Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Is Life a Tale Told by an Idiot? Probably.
My favorite political commentator, Dennis Prager, recently argued (Explaining the Left) that the hard political Left in the US and most intellectuals in Europe have abandoned traditional religions. To replace what they’ve abandoned, they’ve adopted a false religion of left wing political activism. Prager’s thesis makes a lot of sense to me.
Unhappily, Prager’s unflattering portrait of the Left’s lack of religious affiliations also describes me. That is, what he says of the Left—they have no God, believe most of the Bible is myth, and that death brings oblivion—is what I believe.
I’m uncomfortable, as you might imagine, being an ally of the Left. I want to be with you who believe. But I can’t. If there is such a thing as a religious bone, I lack it. My mom and dad also lacked that bone.
According to Prager, my life should be bereft of meaning. I have no religion and I don’t even have the Left’s politics to fall back on. (I’m even tepid in my right wing politics.) Yet I find life full of meaning. How can this be?
This way: When I was younger, I found significant meaning in teaching, writing, and helping to raise my kids. Now retired, I even find meaning in the commonplaces of daily life: sweeping the porch, doing my crosswords, feeding Ebbie the cat, walking in the evening with Bob the dog. These things are enough for me.
But even if I didn’t find meaning in the pedestrian, the meaning that my wife Marie 💕 lends to my life would be enough.
All well and good. It’s not hard to find meaning in life. Almost everyone does. It’s so easy, we hardly give it a second thought. Those whose find their lives empty sometimes check out of life early. I don’t blame them. If I felt my life was meaningless, I would probably check out early too.
Oddly, though I don’t agree with my favorite philosopher Dennis Prager in this matter, I happen to agree with my least favorite philosopher, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre: “Life has no meaning a priori,” Sartre says, “It is up to you to give it meaning.”
Would my life have more meaning if I had a religion? Perhaps. On a trip to Japan a few years back, Marie and I came across a shrine featuring rows and rows of little dolls, probably a thousand of them. Each doll, I was told, represented a dead child. Buddhist mothers and fathers visit these shrines every so often, where they change the little clothes of the dolls that represent their children. I have no doubt that the parents find that modest religious rite not only gives comfort to their lives, but also gives meaning to the loss of their child. We like to think that death makes sense.
There is something else in Prager’s thesis that I also disagree with. This is the idea that society would splinter and degrade without the support of religion. In that, he agrees with the Russian Christian, Fyodor Dostoevsky. Ivan, Doestoevsky’s atheist antagonist in The Brothers Karamazov claims that if there is no God, there are no rules to live by and no moral law to follow—and everything is permitted. Dostoevsky suggests that if Ivan’s philosophy ever became a society’s prevailing philosophy, things would fall apart and “mere anarchy,” in Yeats’ famous phrase, “[would be] loosed upon the world.”
Dostoevsky and Prager needn’t have worried. There are a host of forces outside religion to keep our passions in check and go to support a lawful society. For one thing, those who don’t fear God do fear going to jail. That is a powerful deterrent.
Other non-Christian forces keep us striving for the good. Plato, Aristotle, Zeno and a host of other pagan philosophers may be dead, but their ideas continue to form a part of the culture that we swim in.
And of course, atheists, pagans, and believers alike learn from Jesus, the greatest teacher of them all. The moral law that is taught every Sunday permeates our society and therefore becomes a part of the moral universe, even for non-believers.
For that reason, I’m a enthusiastic supporter of religion, especially the Judeo-Christian variety. There is no doubt in my mind that religion not only improves our moral life, but it also increases social stability and helps to ameliorate our base instincts.
Would I be more moral if I were a believer? Probably not. It’s true, as you probably suspect, that I don’t feel the weight of sin, and I have only a small conscience. But I and other non-believers live in a world of moral imperatives that was created by Jews, Christians, pagan philosophers, atheists, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, and others. All of those influences encourage me to refrain from lying, to contribute to charities, to be nice to people, and so on.
One of those moral imperatives encourages me to be nice to animals. My cat Ebbie is wracked with arthritis in these her latter days. So a few months back I built a little bench for Ebbie so that she could step up more easily into her litter box. (As you might expect, I’m fond of that passage in the Bible where the Deuteronomist commands Jewish farmers to unmuzzle the mouths of their oxen as the animals work. Unmuzzled, the oxen can then eat as they help thresh the farmers’ grain.)
I’m not the greatest moral exemplar of our species. I’m probably somewhere between St. Francis of Assisi on one side, Hitler on the other. My Christian wife is more moral than I am, more generous, and more forgiving—though I’ve always thought that her moral superiority is the result of her sex and her nature rather than her religion.
I even pray occasionally, though I’m almost certain that my prayers waft up and disappear into the ether, unheard and unacknowledged. Prayer is a form of meditation for me. I send my prayers upward. That’s enough for me.
So how do you and I differ in the way we lead our lives? Are you nicer to your spouse, steal less often than I do? Riot and burn cars fewer times than I do? Give to beggars more than I do? I bet you don’t treat your dog and cat as well as I do.
How would my life be different if I were a believer?
