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

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]

Comments:

"I wonder what the Secularist’s response will be to this exchange?"

That Pascal's Wager has always been a silly, presumptuous argument?

# posted by

Unknown : 3:29 PM

Even if there is a god of some kind, who says it won't treat believers and non-believers equally?

Better yet, what if it's not the Christian version of God and it punishes them for their stupidity in worshipping the wrong God?

Since all of this is unknowable, it makes no sense to worry about it.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 3:56 PM

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:20 PM

Rather, these moral teachings stand on their own and their advantages can be proven scientifically.

This is nothing but gibberish. By definition you can't prove anything about "God" scientifically.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 4:25 PM

I have always wondered, what evidence do we have that there is a heaven or a hell? Who came back from heaven and escaped from hell to report on both hereafter "areas"?
Philip Snyder

# posted by

philip snyder : 4:28 PM

Baghdad, I think would be great if you proved any one of God's moral teachings for us. I'll even help you. The first step is to scientifically prove the moral teaching came from God.

You can take it from there...

# posted by

Bartbuster : 4:29 PM

My goodness! Are people still using Pascal's Wager and expecting themselves to be taken seriously? I thought that even Pascal recognized that it was an illegitimate argument, and was only put forth as a rhetorical bit of sophistry.

I propose a new debating rule, a la Godwin's law (i.e., Pascal's Wager = disqualification from serious debate).

# posted by

S.G.E.W. : 4:46 PM

Must these attacks on religious believers in politics always be cast in the terms of a purported neutrality? A discourse from which discussion of God has been scrubbed is not a discourse that is neutral between the believer and the atheist. Much is taken to follow from the existence of God, but nothing much follows from atheism. How can we ask the believer in a certain form of eschatology to say "the world is going to end soon, and therefore it would be best to do X, but because other people don't share this belief I ought to STFU and instead advocate for a completely different and inconsistent policy"? It's completely incoherent.

Incidentally, atheism doesn't entail that there's no afterlife, only that there are no gods. So Father Araujo’s hypothetical discourse is actually possible. (This is a pet peeve; I'm a nonreligious atheist, but am merely agnostic as to afterlives.)

# posted by

Unknown : 4:47 PM

The proper response to Pascal's Wager has always been:

"And when we both die, Thor will smite us out of Asgard for being un-believers."

# posted by

Unknown : 6:22 PM

Father Araujo [from the post]:

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.”

Pascal's Wager rewarmed.

Addressed here amongst other places.

This twist is an interesting take, though. Can somene else force you to "make a bad bet" through the power of gummint? I think Prof. Tamanaha's scepticism (so to speak) of this is pretty compelling:

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.

Indeed. Keep your religion off my freedom. Thanks in advance.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 6:31 PM

In political matters, the believer need not cite solely to God's authority to argue that God's moral teachings on how to live on Earth are the correct path to follow and thus start a fight. Rather, these moral teachings stand on their own and their advantages can be proven scientifically.

And the scientific "proof: for the first four "Commandments" is?: ________

I refer to them as the Thee and Half Commandments, the Two and a Half Good Ideas, and the Four Manifestations of a Vengeful and Jealous Deity. The eedjits and prevaricators that insist the U.S. was founded on the Ten Commandments (e.g. David Barton et al.) are wrong. Matter of fact, the Constitution doesnt' even address the crimes mentioned in the Three and a Half Commandments; that's mostly statutory law at the state level. Matter of fact, except for the effect on interstate commerce, a state could legalise murder should it so desire and the U.S. gummint would have no say in the matter.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 6:37 PM

Michael Perry has been working on this sort of question: here is his latest.

# posted by

Michael : 9:00 PM

i stopped worrying about "heaven" and "hell" when i realized how many of them there were purported to be. i mean, which one(s) are we talking about? hebrew? animist? sumerian? xtian? and anyway, hell always sounded like more fun; praising a god for all eternity would be really dull for me. i was around 10 when i came to these conclusions; i hope everyone exposes their kids to the vagueries of world religions early and in depth.

arguably all moral and political views, when traced back far enough, have religious influences

not really. "atheist" or not-believing philosophers are as old as 'the West.' or East, for that matter, or anywhere. there have always been political, social and educational movements which 'doubt the gods' and posit another social order/system of human life not based on divine instruction. they haven't always been the authors of "history," that's the main problem. so we forget about them.

A discourse from which discussion of magical pink elephants has been scrubbed is not a discourse that is neutral between the believer and the atheist.

fixed your typo.

Much is taken to follow from the existence of God, but nothing much follows from atheism.

wrong. a great deal "follows" from atheism, i invite you to try it and find out for yourself. for starters, atheists have no problem perceiving how cynical, atheist, ideologues will use religious belief to manipulate the masses and distract them from issues that actually have an impact on their lives.

to begin with.

# posted by

chicago dyke : 10:54 PM

I caught a snippet of NPR last night, where the interviewee was the mayor of a town that's tried to be relatively inclusive in its public Xmas decorations - they added a Wiccan star, for example.

The fellow sounded nice enough but exasperated with some of the requests he's received.

MAYOR: And then there was the Flying Spaghetti Monster which is a ... what is it?

MAYOR'S PAL IN BACKGROUND: An internet parody of religion.

MAYOR: An internet parody of religon.

It was a bit of a hoot to hear the FSM even mentioned.

So, remember -- you can bet that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster ... but is it really worth the risk?

# posted by

Anderson : 11:09 PM

Baghdad, how is that scientific proof of God's morality coming along?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 9:23 AM

If there is a God, sign me up for the opposition.

He's totally irresponsible, and needs to be brought down.

But then, there is no evidence of any such thing. We may have souls, but they don't exist after death, except in the things we did and the ideas we do in life. The only good in the universe is the good we do ourselves.

And if I meet any greybeard Patriarch after I die, who seems Hell bent on excluding me from His Dominion, there is a particular episode of the Twilight Zone that might serve as a useful guide.

# posted by

kelley b. : 10:29 AM

I think the more interesting question based on Father Araujo's is the following: how will the policies you enact now affect your children and theirs, and so on? Our actions will have an impact on our children.

Worrying about my future in an afterlife of some sort is selfish to a degree that is almost repulsive.

# posted by

Unknown : 12:41 PM

Bartbuster writes:
Bart:
Rather, these moral teachings stand on their own and their advantages can be proven scientifically.

This is nothing but gibberish. By definition you can't prove anything about "God" scientifically.

In all fairness, bart didn't really make an assertion about proving anything about god scientifically, just that the advantages of "god's morals" can be verified scientifically. It would have been interesting if he had cited some research. Of course that having morals has advantages says nothing about belief in god or an afterlife.

Perhaps off topic and perhaps not, but the notion the one must believe in god and/or an afterlife in order to have moral fiber entirely ignores buddhism, which doesn't really have a formal teaching about either, and still provides moral direction.

# posted by

John : 2:25 PM

In all fairness, bart didn't really make an assertion about proving anything about god scientifically, just that the advantages of "god's morals" can be verified scientifically.

He made the claim that the morals came from God. If he wants the "scientific proof" to give God credit for the benefits of these supposed morals, he damned well better have some science that shows God is responsible.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 2:41 PM

In order to be happy oneself it is necessary to make at least one other person happy.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya

# posted by

Unknown : 12:35 PM