Why What You Believe Matters

edited November 2014 in Faith Issues
Fr. Robert Barron on "Why What You Believe Matters":

Transcript:

A team of sociologists lead by William D'Antonio who is a professor at Catholic university just published a survey that's got a lot of media attention because it shows that there's this disconnect between people's beliefs in Catholic doctrine and people's sense of their viability as Catholics. I'll give you one example, 40% of people in the survey evidently said that they don't accept the doctrine of the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist which is a pretty basic Catholic doctrine and still say but we're good faithful Catholics. The one that got my attention though was 88%, an overwhelming majority of people said that what really matters is being a good person.

It's what you do matters not so much what you believe. There was a follow up to this in the Chicago Sun Times and they talked to a Catholic on the street who said it's what's in my heart that matters not so much what the church teaches. Again, I was struck by this falling apart between doctrine and ethics, doctrine and practice and the clear favoring of ethics over doctrine. If you want to trace this back historically you can do it pretty easily by looking at the work of Immanuel Kant the 18th century German philosopher.

Kant famously said in his book called Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, he said look religion comes down to ethics. That's what it's fundamentally about. Doctrines, dogmas, liturgies and all that are fine in the measure that the contribute to good ethical behavior. If they don't they're irrelevant at best, problematic at worst. Kant drove a wedge between doctrine and ethics. I would dare say many people in the west and see this survey reflects it. Many people in the west would agree with that instinctually.

They'd say deep down what matters is are you a good person? Then what you believe, that's kind of up to you and that's more subjective. What really matters is are you a good person. Okay, see what I think is really dangerous, I'm not with Immanuel Kant. I think what's really dangerous is precisely this bifurcation. Driving this wedge between doctrine and practice and here's why. Without knowing it a lot of the ethical practices are in fact grounded in fundamental doctrines. When the doctrines become marginalized or rejected or when we have a caviler attitude about them in fact we are undermining many of these ethical directives.

Let me try to show it, I think you can show it in a lot of ways but just in a couple of ways. Being a good person, I bet most people would say that means that you're a person of love. You're a loving person, that's what it means to be good. That's what they'd look to. That's the criteria, is that a person of love? What is love? Love is as I've said very often is not a feeling or a sentiment, not a private subjective conviction. Love is willing the good of the other as other. Meaning love gets you out of this black hole of your own subjectivity, your own egocentrism. If I'm kind to you that you might be kind to me that isn't love, that's just indirect egotism.

If I say I'll be just to you that you'll be just to me in return that isn't love that's just a sort of clever way to be self interested. What's love? Love is a very peculiar thing, not just many splendors a very peculiar thing too because it means I've broken free of that self reference. I want your good for you, period. No strings attached. No reciprocation required. The church has said traditionally that love so described is a theological virtue. Aristotle didn't recognize love. That wasn't one of the virtues that he recognized.

The church identifies love as I've been describing it as a participation in God's way of being. God who has no need. God is God, God is perfect, absolute. God has no need therefore God alone can truly want the good of the other for the sake of the other. God can operate in a totally non-self interested way. When we do that, when we're capable of that it's only because we've received an infusion of grace. We've received a participation in God's own life. Here's the problem. Get rid of God or language about God or the doctrines that describe God, in time that love that I've been describing will also be attenuated. It will also even us.

Love that we so admire in the ethical order is a theological reality described by doctrinal truths. That's the more subjective side of the equation. Now look at the objective side. We say to love is to respect the dignity and the freedom and the inherent worth of every individual no matter of gender, background, race, education. Every human person we say, decent people would say, is worthy of this sort of infinite respect. We take that for granted but think about it. Why is that self evidently true? I would argue it's really not self evidently true. What makes it true is a theological doctrine that every person has been created by God and destined for eternal life.

