The following is a comment on Matthew's brave and bittersweet; this is part of an ongoing conversation outlined here regarding secular hope. Here, I want to respond to a couple of points that Matthew raised in brave and bittersweet.
Previously, I posed the question:
Which is the better source of hope: this world, small, and often backwards as it is, but certain, or transcendent meaning and eternal life, known by invisible evidence? What can comfort?
This question is clearly answered differently by different people. I suppose that a lot of people believe that meaning and security and comfort can only be had if there is a God, a promise of heaven, and the assurance that God is acting on the world now. Not everyone wants these beliefs or finds them helpful, though.
Matthew wrote:
A secular hope is a great thing for educated people who have the resources to avoid most of the pain and insecurity that come with disease, hunger, war, and oppression.
Secularism tends to skew more towards people who are well off. That doesn't mean it's inaccessible to people who are suffering. I have been reading lately about the Pirahã people in Brazil, hunter-gatherers who have no concept of God or spirits; life is not easy for them. More broadly, when it comes to existential beliefs, polytheisms tend to have more in common with atheism than they do with monotheisms; people can have supernatural beliefs but be functionally very similar to atheists in their outlook. Ancient Mesopotamian religions were fatalistic; the people believed that gods existed, but were cruel or indifferent or capricious. My understanding is that the structure of their outlook is common among agrarian civilizations. It is not apparent to me that it is the nature of human beings to either expect a paternal God, or to be despondent and hopeless without this belief. It's important to not provide pat answers, certainly, and the beliefs of privileged people regarding suffering are often unhelpful to the poor and oppressed, sick and alienated; this goes for both religious and secular beliefs about suffering.
Matthew mentions that secular concepts of hope are limited in two ways in particular: in secular concepts of meaning, everything is temporary, and everything is relative. These are both good points, and I recommend bearing both in mind. Yet, we don't call bread bad because it gets moldy, or because we get hungry again after eating it, or because there's better bread out there somewhere. Bread is precisely as big as bread is, and I'm glad I have enough bread for today.
Matthew compares secular hope to a lottery ticket and religious hope to the assurance that comes from adoption by a rich man. Belief in justice or wholeness or relief coming from a spiritual domain seems, to me, to be like buying a lottery ticket: there is an offer of infinite payoff, but the factual support for this hope is tenuous. Devout religious people don't live thoroughly consistently with their beliefs because it is difficult for humans to have the spiritual imagination to accept that God's will is perfect and in their interest; spiritual imagination is needed because their confidence is from faith in unseen things. When I say that hope from the material world is certain, I mean that we know for sure that this world exists and that there are things in it that give us some comfort and happiness and security. These things are small and limited and they wear out, but they are what we have for today. This materialist sense of hope can't stop death, it can't eliminate suffering, but it can sustain life for a little while. It's like farming, with modest yields coming from hard work. Sometimes there is plenty of rain, and sometimes there's drought. I can't offer a solution that will eliminate suffering or even death, or something that can transcend them, but adversity can be encountered with courage and dignity.
As I read both Andy Crouch's article and Matthew's post, I found myself unconvinced that my sense of hope is lacking, not because their logic was explicitly wrong, but because I myself feel fulfilled and secure, and I feel like I respond to the small challenges I face in a way that I am content with. I don't feel a need that they say that I should feel. I know that I'm not alone in not feeling a need for a belief in God in order to have a satisfying life in this world.
In all fairness, making bread not grow moldy has been a chief concern of consumers and bakers for some time. It's why we invented breadboxes, and preservatives after that.
ReplyDeleteAlex,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding again. Sorry this is a week late-- and hopefully my response is short enough for a comment! I feel like you are trying to assert that atheism and polytheism are similar enough in outlook to be comparable for the sake of this discussion on hope; I would say that that's pretty counterproductive considering how repressive and hopeless most polytheistic religions are. After all, most polytheists are trying very hard to game the spiritual system in such a way as to advantage themselves and disadvantage others. If anything, there are few people who actually worship Moloch; there are lots of people who worship something else and sacrifice their children to Moloch to get what they worship. I don't think that polytheism can give the poor much genuine hope, and I haven't really seen you putting forth how
secularism per se can give people who don't have resources much hope, either.
Not only is the hope of the Gospel far more powerful in situations where secular hope runs dry, but I also think it's clear that secular hope still pales in comparison to spiritual hope when we face the fact that, as you say, a worldview without God is helpless against suffering & death. You point out that "adversity can be encountered with courage & dignity." I would infer that this means that we can tell ourselves that we will be okay and that we are valuable. If we can just as easily tell ourselves that we're not okay and we're not valuable, is that really courage & dignity or are we just "ly[ing] to ourselves to make ourselves happy"? (from Memento.) Fight Club is, I think, a great example of how foolish a self-made salvation is-- without God, we are constantly liberating ourselves from one prison only to find ourselves trapped in another.
