Spring Break
Abstract:
I am a non-believer.
You may, therefore, define me by whichever descriptor suits your worldview. I could be a naturalist, a materialist, an atheist, a secularist or any other term that allows my beliefs to be defined in relation to others who believe essentially the same thing....
Jeff Schooley
posted 2/22/07 @ 1:13 PM EST
I'd like to respond to this statement in your column: "I think there is a prevalent mindset among much of the religious community that can be simply stated: One has no measure of morality without religion."
You take issue with this statement and rightfully so. However, the issue you take with it is that of the punitive measures that follow the breaking of some rule within the moral code (whichever one someone happens upon and takes as his or her own). What I was disappointed to see lacking in your response to this sort ill-concieved thought (for, indeed, it appears as if you are bright enough to work through this issue) was the idea that maybe morality doesn't proceed from religion, but that religion proceeds from morality. I suspect the whole issue (which you do call a chicken and the egg issue) is about poor definitions of religion. It comes from an idea that religion is a thing you believe, not a thing you do. This is, I believe, a relatively knew (mis)understanding of religion (probably spawned during the Enlightenment or maybe even before in the Reformation). In fact, some relics of this idea that religion only exists in practice, not belief, still exists today. How does that old hymn go, "They will know we are Christians by our love, by our love..." It's a much different song if love is replaced by "creeds" ("Yes they will know we are Christians by our creeds, by our creeds..." HA!).
Now, however, I reach a point where I turn against you, so to speak. I would say that up until now you and I were fellows in thought, but there seems to be an inconsistancy that I can't get around. If you agree with me that religion is about action, then your opening sentence (and they do teach us that leads are important in journalism, as well as English literature, don't they?) says "I am a non-believer." This, however, if we still agree with my premise is not only false, but impossible. You see, you don't even have to identify your morality (which you don't do, being fine with all the different titles given to you), because you're already living it. You can't escape it. And if you're living it, you're acting and if you're acting, you're practicing your religion (dare I even say, worshipping?). Thus, the only difference between you and those Christian who hold their Bibles so high is that they name the One they worship and root their adoration in a historical figure. You attempt to poke holes in their faith, while in reality they should be pestering you! Who are you worshipping? (The column makes me think His name is Common Sense). What has Lord Common Sense done for you in your life? Why does Lord Common Sense allow there to exist other religions? Religions that use His principles, but not only don't have the decency to pay Him the honor He deserves for being the foundation (and instead worship YHWH or a dirty carpenter named Jesus or a prophet whose named after a boxer – Muhammad), but also don't use His principles well! It seems to me as if your God has plenty of cause for wrath!
No, Sara, you are a believer, I'm a believer, we're all believers. Some of us just do it better, insofar as we know not what we believe, but who, for even your column ends with the idea that there is something that transcends us (and therefore, you've very intelligently shut off any ideas that morality could some how come from within us) and whatever that transcendental something is, it has to be a being, maybe not like we're beings, but a being nonetheless.
Keep thinking about these issue, but please, don't be so silly as to think you're a non-believer.
Jeff Schooley
BA English Lit 2004
MA English Lit 2006
M.Div at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (currently enrolled)
Former Forum Editor for the Daily Kent Stater
p.s. There is one other way to think about the whole morality means religion idea and that is that we don't necessarily have a religion out of what we do because our actions are often different (and, assumably, flawed) from what we actually believe and that all of us are just trying to act better on our beliefs. But once you've gone there, you understand the Christian pursuit of perfection all to well to critique. Also, you're probably going to be asked what happens to someone who doesn't do what they want to do, but does what they hate to do? You may find that an answer that points to Love and Grace is more reassuring than the other options.