologians over the centuries have been
unable to agree on exactly what laws should govern a nation? For
instance, compare Luther and Calvin’s political views with those of most
liberal democratic mainstream Christians today. Luther and Calvin said
their views were based on the Bible and they agreed that the Bible
portrayed Jesus as teaching that the laws of Moses remained in force, nor
did Jesus admit to his opponents that he had truly violated any of them.
Neither did Jesus’ command, “Give to all who ask, asking nothing in
return,” constitute practical advice concerning the laws and activity of a
nation. So Jesus did not direct his teachings toward the setting up of
laws and the governance of a state. And Paul taught that all rulers
(whether Christian or not) were instituted by God and “did not bear the
sword in vain.” So that left only the “laws of Moses” as a list of God’s
most holy laws for governing a nation. Luther and Calvin’s Bible studies
further compelled them to conclude that humanity lay in the depths of sin,
blindness, stubbornness and ignorance. So, given a choice, Christians
needed to choose and serve a godly ruler who would protect and care not
just for the people’s bodies but for their souls as well -- a ruler who
would enforce not just the laws on the second tablet of the “Laws of
Moses” (governing interactions between men), but enforce the laws on the
first tablet as well (governing interactions between man and God). That
was also the view of Christian theologians ever since the first Roman
Emperor converted to Christianity. The Emperor’s conversion was taken as a
sign that God wanted the state to protect and care for more than just the
body. Indeed, examples in the Old Testament abound in which prophets from
Moses onward claimed that nations were either blessed or cursed by God
based on collective obedience to His holy laws, especially those
concerning the extinguishing of “idolatry” and “blasphemy” in the nation
as a whole.

What we have above are some deep questions of governance, of "good" and
"bad" laws. And the Bible alone does not answers such questions. Such
questions are even kept alive today by certain fundamentalist groups.
Meanwhile the majority of today's Evangelicals have imbibed so much 20th
century democracy in speeches and history classes that they remain
blissfully unaware of even the basic differences between the first
commandment given to God's holy nation, and the first amendment of the
U.S. Constitution. God said, "You shall have NO other gods before me,"
but the framers of the U.S. Constitution said, "Freedom of religion." The
question remains, who is right? What's the best way a nation can please
God? By what laws? The Bible will be debated till doomsday.

4) Leaving the above questions aside, compare the view of the
philosopher, Mary Midgley. And ask yourselves whether she doesn't make at
least as much sense as either of your own notions of the theological basis
of morality:

MARY MIDGLEY: Darwin proposed that creatures like us who, by their
nature, are riven by strong emotional conflicts, and who have also the
intelligence to be aware of those conflicts, absolutely need to develop a
morality because they need a priority system by which to resolve them. The
need for morality is a corollary of conflicts plus intellect:

Man, from the activity of his mental faculties, cannot avoid reflection…
Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would
inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience as soon as its intellectual
powers had become as well-developed, or anything like as well-developed as
in man.
- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

That (he said) is why we have within us the rudiments of such a priority
system and why we have also an intense need to develop those rudiments. We
try to shape our moralities in accordance with our deepest wishes so that
we can in some degree harmonize our muddled and conflict-ridden emotional
constitution, thus finding ourselves a way of life that suits it so far as
is possible.

These systems are, therefore, something far deeper than mere social
contracts made for convenience. They are not optional. They are a profound
attempt -- though of course usually an unsuccessful one -- to shape our
conflict-ridden life in a way that gives priority to the things that we
care about most.

If this is right, then we are creatures whose evolved nature absolutely
requires that we develop a morality. We need it in order to find our way
in the world. The idea that we could live without any distinction between
right and wrong is as strange as the idea that we -- being creatures
subject to gravitation -- could live without any idea of up and down. That
at least is Darwin’s idea and it seems to me to be one that deserves
attention.
- Mary Midgley, “Wickedness: An Open Debate,” The Philosopher’s Magazine,
No. 14, Spring 2001

I find myself agreeing more with Midgley than theologians, I certainly no
longer believe that ethics “without the Bible” are “completely relative.”
People with no Bible to guide them still feel similar pains when stolen
from, slapped, or called a stinging name. People with no Bible to guide
them also feel similar pleasures when hugged, given a gift, or verbally
petted. In other words, “ethical authority” resides in our bodies and
brains, and in the multitude of lessons learned during lives of
interaction with our fellow human beings. Neither is it easy for a person
to turn to anti-social behavior if they have been taught from childhood to
view other people’s feelings and needs through the inner lens of their
own. People also recognize (regardless of their religious beliefs or lack
thereof) that “joys shared are doubled, while sorrows shared are halved.”
Such recognitions even form the basis for wanting to “double” society’s
joys, and “halve” society’s sorrows.

Of course not everyone learns morality in the manner described above. Some
are raised to “fear hell” and memorize lists of “holy commandments.” Such
people are liable to “fear what they (and others) might become” once such
“external” holy threats and commands are called into question. Ironically,
in nearly all cases, such a "hell" does not exist to promote universal
ethical behavior, but to promote belief in the truth of that person's
particular theology/denomination as opposed to rival
theologies/denominations. So if you do not share their particular theology
nor belong to their particular denomination, then they are convinced you
are going to hell regardless of whatever kindnesses you share with them or
society at large. So the threat of "hell" only helps promote good behavior
in those who accept that particular theology/denomination that preaches
“hell;” and such people can only understand the idea of a "moral" nation
as one that consists solely of "fellow believers" in their particular
theology/denomination. Of course any morality that tries to base itself
(and impose itself on others) upon purely “external” religious threats and
commands will break down once the religion supporting it is called into
question.

To avoid such “breakdowns” it makes more sense for a nation, culture, or
family to emphasize “internal” rather than “external” morality/ethics,
just as it makes more sense to raise children to think and act in terms of
how “they would feel if what they did was done back to them,” rather than
depending on rote memorization of lists to promote ethical understanding
in all circumstances and among all people. All the world’s religions
enshrine the principle, “Do not do to others what you would not want done
to yourself,” and, “Do to others what you would want done to yourself,”
which assume in both cases that “you” already possess an “internal”
recognition of what you should and shouldn’t do. So, there need not be any
overt conflict between “internal” and “external” morality and ethics.
However, stressing the “internal” variety seems to have a far greater
chance of drawing society together, rather than tearing it apart.

“Internal” ethical recognitions preceded the composition of humanity’s
earliest law codes such as those of King Hammurabi, or the moral
injunctions found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the later but more
famous, “Ten Commandments.” Such “internal” recognitions inspired the
creation of laws, and still do, and remind us that laws are but dust when
people neglect to seek out what is best within themselves and each other.

Cheers,
Ed
Received on Fri Oct 8 19:52:05 2004