Johathan Haidt’s new book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.
He says that research has shown that Western and Educated people from
Industrialized, Rich, Democratic countries (or WEIRD people) who
self-identify as “progressive” (socially) use, almost exclusively two
moral “foundations” as criteria for making moral judgments: Harm/care
and Fairness/reciprocity. We progressive WEIRD people do not use the
remaining 3 foundations: Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, or
Purity/sanctity – the 3 that conservatives do use, in addition to, and
in a higher priority manner than Harm and Fairness.
But progressives then have a problem with the God of most
traditional and especially Christian formulations – especially with
retribution, punishments, curses, condemnations, as well as problems
with the unfairness of the treatment of women, slaves, and other
outsiders. This gives us a huge problem with the bible and the
god it describes, which forces us to re-think everything. Thus our
problem speaking much, or coherently about God. Where do we go for information? Obviously from the comments I’ve read, anywhere available to our tastes.
On the one hand I think the "WEIRD" observation has some merit. As we shall see below, "fairness" and "harm" are, I believe, the primary starting points for most progressives, including Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren, and others. Certainly "loyalty, authority and sanctity" are values to conservatives, especially conservative Catholics and Orthodox, but certainly conservative Evangelicals.
It was interesting to read the comments that followed. The very first one from Scott Paeth set the stage for what was to follow: "...What is a moral foundation anyway? And why would one need one?"
It was interesting to read the comments that followed. The very first one from Scott Paeth set the stage for what was to follow: "...What is a moral foundation anyway? And why would one need one?"
Tony followed up with this response "We don’t need a foundation. In fact, I argued in my very first book that foundations are a modern invention — it’s a unicorn."
I wonder if Tony would argue that Psalm 11:3 ("if the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”) is a modern inventon? Are moderns the first people in history to think that ideas can be likened to foundations? Might Plato be surprised by such an assertion? But that is an argument for another day.
Tony suggests moral reason is based on a "reflective equilibrium" that is "both fragile and temporary". We make sense of our world by balancing a number of different considerations and as that balance changes, our equilibrium changes with it and our moral judgments follow. So we shuffle our thinking until we find a way to balance the different inflences again.
He uses the example of individuals changing their view of gay marriage (an issue never far from Tony's priorities these days.) "It’s true: people change their mind on the issue of homosexuality when one of their children comes out. Or their nephew or niece. Or their spouse. Relational moments like this tend to rupture a person’s reflective equilibrium." And Tony begins then to argue that a new theology is needed to replace the old one when that equilibrium is ruptured. Hence, those who decide based on their feelings of "fairness" for a gay loved one that homosexuality must be OK at least some of the time, then seek to find a way to "interpret" scripture to allow for that view. The Biblical text, then is not foundational, for foundations are unicorns. Ultimately, a moral sensibility, a feeling, a subjective sense of fairness is the ruling factor.
He uses the example of individuals changing their view of gay marriage (an issue never far from Tony's priorities these days.) "It’s true: people change their mind on the issue of homosexuality when one of their children comes out. Or their nephew or niece. Or their spouse. Relational moments like this tend to rupture a person’s reflective equilibrium." And Tony begins then to argue that a new theology is needed to replace the old one when that equilibrium is ruptured. Hence, those who decide based on their feelings of "fairness" for a gay loved one that homosexuality must be OK at least some of the time, then seek to find a way to "interpret" scripture to allow for that view. The Biblical text, then is not foundational, for foundations are unicorns. Ultimately, a moral sensibility, a feeling, a subjective sense of fairness is the ruling factor.
But here is a critical point: His argument of necessity saws off the branch he is sitting on.
By his own argument, the "reflective equilibrium" that leads him and others to their acceptance of gay unions is "both fragile and temporary". If that is true then Tony would have no basis except his own personal moral intuition, his "reflective equilibrium", to object if the cultural winds shift in the opposite direction and gays are forced back into the closet or jailed or worse. For Tony to be outraged if the culture changed to a merciless regime that puts gays to death would be to miss the whole point of his own argument. Gay-hatred would be no more immoral than indifference or support for there are no "foundational" truths and whatever moral "equilibrium" leads one to one view is no more objectionable than any other.
He cannot appeal to a sense of "God's justice" or mercy at that point either, nor to the "spirit of Christ" for as he has stated, a change in moral "equilibrium" merely necessitates a new theology. Whatever he intuits God's sense of justice or love might be, his intuition is no more "foundational" that the intuition of a hard core member of the Taliban. And Tony has made it clear that "Islamophobia" cannot be tolerated.
The thing about change is nothing stays the same. The thing about relativism is that no one has any real basis for saying anything is wrong and Tony's often foul-mouthed indignation about the alleged rigidity and judmentalism in conservative Christian circles is nothing more than the opinion of one individual. His opinion thus has no objective weight and for that matter, the opinions of any majority on the issue carry only the weight of majority power - and power is something post-moderns and progressives like Tony are supposed to despise.
If there are in fact no foundations, then there is no place to stand. Tony's feet are planted in mid-air and pushing against the status quo only moves himself in the opposite direction, giving the illusion of having an effect. There are no effects - even motion is relative.