That's why the person is properly seen as the subject of rights, freedom, dignity, equality and inherent worth. If you doubt me take away God from the equation. Take God out of consideration what do you get? Look back at classical times. Would Aristotle or Plato or Cicero have thought that each individual person, every person is the subject of rights, freedom, dignity, infinite worth? Absolutely not. For the classical philosophers a handful of people, the aristocrats, the virtuous, the well educated were the subject of rights and freedom and so on. The vast majority of people Plato, Aristotle, Cicero thought should do what they're told. More to it a lot of them felt that children who were malformed should be exposed to the elements, left to die.

A huge number of people in the classical world were slaves and the great philosophers thought that was natural. Many people were naturally destined for slavery. Now fast forward to more contemporary times. Look at the great totalitarianisms of the last century where God was systematically denied so go to Soviet Russia, go to Hitler's Germany, go to Mao China etc. What do you find? You find tens of millions of corpses. Lenin put it very succinctly didn't he? You want to make an omelet you've got to break a few eggs. The idea there was hey you want to produce this perfect communist society well, you've got to kill some people. Every person's the subject of infinite right, freedom, dignity worth? No way, on the contrary.

Is there perhaps a little connection between the explicit systematic atheism of these regimes and this attitude? Yes. It seems to me it's very hard to deny it. When you deny certain doctrines like the doctrine of creation. The doctrine of God's existence then love begins to disappear rather quickly. Oh no, that would never happen. You bet it will happen. It happened in our own life time. It happened in the lifetimes of our parents and grandparents. The point is this is a dangerous business when we drive Kant's wedge between doctrine and ethics. When we say so blithely oh it doesn't really matter what you believe it's the kind of person you are. The kind of person you are if by that you mean a person of love depends very much, depends radically upon certain key doctrines. That's why doctrine matters precisely because we want to be people of love.
«1

Comments

  • Great article! This is very true.
  • Excellent article.  Playing "atheist's advocate", the rebuttal could be that this article makes it think that non-believers in God are unable to love.  But on the contrary, there are atheists who have shown a lot of self-sacrificial love towards others that seem to exceed many Christians.  And this person loves just for the sake of love.  So how can one say it's impossible to put a wedge between religion and love if it is possible to do so?

    I have an answer, but I think this will be a good discussion to get people to think :)
  • @minasoliman 

    Do atheists love their enemy?
  • Excellent article.  Playing "atheist's advocate", the rebuttal could be that this article makes it think that non-believers in God are unable to love.  But on the contrary, there are atheists who have shown a lot of self-sacrificial love towards others that seem to exceed many Christians.  And this person loves just for the sake of love.  So how can one say it's impossible to put a wedge between religion and love if it is possible to do so?


    I have an answer, but I think this will be a good discussion to get people to think :)
    The answer is that atheists love because of Christian spermatikos logos.
    Even looking at it from a non-Christian perspective, there has to be something axiomatic to tell the atheist that loving is a good thing.  It's not a given.  Thus you can't drive a wedge between this axiom and love.
  • edited November 2014
    TITL, good point! But then do Christians love their enemies as well? Or do Christians act more like Pharisees, claiming to teach one thing, but practice another?

    Qawe,

    Even if love is axiomatic from an experiential pov, it can still be explained by its benefits. Species thrive more on altruism than on individuality. Thus a whole communion is better fit to survive more and give more offspring based on helping and loving one another. We can also neurobiologically explain love as well.
  • Dude, you can't change the argument! Lol that's illegal..

    Lets just stick with the original question you posted, how Christian love is different than atheists love ;) 
    They're unable to love their enemies (because it's unnatural), but we can through the strength of the Lord.

    But yeah, most of us, myself included, are Pharisees :(
    I still can't master aghapy, but I'm learning :)
  • Ah, yes...but you see, this argument is very important.  If we can't behave in the manner in which the gospels teach us, what good is it for us to prove the truth of our faith to those who lack faith if we do not appear in a manner that proves our faith is true?
  • Which is why I don't get in these arguments with non Christians. I can't prove my faith without working on myself first. 