Most people on this site are probably religious. Religion and the Right (the two R’s) just seem to go together. I’d like to hear from you. Would your life be less rich without religion? Could you be moral without religion to support your behavior? Or would your life remain much the same?
Are there any others out there in Ricochet land like me? Chime in. I don’t like to feel alone.
Published in General
So righteous Dude
If you are live in America, you are swimming in the Judeo-Christian vibe 24/7; and if you are not fighting tooth, fang, and claw to tear down America – you believe. You just don’t know it yet.
By believe I mean something like: You appreciate and want to preserve Western Civilization.
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don’t have that problem.”
― Ronald Reagan
Kent have you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis?
Amen my Brother!
Because Satan hates the truth.
Another eye opener is Witness to Hope – the DVD on the life of Pope John Paul II. I stumbled on it on public TV. I didn’t know who it was about – it was riveting. I didn’t know anything about my heritage – my ancestors in Eastern Europe. Between communism and Hitler, I can’t imagine if a Judaeo-Christian nation like the US had not gotten involved, as well as the very Christian countries of Western Europe and Britain. If you look at history, the odds of the Jews or even Christianity surviving were terrible. You see the hand of God in it. But Kent’s experience is honest and not uncommon. Unless you have had suffering, or your faith was handed down by your parents – in his case it wasn’t, what would motivate you to be a person of faith. Kent – ask God to reveal Himself to you in His own way. Your prayers don’t go up into the ether, but to God’s ears.
Simon, I have. I’d like to make a few comments about it, but it was a long time ago.
Just wanted to know. I read it quite a long time ago also but it changed my outlook on Christianity. Re-reading The Screwtape Letters is almost always a good investment in one’s time.
I’ve also read The Screwtape Letters. Probably the best Christian satire ever.
I don’t post often; usually smart-aleck one-line responses to other’s posts.
I wish that were true, but, as Fr. Sirico says, it’s the remaining leaves fed by last year’s sap on a dead tree. I have friends who faithfully live their Catholic faith, have raised their kids in it, and now their kids are living it (having big families, or discerning the priesthood…). They are radically counter-culture.
Much more typical are the friends who were raised in Christian homes, lost their faith in college, and, while retaining J-C sensibilities, did not transmit the underlying culture to their kids (I’m afraid I may have failed in this regard, too). Secular European leftism is ascendant in the US, biblical illiteracy is rampant… The J-C West is dead.
Mr Walton, you’ve given this matter much more thought than I have. I’ve only seen evil from afar. I’ve seen meanness, thoughtlessness, spite, greed, and so on. But I’ve never seen evil close up. I had a master sergeant once who seemed evil to me. But he was probably only being a sergeant, And I was probably naïve.
Theology fight? Sorry, I doubt I can get involved. Not this week.
But thanks for the invitation.
No problem. Perhaps next time when I come out as a Druid who sacrifices kitty cats.
Meanness thoughtlessness, spite, greed affect all of us from time to time, in some it’s worse than in others, but when any of us become unaccountable, or just join a mob, it can quickly turn from normal human failings and weakness to something far worse which sometimes so overflows we recognize it as evil. Yes I’ve thought about it because the atheism I embraced as a kid simply doesn’t hold up to much questioning, and all of us who spent much time in the 20th century have seen real evil and frankly I see it creeping back into the country, as Chesterton said, based on a creed. That creed is the target.
I could have written much of what you wrote. I am not a believer, but I feel more affinity for religious Christians and Jews than I feel for most atheists. (There is an unfortunate tendency for atheists to be obnoxious jerks, which is one reason I rarely use the term to describe myself.)
But yes, I object to the assertion that religion is the only way to be moral or to find meaning in life. I think there are certain universal truths that can be arrived at in many different ways, and one of the reasons I tend to be pro-religion is that as a rule, I agree with religious people more often than not. They may arrive at their conclusions by way of a different path from mine, but I’m not sure that matters.
Your mention of the Japanese resonates with me. There is a lot I find appealing about the Japanese approach to religion. Few Japanese are particularly devout; I doubt many of them would really identify themselves as Buddhists, or profess belief in the literal existence of Shinto gods. But for them, religion is more about the value of traditional practices in building and maintaining a community and a culture. Whether you believe in gods or not, I think there is value in stopping at a shrine on the way home from work, taking a minute out of your day to think about what is important to you, and observing the rituals that bind your community together.
Morning Bartholomew,
Does the Japanese birth rate of barely over one give you pause? Atheism not only does not handle suffering well but offers no reason to wish a future on children. Give them the meaningless blessing of being an organic organism going through a life cycle, or to give them the opportunity to show that they can be as moral as those organisms who are or claim to be religious?