I've argued here before that the drift of our culture is toward endless tribal warfare where the only way to win an argument is through raw power. People are adrift, grasping for solidarity with others who drift in the same direction, hoping the cumulative mass is enough to clear a path through the debris of contrary viewpoints. It is the inevitable logic of Tony's viewpoint that if moral reasoning is fragile and temporary, then no moral viewpoint, including his, can last. And if the winds shift, no matter how he feels he has no basis to say a complete reversal of cultural sentiment is morally inferior to his current view.
I continue to observe that to acquire sufficient mass to control the current cultural drift, folks on the left have become masters of manipulation. The shorthand playbook of many is this:
1. Deny that moral foundations are possible (classic relativism has been around for at least a couple of centuries) by ridiculing traditionalists as closed minded, bigoted or stupid.
2. Disturb and challenge the status quo, create cognitive dissonance because dissonance demands some sort of change.
3. Promote a new idea that relieves the dissonance and seduce those in the throes of intellectual or moral tension to the new viewpoint.
And people without a foundation are easily moved. In other words, subversion is the path to social change, or theological change. Tony Jones has been nothing if not subversive since I've been reading his blog. He demands that Christianity change, that a new set of social norms is necessary and such norms demand a new theology. He provokes, prods, resorts to name calling and ridicule to tear down his opponents and proposes that his new theology resolves a tension that in many ways he has created through his own provocative stances.
But it is all just destructive. In the end, his current state of "equilibrium" must give way to something else, potentially 180 degrees opposed, since there are no foundations. This is tragic, and one day it will be tragic for Tony as well, since his equilibrium by his own admission cannot last.
The only way to prevent the complete subjection of a society to endless battles for power is to reclaim a belief in unchanging foundations - foundations not forged by the shifting winds of culture, but revealed by an infinite, personal, just, loving and forgiving God. "It is written" has to be reclaimed for Western civilization to survive. I am more convinced of this than ever.
That means regaining a belief that objective realities can be known, that written words can be substantially understood, that the Old and New Testaments contain not merely cultural speculations of mystic men, but revealed truths that can be truly, if imperfectly, understood. How?
Just a hint. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." In other words, it is not an intellectual question, it is a spiritual one - it is a question of the will.
Update: Since writing the above post, Tony has posted an article that asks "Is it time for Christians to celebrate pre-marital sex" and another that looks at "Lady Gaga - the Youth Pastor". The first has a photo of a nude male with genitals broken off to lead the article ...unclear where he is going, but he closes with "A new sexual ethic for Christians is desperately needed. I for one am going to work on that." So it is clear Tony finds the "old" Christian sexual ethic to be lacking.
The "Gaga" piece points to the dawn of the idea that Gaga is a "youth pastor" when Tony realizes that she is "shouting that they shouldn’t give a f**k if their parents don’t approve of their sexuality or if the jocks at school pick on them."
Why do I pick on Tony? Because he seems to be the most vivid example of a postmodern man, one whose thought is wrapped up in the denial of objectivity, denial of absolutes, the elevation of local community traditions as the replacement for transcendent truths. And I've watched him continue to slide into more and more radical projects - predictably. Tony might be a nice guy one on one, but the ideas are disastrous.
And people without a foundation are easily moved. In other words, subversion is the path to social change, or theological change. Tony Jones has been nothing if not subversive since I've been reading his blog. He demands that Christianity change, that a new set of social norms is necessary and such norms demand a new theology. He provokes, prods, resorts to name calling and ridicule to tear down his opponents and proposes that his new theology resolves a tension that in many ways he has created through his own provocative stances.
But it is all just destructive. In the end, his current state of "equilibrium" must give way to something else, potentially 180 degrees opposed, since there are no foundations. This is tragic, and one day it will be tragic for Tony as well, since his equilibrium by his own admission cannot last.
The only way to prevent the complete subjection of a society to endless battles for power is to reclaim a belief in unchanging foundations - foundations not forged by the shifting winds of culture, but revealed by an infinite, personal, just, loving and forgiving God. "It is written" has to be reclaimed for Western civilization to survive. I am more convinced of this than ever.
That means regaining a belief that objective realities can be known, that written words can be substantially understood, that the Old and New Testaments contain not merely cultural speculations of mystic men, but revealed truths that can be truly, if imperfectly, understood. How?
Just a hint. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." In other words, it is not an intellectual question, it is a spiritual one - it is a question of the will.
Update: Since writing the above post, Tony has posted an article that asks "Is it time for Christians to celebrate pre-marital sex" and another that looks at "Lady Gaga - the Youth Pastor". The first has a photo of a nude male with genitals broken off to lead the article ...unclear where he is going, but he closes with "A new sexual ethic for Christians is desperately needed. I for one am going to work on that." So it is clear Tony finds the "old" Christian sexual ethic to be lacking.
The "Gaga" piece points to the dawn of the idea that Gaga is a "youth pastor" when Tony realizes that she is "shouting that they shouldn’t give a f**k if their parents don’t approve of their sexuality or if the jocks at school pick on them."
Why do I pick on Tony? Because he seems to be the most vivid example of a postmodern man, one whose thought is wrapped up in the denial of objectivity, denial of absolutes, the elevation of local community traditions as the replacement for transcendent truths. And I've watched him continue to slide into more and more radical projects - predictably. Tony might be a nice guy one on one, but the ideas are disastrous.
No comments:
Post a Comment