    I was just answering you because I know you're not really an atheist :)
  • My reputation seems to fail me as a good atheist's advocate :P
  • No, you're still pretty good lol 

    I've been reading your posts though and know you mean well in the end (not actually attacking me) :)

    I'm curious what your answer is to the original question.
  • Well, I'm going to wait and see what other people say ;)
  • "Even if love is axiomatic from an experiential pov, it can still be explained by its benefits. Species thrive more on altruism than on individuality. Thus a whole communion is better fit to survive more and give more offspring based on helping and loving one another. We can also neurobiologically explain love as well."
    Animals (non-humans) do not operate altruism on an ethical doctrine or philosophy. They act as such because they are genetically designed to survive. There is no ethical decision making involved. 

    Neurobiology explains love in the framework of what science can substantiate (not prove). It cannot explain love, if love is greater than science. Since God is love, it automatically exceeds the framework of science. Of course, an atheist will not agree to the foundation that God is love. 

    My attempt to answer your question is as follows.
    It is not that atheists can't love, even sacrificing their lives. We see this happen all the time when atheist soldiers die for their country in war. However, the benefit of their sacrifice is still limited to a certain subpopulation or a certain time. Love that is completely sacrificial is eternal and beneficial to everyone, working outside time. Christ's sacrifice benefits all humanity, at all times, completely and perfectly. We love in an attempt to be like Christ, trying to benefit all people at all times even our enemies (which TITL alluded to). The Christian may fail to love his enemies like the atheist. But the Christian believes in the doctrine of eternal, universal love. The atheist does not. The irreligious and the atheist cannot love in the full, divine manner that Christ has taught us. 

    I'm sure that answer will not satisfy the atheist's advocate. But that's my weak attempt. 
  • Can I take my answer back and copy/paste Doc Rem's response to make it my own?
  • Why? I based my answer on your answer. Wait till Minasoliman answers. If it is a good answer, it's yours. If he butchers it into pieces, it'll be my answer.  
  • Ah yes, but even if animals do operate on a genetic basis, we simply can pinpoint genetically and biologically many of the actions and feelings we engage in, and it can be corroborated with some of the other species.  It could mean that while we are genetically programmed, it could also mean we are complex enough to develop some sort of philosophical reason, but it still shows the philosophy is only after the fact.  And since we can corroborate with brain scans our feelings of love and altruism with those of animal studies, we can then see that the basis of love is nothing more than a pre-programmed system of our brains.

    The fact that a Christian cannot act upon the hardest part of his beliefs only shows that a Christian is no different in practicality than an atheist.  The only difference is the Christian likes to comfort himself with delusions that his religion makes sense because he can somehow love his enemies.  Never mind the fact that malicious people can take advantage of that.
  • Ah yes ;) but theres a difference between agape, eros, philia, and storge! 

  • On a section entitled "Overdetermination", Roger Scruton mentions Kantian ethics and writes:

    "Consider the evolutionary psychologist’s explanation of altruism as we find it delicately and passionately expounded by Matt Ridley in his book The Origins of Virtue. Ridley plausibly suggests that moral virtue and the habit of obedience to what Kant called the moral law is an adaptation, his evidence being that any other form of conduct would have set an organism’s genes at a distinct disadvantage in the game of life. To use the language of game theory, in the circumstances that have prevailed during the course of evolution, altruism is a dominant strategy. This was shown by John Maynard Smith in a paper first published in 1964, and taken up by Robert Axelrod in his famous book "The Evolution of Cooperation," which appeared in 1984. But what exactly do those writers mean by “altruism”?

    An organism acts altruistically, they tell us, if it benefits another organism at a cost to itself. The concept applies equally to the soldier ant that marches into the flames that threaten the anthill, and to the officer who throws himself onto the live grenade that threatens his platoon. The concept of altruism, so understood, cannot explain, or even recognize, the distinction between those two cases. Yet surely there is all the difference in the world between the ant that marches instinctively toward the flames, unable either to understand what it is doing or to fear the results of it, and the officer who consciously lays down his life for his troops.

