Eternity is a Long Time to Pay for a Mistake (Religion in the Public Sphere)

Brian Tamanaha

The leading candidates from both parties in this presidential election make a point of emphasizing their religious convictions, which naturally raises questions about what role their beliefs will have in their decisions as President. A president who believes that Armageddon is just around the corner may see herself as a heroic instrument of God’s plan, and act accordingly (if you scoff at this, you are not paying attention). This prospect is unsettling to non-believers, as well as to adherents of minority religions.

In that regard, consider comments by Father Robert Araujo on the Mirror of Justice, a blog by law professors on issues of Catholic Legal Theory. In the context of addressing the possible relevance of eschatological beliefs to issues of global warming, Father Araujo writes:

So, I come to Rob’s “bigger question”: how does the theist base his or her political position that will be accessible to the secularist? On what grounds does the disciple rely?

Let me offer a humble and modest suggestion by posing a question for the secularist who has at least an equal share in the direction of public policy as does the theist: have you thought about the future? The secularist may dismiss the direction in which my inquiry is going, i.e., in an eschatological path. All I can do then is to propose that the secularist reflect on something that he or she may have never considered. And how might I do this?

Let me offer the following illustration:

I could say, “You may be right, Secularist, that it is all over when we die. But I ask you to consider the following: we both will die (however that happens), and this event is inevitable. You may look at me and say, ‘see I (the Secularist) was right. You have wasted a lifetime.’ But, my suggestion to you is this: But if I (the theist) am right, I will not have wasted a lifetime, but you will have wasted an eternity.”

I wonder what the Secularist’s response will be to this exchange? It could well be an indifferent shrug of the shoulders. But in the meantime, it is my responsibility to demonstrate to this person, through proposition rather than imposition, why the secularist approach is lacking and mine is not.

I’ll offer an answer to Father Araujo’s question about how a Secularist might respond, and then address what role this way of thinking should play in political decision-making.

The non-believing Secularist (of the “there is no God” stripe) would say that Father Araujo gets his imagined post-death exchange badly wrong if the Secularist is correct: there would be nothingness, so no exchange would ensue. Consequently, the Secularist cannot mock the believer for having “wasted a lifetime.” (although it would not occur to me to ridicule a believer for holding an erroneous belief in God; frankly, I hope to discover after I die that believers are correct, although preferably not the part about non-believers burning in hell forever).

On the other hand, if the theist is right, then she will indeed be vindicated and know that the Secularist will have “wasted an eternity.” The believer is the lucky one because she will never know it if she is wrong (no consciousness of error in nothingness), unlike the non-believer, who will have endless time to regret the mistake (and to wonder about the justness of a God who would exact such a price for it).

But the key is that there is no way to be dead certain in the here and now which of us will turn out to be correct, and being threatened with eternal damnation doesn’t change this one whit (although it does make me wonder if there is some way to hedge my bet).

More important for the broader issue of the relevance of religious views in political decisions, there is a notable asymmetry in the consequences that follow from these two positions. If non-believers make political decisions by the lights of their best moral judgments, the fact that they wrongly do not believe in the Christian story does not prevent Christians from enjoying eternal salvation. No harm done to them, at least with respect to the hereafter.

However, if Christians make political decisions by the lights of Christian doctrine, and it turns out that there is no God or that Christianity is wrong about the nature of things (two distinct possibilities), then Christians will have inflicted their false religious beliefs on others, with immediate consequences.

Now, it is correct that religious views in many ways shade into and cannot be sharply distinguished from moral and political views, so if a Secularist can make decisions based on moral and political views then certainly a believer can as well, without regard to whether those views might have religious influences (arguably all moral and political views, when traced back far enough, have religious influences).

But we must, at least, draw the line against political decisions based upon Christian eschatological doctrines as unacceptable.

[For a very thoughtful exploration of these issues, read Ken Anderson's superb column.]
Posted 2:30 PM by Brian Tamanaha [link]