The wrong mailing list
I received a magazine subscription offer in the mail a while ago for the New Oxford
Review, but it has taken me a while to get around to writing about it. The New Oxford
Review is (from what I can tell from their mailing) an extremely conservative Catholic
publication. As a Jewish atheist, I am about as unlikely a subscriber as you can
get. (which at least makes me happier about the current state of data-mining technology
in this country!). None-the-less, I found the accompanying pitch letter fascinating.
The letter, after affirming that I must be a solid Catholic, and in despair over
the current state of the church, basically goes on a rant about how soft and lefty
the Catholic church has become, particularly in America. Far too politically correct,
too focused on emphasizing the idea of “celebrating community”, and being far too
“touchie-feelie” [sic].
There are a lot of ways I could talk about this letter. For one thing, the suggested
idea that this country is not religious enough, when I feel like we are half way
to an Iranian style theocracy, could easily fill a couple of dozen blog entries
(and, in the future, may). What I want to talk about, though, is the issues raised
by the second bullet-point explaining the errors of the American Catholic church:
· It refuses to talk about Hell. But if there’s no Hell, why bother to be
good? (Italics original).
I don’t want to particularly pick on Catholics, because I have heard similar statements
from other people of religion, (but they were not nice enough to send me a letter),
but to me this statement goes to the heart of my own feelings about religion. In
a future posting, I will also talk about how I think this has much to do with the
way the religious right acts. But, anyway. . .
According to this doctrine, the only reason to be good is fear of hell. The only
reason to do good deeds is the expected reward for them. I would hope that most
Catholics (or others) don’t believe this, but I suspect that many of them do.
Of course, it follows that I, as an atheist, would never do anything except out
of self-interest, because I do not believe in the punishment or expect the reward.
Bullshit.
To me, a good deed is not a good deed if you expect to get paid for it – it is a
job. It is not moral to avoid committing a crime because you think you will get
caught. Morality is more than that. Morality is making the right choice no matter
what the consequences, even if there is no reward, or worse, if there is even punishment
for doing so.
The tricky part, of course, is knowing what is the right thing. This is where the
world gets murky. Everybody has their own world picture, although that is tempered
by our ability to think rationally, and to evaluate the works of those who came
before us. And I will freely admit that, among these works, religion can be a powerful
and useful guide. Even 3 or 4 of the much-touted 10 commandments are useful here.
Beyond this, we as a society define what is right and wrong among ourselves, by
our laws and our societal conventions.
That doesn’t mean that we don’t rationalize our behavior to be “right”. I strongly
believe that virtually everyone, in all circumstances, believes, or have convinced
themselves to believe, that they are doing good and the right thing, no matter how
monstrous history has shown humanity can be. But at some level, some amount of inward
reflection (or, okay, sometimes a lot) can make us realize how far we are willing
to go away from what is “right”.
A simple example – lying. We know it is wrong. Every kid can tell you, but we do
it all the time. White lies that grease the social experience (“How are you today?”
“Fine”.). Lies to get that telemarketer off of the phone, lies to spare people’s
feeling, lies to get that promotion. Sophists (like myself, I admit) can even get
away with never actually lying, while deliberately misleading. A telemarketer asks
for me by a mispronounced version of my name (a common occurrence). “Sorry, no one
of that name here.” I know I am telling the truth, but also know that I am not.
. .
Sometimes this is just a matter of degree. Misleading someone to get a telemarketer
off the phone vs. misleading someone into (for example) an unjustifiable war. But
therein lies the trick and the conundrum. Once one starts to rationalize, how far
do you go; If I only take one cookie, it is not a big deal. Oops, I’ve taken all
of the cookies, I’d better take the cookie jar to hide the evidence. Oops, the cookie-jar
was missed, I’d better kill the guard and cover him with cookie-crumbs to make him
look guilty. Oops, I. . .
Pretty soon your invading countries.
Okay, so I think I have just deduced the reason for religion (and law for that matter)
– to stop people from taking their rationalizations too far. Do I get a cookie?
But here’s the rub – sticks and carrots work for donkeys and small children. One
of these days we are going to have to grow up.
Here’s a story you may have heard:
Adam and Eve in a garden with just one rule – don’t touch the Granny-Smiths! They
do, anyway, and wallop, everybody out of the pool. . .
Or here’s another way of looking at it (and I may be giving a 3000 year old writer
more credit than he deserves, in which case write to Derrida):
Adam and Eve are living in a safe, warm place, protected by their parent(s). At
some point, though, they have to grow up, embrace knowledge (It ain’t called the
tree of knowledge for nothing). Once you have that knowledge, you can’t really ever
go back to that safe, warm place.
But would you want to?
by Arlen