As far as your second point goes, I would again point out that anything this world gives us could be lost at any point. You may certainly not feel any particular need for God's grace, but I would suggest that that is because you have defined your needs in such a way that you can meet them. Your analogy about bread is certainly apt, but I would again assert that for the big questions of life & meaning, something small and temporary just won't cut it. Why spend money on bread that won't satisfy? For the billions of people who have needs that they can't meet themselves or feel overwhelmed by needs that they feel they ought to meet, what hope does secularism have for them? For example, I think of murderers who feel guilty, elderly folks who have wasted their lives and are about to die, poor Africans oppressed by civil war, or people who have been denied success in things that were really important to them. I think that these are all examples of people who have no hope from an earthly perspective, but because Jesus has truly died for them and truly risen again, He has made their lives valuable and can offer them eternal hope.
Hey, not to gang up here, but I want to say that I think this is the weakest of your recent posts. I think it's weak because it admits, at least implicitly, the real issue - that hope rests on certainty.
ReplyDeleteThe primal question-about-certainty will always be "does God exist?", mainly because a) it IS a question, and b) the answer affects not only all other answers, but all other questions. While the Christian grounds for hope does, in fact, make a (logically, if not practically) self-consistent claim about it, your particular claim for hope rests on the "certainty" of the small world we live in - in fact, this is the opposite side of the lottery you have mentioned. Ironically, the secular hope itself is necessarily uncertain even within the parameters it provides for itself, because it does not and cannot even *claim* the certainty of God's non-existence, and consequently cannot be certain that the world really is as small, backward, and certain as it may seem.
In a nutshell, secularism cannot claim to be certain about itself. Without certainty (on any of these levels!), you cannot even have the kind of hope you say you do.
The advice you're giving is really only for those who, like you, are willing/able to feel content with what they have and comfortable with uncertainty. It's all well and good for someone to preach that gospel, and you may reasonably argue that such a strategy 'works,' on average, to make people more happy than they would be otherwise, but it's impossible to make an honest claim (provable or not) that it *will* work for anyone. As a consequence, there's no reason for anyone to accept it unless she believes that it's the best of her options.
As Matthew has suggested, people who consider themselves to be in worse situations than you are in might feel that their best option is to hope that a God does, in fact, exist, and that all things will eventually 'be made right.' Additionally, people who are have, as it were, a better imagination of how much better things *could* be were there a benevolent God may also feel that their best bet, to reflect on your lottery analogy, is to trust in that God.
Not surprisingly, it is the search for a self-consistent certainty (even if self-generated and delusional) that drives so many people to trust in a God they cannot see or hear or touch. If anything can be self-consistently certain, it would seem that it requires belief in something that cannot be proven. Unprovable belief, like it or not, is the sine qua non of hope.
The promise of full justice, eternal life, and the assurance that God is acting now, of course none of these things are even suggested by secularism. If that's all that hope can be, then secularists can have no hope, and I accept this. I would like it if the discussion were framed, not in terms of what hope Christianity can offer versus what secularism can offer, of course Christianity asserts that it can offer bigger things; rather, I would like to talk about whether people can have any hope without God.
ReplyDeleteHope, in the looser sense of hoping that things will get better in the future, has a few bases for secular people, namely in social and technological progress. Neither of these is completely reliable, but I don't think I'm irrational in expecting the world to continue becoming a more pleasant place. However, this isn't most of what I mean when I talk about hope for secular people.
Crouch quoted his friend, saying, "A friend of mine says that human beings can live for forty days without food, four days without water, and four minutes without air. But we cannot live for four seconds without hope." I don't think he was talking mostly about hope as an anticipation that things will get better, but as an existential grounding. Perhaps a better word for this is courage or confidence, and that's what I am mostly talking about when I talk about secular hope. When I'm talking about hope, I mean that which enables someone to go to work, feeling like they can do something meaningful in the world, that they can experience things that are worthwhile; I'm also talking about the courage to accept suffering with dignity.
When I talk about certainty, I don't mean that humans are assured that the world will improve or that their trials will be removed. However, we are certain that the world exists and that some solutions are borne out in it. Humans can have some limited hope that the suffering they face can be overcome, but they can also have hope, in the sense of having the courage to live while under adversity. Granted, anything offered in this world is finite and passing, but humans can enjoy things while they last and don't need to be miserable when they lose things, even their own lives.
Peter said:
> The advice you're giving is really only for those who, like you, are willing/able to feel content with what they have and comfortable with uncertainty.
Exactly.