    If Kant is right, a rational being has a motive to obey the moral law, regardless of genetic advantage. This motive would arise, even if the normal result of following it were that which the Greeks observed with awe at Thermopylae, or the Anglo-Saxons at the Battle of Maldon. In such instances an entire community is observed to embrace death, in full consciousness of what it is doing, because death is the honorable option. Even if you don’t think Kant’s account of this is the right one, the fact is that this motive is universally observed in human beings, and is entirely distinct from that of the soldier ant, in being founded on a consciousness of the predicament, of the cost of doing right, and of the call to renounce life for the sake of others who depend on you or to whom your life is owed.

    To put it in another way, on the approach of the evolutionary psychologists, the conduct of the Spartans at Thermopylae is overdetermined. The “dominant reproductive strategy” explanation, and the “honorable sacrifice” explanation are both sufficient to account for this conduct. So which is the real explanation? Or is the “honorable sacrifice” explanation just a story that we tell ourselves, in order to pin medals on the chest of the ruined “survival machine” that died in obedience to its genes?

    But suppose that the moral explanation is genuine and sufficient. It would follow that the genetic explanation is trivial. If rational beings are motivated to behave in this way, regardless of any genetic strategy, then that is sufficient to explain the fact that they do behave in this way. And being disposed to behave in this way is an adaptation— for all this means is that people who were disposed by nature to behave in any other way would by now have died out, regardless of the reasons they might have had for behaving as they did.

    This brings us again to the parallel with mathematics that I discussed in the first chapter. We can easily show that mathematical competence is an adaptation. But that says nothing about the distinction between valid and invalid proofs, and it won’t give us a grasp of mathematical reasoning. There is an internal discipline involved here, which will not be illuminated by any amount of psychology, just as there is an internal discipline of moral thinking, which leads of its own accord to the conclusion that a given action is obligatory. Of course, it is a further fact about human beings that they are disposed to do what they think they ought to do. But it is the moral judgment, rather than some blind instinct, that compels them. The parallel is not exact. But it illustrates the way in which evolutionary explanations reduce to triviality, when the thing to be explained contains its own principles of persuasion.

    Moreover, like mathematics, moral thinking unfolds before us a view of the world that transcends the deliverances of the senses, and which it is hard to explain as the by-product of evolutionary competition. Moral judgments are framed in the language of necessity, and no corner of our universe escapes their jurisdiction. Morality provides another example of the way in which intentionality “reaches beyond” the order of nature, relating us in thought to the cosmos as a whole. And morality makes sense only if there are reasons for action that are normative and binding. It is hard to accept this, and still to resist the conclusion drawn by Thomas Nagel, that the universe is ordered by teleological laws."

    Roger Scruton, The Soul of the World, 54-56.


    But doesn't a teleological argument lead to the idea of the watchmaker god which the deists argued for?
  • I just realized that the previous post is way off topic. Sorry everyone please ignore.
  • edited November 2014
    TITL said:

    Ah yes ;) but theres a difference between agape, eros, philia, and storge! 


    Well, I'm going to skip the part where the atheist will ask what these mean, and will jump to the part where there is still lack of evidence that a Christian practices the most perfect of love in this atheist's life.  In fact, many atheists will share with you an experience where Christians have lead them to disbelief because they found better love in other communities, especially non-believers.
  • Woops. I was answering your post about animals and altruism, not the Pharisee Christian practice. 

    I'll let someone else take on this (new) discussion because the only answer I have is we strive for perfect love by asking for it in prayer. 

    Btw, you're not asking us these questions to make us think, you're training us to talk appropriately in given situations. Sneaky.
  • I do want to give a hint as to why I keep gravitating to the idea that very few Christians walk the talk.  This is the most important part of a discussion with an atheist (or anyone really).

