Insights: November 2006 Archives

As a believer I could only grit my teeth in frustration as I read Sam Harris' juvenile screed against faith. Caterwauling about religion ostensibly being an area that did not demand good evidence and valid arguments, Harris blinds himself to the large element of Christianity given precisely to doing that. (Ever hear of philosophy? I didn't think so.) It particularly irks me that stem cell supporters don't bother themselves to think and reason about the ethical consequences of their proposals — such as treating human beings as chattle, decimating their dignity in the long run. As for religion doing damage — we have only to look at the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia (shall I go on?) to see what damage atheism does. There is apparently no shortage of people on either side who do not adequately think and reason.

Eric Ewanco

Ok this guy really got my dander up. I had to resist the temptation to YELL in my letter. I think I did pretty well.

He does have a few points. I find it hard to believe that half the American population are young earth Creationists. In fact this has to be false on its face; it may be true that half of all "born-again" Christians are, but in any case, it's an embarrassing fact as far as I'm concerned. (Sure. God would deliberately deceive us by planting fake fossils and creating light en route to earth. Yeah, right.)

He has a pretty compelling argument, too, about apocalyptic fervor. Even if you don't deliberately choose to trash the earth in the conviction that it will be destroyed post-haste (and I doubt many people think this way), being convinced that the world will end in fifty years would tend to distract you from long-term thinking and planning. (Of course I could come back and say that if you didn't do things like introduce stem cell research and gay marriage, we'd be less likely to think the world was coming to an end, but that would be more of a satisfying snappy comeback than a fair or reasoned one.) Fact is, this is a real thorny issue. A place to start might be to say is that no one knows when Jesus returns, so there is always a chance you are wrong about Jesus returning in fifty years, and historically people have had this conviction in every generation, so better have a contingency plan. But this is only a tack, not a solution, since instead of moving people to focus primarily on long-term stewardship and building up of society, to get anything done you are relying on them to pay attention to the idea that they might be wrong, and understandably this will probably not be very effective. Primary for them will be "I think Jesus is coming back soon", and as long as that is on their mind, they won't be making much contribution to the advancement of society.

I balked though when he said that much of what people believe in the name of religion is "incompatible with genuine morality." Last think I'm going to tolerate is some atheist who apparently isn't familar with philosophy or ethics lecture Christians on "genuine morality". I'd receive in respectful silence the argument that an atheist can be moral but for someone who mistakenly argues that Christians don't have a rational explanation for their beliefs, and who hasn't thought out the consequences of stem cell research and apparently has no interest in doing so, to accuse religion of not having genuine morality — sorry, that's just over the top for me.

I'd like to ask him this question: Suppose that a million people could be saved if an unconscious life-without-parole prisoner was executed, via a painless method. Would it be moral or ethical to do so?

What he fails to see, and what hasn't though out, is the consequences of treating human beings as an expendible resource — killing them (and I don't freakin' care whether they have souls or experience pain, thank you very much, Mr. Consequentialist!) for the sake of gain.

Here's another mind-blowing thought experiment — suppose Jesus was forced to redeem the world against his will. This is stepping up my earlier argument myriads upon myriads of levels: it is one thing to save the earthly souls of a million people. Quite another thing to give eternal life to billions upon billions. Still ethical to do against his will?

This is what I wanted to yell in my letter: THINK MAN, THINK!!! Physician, heal thyself! Ok I'd better stop, I'm starting to blow a gasket along that line of thinking.

Well, I should get to bed anyway.

I went to a dinner party of Epis—oops, I mean Anglicans tonight. Not just Anglicans, but "Anglo-Catholics". The kind that hire a professional choir to sing Mozart, Palestrina. The kind that can inspire a brief moment of performance anxiety as I realize I may be judged on which fork I use.

The host is a long time friend of mine and I have been to their church several times. Extremely high-church. There is more Catholicism in the little pinkies of these people than there is in whole Catholic parishes. These are the ones that look down on Catholics as pedestrian and tacky. (Yes, we discussed this subject.)

One of the guests mentioned something about his seven weeks as a Catholic. Now I had actually seen him a couple of times before, versus the other guests who were totally foreign to me. But I had not heard about this story. I did not hear it tonight. But it got me thinking. He was an erudite, educated (and rich) person. What would cause someone to convert to Catholicism and revert to Anglicanism after seven weeks? Far be it from me to judge or draw unwarranted conclusions, but I wondered if he had done his homework. He spoke of it as if it were "Escape from Alcatraz". My first guess is that he didn't like the music, because music is very important to these people, and Catholic parishes in the U.S. can only look like a barren desert compared to what these folks like and are used to. In fact I think they'd prefer a barren desert to what passes for music in most Catholic parishes. But if he reverted because of this, he must have known ahead of time what things were like. Surely he had attended Catholic parishes for at least months if not years, and had come to peace with what he saw.

And surely he knew the doctrinal positions. If he's anything like his fellow parishioners, beliefwise he's a small distance from Catholicism. I can't think of a doctrinal issue that might arise unexpected in the course of seven weeks, so I'd rule that out. On the other hand, if he truly knew and believed in Catholicism, it would be hard for him to justify going back.

His story reminded me of another short-term convert. Bishop Clarence Pope is an interesting case with an ironic name. Pope was Episcopal bishop of Fort Worth. Shortly before his conversion to Catholicism, he took the highly unusual step of granting an Anglo-Catholic parish, St. Mary the Virgin, their property as they sought to be received lock, stock, and barrel into the Catholic Church under the Anglican Use provision. (As far as I know, they are the only Anglican Use parish to come over in such a way.) Shortly thereafter Bishop Pope converted to Catholicism. But, Rome insisted that he be re-ordained. This stung Pope. And according to the link above (a story I had not previously heard), he was rejected by the diocesan priests and isolated from the Catholic Church. He was wooed by the Episcopalians, though, and ultimately returned.

While it would seem unlikely that a layman could have a comparable experience within the span of seven weeks, it is certainly possible that there was some sort of emotional reason for his reversion. Doing well on your homework doesn't necessarily mean you'll pass the final. It's one thing to view Catholicism from the perspect of an inquirer, quite another to be Catholic. Perhaps this explains the "Escape from Alcatraz" attitude: what seemed OK as an inquirer became intolerable once he was "locked" into it.

Maybe one day I'll know his story.