Except, I think it is possible for everyone to be content and comfortable with uncertainty, to some extent; I don't think that I'm particularly enlightened. Equanimity is one of the virtues Buddhism most aims to nurture. Also, I mentioned polytheists because, while Matthew might not like the way that they go about constructing meaning, I know that there were Greek and Mesopotamian and Indian polytheists who did live with the hope I refer to. (I mention these cases simply because I am more familiar with them, surely there are others.)
I mention these specific cases because living a happy, content, meaningful life, and having hope in trial, courage against adversity, all without belief in a benevolent, transcendent God, these things weren't invented by white people in the 1700's. Certainly, it's easier for me to feel existentially secure than a lot of people, now, and through history; I respect them for exhibiting what hope they have.
Note: In the interest of focusing the discussion, I have not responded point-by-point. I am thinking about the following points that Matthew has raised; I think that I address them at least obliquely here, but will probably write more comprehensively on them later.
ReplyDelete*For the billions of people who have needs that they can't meet themselves or feel overwhelmed by needs that they feel they ought to meet, what hope does secularism have for them?
*If we can just as easily tell ourselves that we're not okay and we're not valuable, is that really courage & dignity or are we just "ly[ing] to ourselves to make ourselves happy"? (fromMemento.)
*You may certainly not feel any particular need for God's grace, but I would suggest that that is because you have defined your needs in such a way that you can meet them.
Also, Tim, when I saw your comment, I smiled. Very pithy.
ReplyDeleteAlex,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding so graciously. I'm sorry that it takes days to respond-- I really like this whole playing doctor thing, but it's no fun when you don't have time to discuss deep stuff with your friends online! I think you're right to distinguish "hope" from "existential grounding," although I would argue that, for most people, hope is a pretty important part of our existential grounding. For example, you & I have spent a lot of time doing things that we didn't exactly want to do because we hoped that in doing so, we would get to be doctors. You talk about "that which enables someone to go to work, feeling like they can do something meaningful in the world, that they can experience things that are worthwhile; I'm also talking about the courage to accept suffering with dignity." Forgive my bluntness, but I feel like those first 3 things would really fall more into the category of "self-esteem"-- they're entirely self-directed & self-motivated subjective feelings. It's nice if you can have those things, sure, but there are plenty of people who don't have such feelings, even after you've treated them for depression and whatnot. I meet them all the time.
And "the courage to accept suffering with dignity"-- well, that's courage. It might have something to do with hope-- for a lot of Christians, they act courageously because they have hope in the world to come and Jesus' work on our behalf. The more precipitous the suffering, the more that we must drawn on these intangible rewards to act courageously. Conversely, the more precipitous the suffering, the more that secular courage is the antithesis of hope. After all, hope draws its power from the expectation that things will be better despite our current circumstances. Thus, especially if you're talking about facing loss with dignity-- especially, as you mention, losing one's life-- then it would not be hope at all that we're talking about, unless the person's hope happens to be based on the belief that they are a replaceable cog in the big machine of human civilization (which seems to be the view that Steve Jobs espouses.) There's no hope without faith, whether your faith is in little temporal things like processors getting faster or in big things like God's promises.
I look forward to the other responses you mentioned at the end!
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteI don't want to get too much into a semantic tangle here. What matters in this discussion? I contend that human beings don't have an innate psychological need for a belief in or relationship with God.
If what I'm calling hope is better termed self esteem or courage, that's fine. You say, "It's nice if you can have those things, sure, but there are plenty of people who don't have such feelings, even after you've treated them for depression and whatnot." I think that it is possible for everyone to have some existential grounding, regardless of their situation. As you rightly note, getting psych treatment doesn't give everyone self esteem.
I want to talk specifically about accepting death with hope. Steve Jobs is a Buddhist; I don't know about which flavor he espouses. An idea that I heard from Buddhists that I like is the idea of rebirth. At first, I thought that Buddhists believed in reincarnation in the way that Hindus do, and some do, I'm sure. Rebirth is a more general and broad idea and it doesn't need any metaphysical claims. Part of who Steve Jobs is in his body, which will die. Steve Jobs makes and does things that influence and affect other people, and these things will live on after him, and interact with other things that other people do. I don't think that Steve Jobs thinks he's a cog that can get popped out, but that when he dies, some aspects of his personality will remain and he seems to be content with this.
This isn't just for Buddhists who make iPhones, though. Parents are often willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their children; this is practically instinctual and fits with this idea of rebirth. Hope is possible for people who are dying, who have no expectation of an afterlife, if they care about the people that survive them.