    I was just recently having a discussion with a group of people on the subject of the Old Testament God (a huge stumbling block for a lot of atheists), and the way I answered the question was that I assumed everyone was a strong-believing Christian, when I didn't realize there were atheists in the group.  Once I realized this, I had to quickly shift gears in the way I respond and answer the question, because anything else was a waste to talk about really, and seemed like an opportunity for an atheist to show how Christianity (and Judaism) is just full of...(fill in the blank).

    And that's the other thing.  An atheist can say, "you teach one thing, your Bible teaches another," and they will quote you some of the most violent passages of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament.
  • In which case I'll be like, "here talk to Mina Soliman" :-c :)>-
  • Actually I wanted to add that shortcomings in Christian behavior doesn't allude to flaws in the religion, but rather that we're not perfect. That's probably what I would tell the atheist prior to my immediate referral to Mina.
  • An atheist would probably after that argument start quoting some parts of the Bible that seem to contradict the "love thy enemy" approach, and if I am very good at history, I might even throw a few historical examples.
  • What contradicts?

    God's approach in dealing with His people in the Old Testament differs than the New Testament because we now have the Holy Spirit Who teaches us. It's kind of like a young child who needs specific, strict directions but once he/she grows up, the rules change to meet his/her needs. So it's not that things are contradicting, it's that we, as humans, are changing in mentality.. so we need different laws :)

    Did I answer correctly? Lol
  • Ah yes, but even if animals do operate on a genetic basis, we simply can pinpoint genetically and biologically many of the actions and feelings we engage in, and it can be corroborated with some of the other species.  It could mean that while we are genetically programmed, it could also mean we are complex enough to develop some sort of philosophical reason, but it still shows the philosophy is only after the fact.  And since we can corroborate with brain scans our feelings of love and altruism with those of animal studies, we can then see that the basis of love is nothing more than a pre-programmed system of our brains.


    The fact that a Christian cannot act upon the hardest part of his beliefs only shows that a Christian is no different in practicality than an atheist.  The only difference is the Christian likes to comfort himself with delusions that his religion makes sense because he can somehow love his enemies.  Never mind the fact that malicious people can take advantage of that.
    I was willing to play the game, but now you're picking a fight. (If I knew how to use emoticons like TITL, you would see a smiley face with boxing gloves)

    The problem with your responses Mina is that you are lumping poorly practicing Christians with all Christians, atheists who can love more than Christians and atheists who can't, animals with humans, and so one. Each one of these needs a long drawn out concise definitions and direction. I may be talking about Christians who can "act upon the hardest beliefs" such as the martyrs and you're talking (as the atheist's advocate) with the average "Joe six pack" Christian who is content with having Church services but fails in sin, or the Christian who outwardly denies any notion of sin but calls himself Christian, etc. The atheist tends to look at the latter when they trying to argue with Christians, pointing to their shortcomings as evidence of the shortcomings of Christianity. Stereotyping or generalizing on both sides is useless. So unless you give us direct "symptoms" of what atheist we are dealing with, then we can't come up with a "medical" solution in Christian-Atheist debates. Case in point, You glossed over my definitions of love. I tried to define the distinction between sacrificial love for the Christian and sacrificial love for the atheist. I adjusted for the variable on what type of Christian - a sinful Christian who may not sacrifice his life when the opportunity comes but believes in a love that transcends time and egotism. Such a love by definition must have a divine power. I assume you understood that the type of atheist I discussed is the sinful atheist who also may not sacrifice his life but cannot believe in a love that transcends time and egotism. By the way, it would not be true love if it only applies to non-malicious people who do not take advantage of Christians who claim to love their enemies. True love must also apply to the same malicious people who do take advantage of Christians.  

    Now I can continue to argue that while functional PET scans may suggest a neurobiological genetic link with many types of animal species on emotions and love, such evidence is not sufficient to give us the "smoking gun" the typical atheist/free thinker wants us to believe. I won't go into this too much but it brings up a point I want to elaborate on.