I don’t understand this idea of having a “religious bone”. I see adherence to faith like working out, as an analogy, maybe a bad one. I myself am a committed and practicing Catholic but it does not come easy to me. I am not washed in the Holy Spirit as I see in so many faithful people, but maybe that is my cross to bear. It’s like I’m the kid in Math class who has to work extra hard for a B, while the other kids barely study and make straight A’s. It is a journey, which is why I see it as working out. For some people, who are in great shape it seems to be so easy, they eat good, LOVE going to the gym and seem to have so much enthusiasm. For me, I dread going to the gym, I hate working out, but I go and do my thang. When the class is over, and I thrilled that I have a 24 hour reprieve from having to go back there. But I love the way I feel when I’m done. I know I need to work out for my health also I can play a basketball game or Soccer game with my kids. My kids just did a kids Spartan race the other weekend and I was able to keep up with them to encourage them to finish and not give up. We can do more things as a family, because I’m physically able .
It is the same with my faith, there are other things I might want to do but pick up my bible and read those three chapters a day. I pray my rosary on the way to work and like the gym I might want to do something else but I never regret it when I’m done reading those chapter or praying that rosary. I’ve gained wisdom from doing these things, and I can pass that onto my kids. My point is that it isn’t always something that comes naturally to everyone but it can’t help to start on that journey and try it out even if you have to fake it until you make it.
Of course it does, but I don’t see how that has anything to do with religion.
Atheism does not offer anything. It is not a belief system. I am not defined by what I don’t believe.
I do, however, value many things, children and family being at the top of the list. I am not alone in that. Religion is not the only way to arrive at such an outlook.
Christianity is responsible for the morals of the West. Athiests have been shunned for all time. It is only in Christianity that we see tolerance of non belief.
In contrast, every athiest nation has persecuted people for this faith.
I point this out as important. Our miricle cannot exist without Christianity paving the way.
Bartholomew, I didn’t think I would find anyone on Ricochet whose views were so close to mine.
You know more about Japanese attitudes than I do, but what you say sounds about right to me. I’m fond of many aspects of Japanese culture, though their sleeping arrangements (hard pads) food (raw fish anyone?), and dining tables (12 inches high) suck.
You know I love you, WC, but this take has always struck me as being an incredibly patronizing one.
If it is true, one would have to explain how the simultaneous phenomena of decreasing measures of criminality can be squared with increasing rates of secularism and a variety of other measures which run counter to this proposition. The cohort of our society which is most religious (African-Americans) tends to be the most likely to both seek abortions and engage in criminality, while the opposite is arguably true for secular society.
Of course, these explanations all look through the wrong end of the telescope: the presumption being that morality is a fruit which grows from the tree of Christianity, rather than Christians simply plucking fruit of the tree of morality. All are free to eat from that tree and grow strong. Trying to cordon off access to that orchard and label all of morality’s fruits as “Made By Christianity” is a conceit.
That merely tells me that such interlocutors are very shallow and reactionary.
Try me some time. Or Sam Harris. Or Michael Shermer.
Trying to Steel-man your opponent’s arguments is typically a better plan than punching through such straw men.
The notion of America is bigger than mere Christianity. That’s why I fight to defend it, and not abstract articles of theology.
Years ago, but my recollection of it is that Lewis’s title alone contains a sufficient quantity of saccharine pseudo-modesty to cause my teeth to curl.
Is it not here that he presents the false “madman/son-of-god” dilemma? I can think of other explanations too… that people brought up in an environment where they are primed to view the world as inhabited by spirits and governed by inexplicable forces will no doubt see those things given a lack of other explanation. It sort of negates the possibility of merely being incorrect – and ignores all of the other “madmen/prophets” who exist outside of the hermetically sealed world of default mode acceptance of Christianity.
This is sort of what I was getting at with the inside-out approach.
There’s the “tree.” There is a reality that human beings, as a characteristic of being human, perceive. (I happen to think we are perceiving something that is built into the structure of the universe, like gravity or the speed of light…but it doesn’t have to be: let’s say, for the sake of argument, that this “thing” is merely a property of human existence. (7 billion human existences makes that a pretty big thing even without having to wander out among the asteroids, right?)
We all have this capacity to perceive that reality to one extent or another, the way we all have music even if some of us caterwaul in the shower, and others are Mozart.
How do we understand and express that thing? More important, how do we use our individual and collective intelligence, to encode our understandings and expressions in ways that allow us to share and build upon it? To use the tree metaphor, we can just pick the fruit from that one tree, or we can plant and nurture more trees.
A religion is—again, at the very least—the systematic encoding of what one group of human beings has learned over time about the reality that we have the capacity to perceive. To the extent that there are commonalities among the world’s religions, I would argue that the most durable (because—again, IMHO—the most congruent with the underlying reality) are those that link consciousness to empathy.
And then encourage the development of both.
It’s not nearly so hermetically-sealed as you imagine, Shawn. Far less so, in my experience, than the truly sealed world of secular agnosticism; Sam Harris (God Bless him) flings forth his rhetorical challenges as if the libraries aren’t filled with the writings of those who answered exactly the same arguments a hundred or a thousand years ago.
He’s not stupid. In fact, he’s very smart, and he’s obviously well-educated but he isn’t particularly well-read in theology, which isn’t surprising given that he begins with contempt rather than curiosity. So it’s not that he’s wrong, exactly. It’s more that he doesn’t realize that he’s trying to peel the apples in a pie that has already been baked.