I do want to be careful about not being pat, in talking about any of this: I think that hope is possible for everyone, and I don't think that belief in God is necessary for this, but, for most people, having hope is difficult. Just because hope is possible, even for people who are dying and expecting nothing after they die, doesn't mean that death is painless.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteIt's fair that we not get too wrapped up in semantics, but I do feel a little like you keep moving the goalpost. We started out talking about hope and you moved more into redefining hope, and I think it's fair to say that we've settled on the idea that there isn't much hope per se to be found in a secular worldview, although there are other things of a similar nature or usage that can be found. The yes-or-no question of whether or not people have an innate need for belief in God is a fairly straightforward one-- of course some people don't feel such an innate need, but I would point out that some people with operable tumors don't feel a innate need for surgery, and they can feel that way for a very long time with enough Vicodin. Furthermore, even people who don't feel a need an innate need for God usually spend some portion of their lives experiencing such a need, as you did.
I feel like you're continuing to muddy the waters with this idea of rebirth-- I was under the impression that being reborn somehow involves going from being dead to somehow being alive again! Also, the idea of rebirth has a lot to do with ideas like you find in John 12, when Jesus says that a seed has to fall to the ground and "die" in order for new life to grow-- Steve Jobs doesn't have to die now for parts of his personality to live on, but Jesus had to die that we might live. Having other people remember you is, of course, a great thing. Again, it doesn't happen for a whole lot of people (especially the people who started off disadvantaged in some way), and even a life spent working hard for others could always turn out badly if your work ends up being used for ill. It's even worse, for example, if you care about the people who survive you and your death will leave them without someone to provide for them. Alternatively, you could get everything you ever wanted and still be miserable (e.g. Kurt Cobain) or you could get everything you ever wanted and turn out to be on the wrong team all along (e.g. King Leopold II.)
I don't feel like you're being pat, but I do feel like you keep asserting that anyone can have hope/existential grounding/courage/self-esteem/meaning without God and then keep using people in the best of circumstances to bolster this claim. There are lots of people-- in good circumstances and bad-- who don't have hope/meaning/whatever despite their own apparent subjective power (and desire) to do so. True Christian hope, on the other hand, gives everyone the same infinitely valuable hope regardless of their circumstances. In an atheistic worldview with a subjective, personally driven understanding of meaning & hope, anyone can have meaning or hope, as you say-- but that's a tautology, not an argument for your worldview. I feel like you keep saying anyone can have a secular hope, but then you don't explain how beyond "we get to make up whatever meaning is meaningful to us." Hopefully this will be a future blog post! : )
Hi, Matthew,
ReplyDeletePlease pardon this delayed reply.
I don't think I'm moving the goalpost. The word, "hope" has a wide meaning, from being like "want" as in "I hope it stops raining" to the sort of hope that you are talking about. I think that my use of the word hope to talk about what secular people can have is appropriate.
On rebirth: the idea I mention works for me and I find it helpful; it's apparently helpful to a lot of Buddhists. I agree with you that it's not the same as a literal rebirth.
There are two things that I want to make clear that I disagree with you on:
1 I don't agree with you, "that there isn't much hope per se to be found in a secular worldview"—there isn't absolute hope, the sort offered by an absolute God, but this doesn't mean there is no hope at all.
2 "I don't feel like you're being pat, but I do feel like you keep asserting that anyone can have hope/existential grounding/courage/self-esteem/meaning without God and then keep using people in the best of circumstances to bolster this claim." I talk about myself and Steve Jobs, sure, but I have also made references to hunter-gatherers and subsistence farmers.
I think that the particular line of dialogue we've taken here, talking about hope, is becoming repetitive. You said, "In an atheistic worldview with a subjective, personally driven understanding of meaning & hope, anyone can have meaning or hope, as you say-- but that's a tautology, not an argument for your worldview." I think this sort of thing is better to talk about in the future, and I think you're right in calling for new blog posts on this.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteNo problem-- my replies have usually taken a while, too. I agree that we're getting pretty repetitive, but I did want to clarify one last time on the two things you mentioned.
1. Sure, hope can be talking about rain, or it can be talking about existential meaning, but I think our conversation has been firmly in the latter camp and there's not much to talk about if secular hope is closer to the former. When it comes to aspects of existential meaning, I was trying to make the point that words like self-esteem, motivation, or courage are way more appropriate.
2. You did mention the Piraha in your original post, which I never really addressed, and you're right. Their Wikipedia article mentioned a belief in spirits as well as an all-consuming belief that their culture is superior & complete that helps to prop up their self-sufficient existential grounding. In general we try not to celebrate cultures that think they're the hottest thing around, or at least not let them get too close to any nuclear technology. You also mentioned subsistence farmers and their fatalistic polytheism, and I think I tried to make the point that people who pay witches to curse their jealous rivals are not really the folks you want on your team. This might be a whole 'nother blog post, but I feel like you said they had a similar hope and I'm still pretty unfamiliar with how that played out in any particular group of polytheists in any way that one would find appealing or worthwhile. Or, at the very least, I feel like you haven't been specific enough about how the average fatalistic polytheist acts hopefully.