    Atheism (according to the Atheist Survival Guide) is not a religion. It is not irreligion. It is not an anti-religion. It makes no claims that God doesn't exist. (This is technically denial). Atheism is disbelief in theism. Disbelief has a spectrum of application. Basically, the Christian says God exists (or God is love). The atheist says "I just don't believe your claim." It follows that he may not agree to the claim for many reasons on the spectrum. The most common reason is he simply doesn't care to engage in the claim. He may simply disbelieve because of contradictory practice of Christian (as you alluding to). He may simply disbelieve because he rejects claims that are not based on free thinking (debatable, reproducible, rational evidence). Simply stating there is a god  because that is what you were told is no different than a child repeating the claim that there is a man climbing down chimneys every December 25th. 

    This last one is important because "free thinking" (anti-clerical, anti-spoon-fed knowledge) has become the god of the atheist - which by definition is a impossible datum for the atheist. The atheist will disbelieve any claim that considers a supernatural being called God. I am stating this free thinking has become the ultimate ideal and power of the atheist; the atheist god. As such when a free thinker states science can show fPET scans that suggest neurobiological proof of love, I will reject it, not based on the accuracy of that science, but on the basis that this science has become god-like. This is more a discussion on epistemology rather than on atheism. Therefore, there is never going to be an epistemologically accurate method to prove or rationalize the God of the Old Testament (or any theistic god) to the true atheist. This doesn't change the fact that epistemologically and ontologically God exists, regardless of the atheist's objection.

    Anyway the gloves are up. Bring on your rebuttal.
  • Okay okay...I'll slow down here...

    My point was that everything you guys are saying is all okay, but if it does not get into practice, an atheist will never comprehend what you are talking about.  They only know what they can sense with their five senses.  They believe in the scientific method.  They will be unable to understand what it means to believe in something transcendent.  Even if you tell them about love and sacrificial love, they will quote the genocidal parts of the Bible.  If they're great at history, they'll start talking about some embarrassing parts of our history, particularly when Christianity became imperial.

    So I didn't mean to bring the gloves.  But I think it is important to take their arguments seriously.  "You know what, Mr. Atheist, you're right.  Most of us Christians, we just comfort ourselves with arguments and not actions.  We worship our intellect more than our God it seems, and for that I am sorry.  However, I hope you also find it in your heart to see some of the great things in history Christians have done that did transcend other people around them.  And with that, I also pray that you find it in your heart to at least come and visit our church and pray with us one Sunday and join our meetings.  We would love for you to come and to see how we practice what we preach."

    The best thing I think you can do for an atheist is to be a friend.  Let him insult you and your beliefs.  But if he is willing to stick around with you, then be an example to that person.  Yes, God is love, and we too must be Love like Him.  But it is true that we do not act like it either.  We have to admit that.  We only love whoever is in our community.  We rarely reach out.  We're too busy to reach out to others who we know need God.  Otherwise, we do not look any different than other religions.  We're all the same to this atheist.  We just smell like Kofta on other days, falafels and fava beans on other days, and that's pretty much the impression we give him.  So why my Church?  Well, because I would hope my Church can STAND OUT, that it would smell like sweet fragrance to you and entice you to blow your mind.  So no argument will satisfy an atheist.  You can maybe set up a framework in a humble manner, but you can only get so far with verbal arguments.

    What is the ultimate purpose of our Christian religion?  What is the famous theological formula we LOVE to say, particularly in our Orthodox churches, to connect the purpose of the incarnation with our ultimate goal?
  • It seems like we sort of came up with the same response. 

    "What is the ultimate purpose of our Christian religion?  What is the famous theological formula we LOVE to say, particularly in our Orthodox churches, to connect the purpose of the incarnation with our ultimate goal?"
    Umm, is it miaphysis to theou logos sesarkomen? Is it ⲁϥϭⲓ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲛ̀ⲛⲏⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲛ ⲁϥϯ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲛ̀ⲛⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲟⲩϥ? That's all I got.
  • I have no idea what Rem said, but is it love God and love your brothers? I like to simplify things ;)

    Also is there an examination you're posting after this?
Sign In or Register to comment.