Faith and Goodness

by Craig Detweiler (originally posted on the Purple State of Mind website)

The Glazer Institute for Jewish Studies at Pepperdine University recently hosted their first conference on Finding Common Ground.  It brought together spokesmen (emphasis on the men) from the three historic Abrahamic faiths to build bridges across the current cultural divide.   Amongst the highlights:  Dr. William Abraham (note that name), an Irish Methodist, talked about the positive aspects of America’s civil religion.   Having grown up amidst the Irish civil war, Abraham suggested that the messy but functional social contract around our civil religion is a model for all nations trying to avoid the extremes of a secular society (France) and a state sanctioned religion (England).

The keynote speaker was Rabbi David Wolpe, author of Why Faith Matters.   He has engaged in high profile debates with Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and assorted other telegenic athiests.  Wolpe termed their public discussions entertaining rather than enlightening.    In his book, Wolpe draws upon a harrowing battle with cancer to demonstrate that faith and science can co-exist in our society and our selves.   His demeanor is remarkably peaceful, positive, and pastoral.

I wondered whether Wolpe has ever met or debated Greg Epstein, author of Good Without God and the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard.   (Interesting lifting and re-appropriation of a Christian term for secular purposes).   My skeptical partner at Purple State of Mind recently interviewed Epstein.  I’m reposting a section of the interview that drags me into their discussion.

Q:If a non-believer came to you and said with obvious pain, “Father, I think I may believe in god,” what would you tell them? Does that happen on occasion?

A:I’m not sure anyone would use the word “Father” when talking to me— I think that would indicate they were a little bit confused about what role I ought to be playing in their life!…There are a lot of people I talk to who are looking for someone or something to tell them that the awful experiences they’re having right now are part of the Grand Plan of the Universe. Again, it’s their right to think so if they so choose, and I wouldn’t judge them as lesser people for it. But I do think it can be liberating to recognize that some of the awful things that happen in this world— babies getting sick and dying, genocides, natural disasters, terrible accidents— cannot possibly be justified by any conceivable divine plan. There could be a God who caused such things to happen, but not a God with a reasonable moral agenda for his creations and/or the power to put it into action. Sometimes it can be freeing to just allow ourselves to feel the pain, the disappointment, the frustration of being human. To not have to pretend that it’s all justified by some future reward after we die. We can simply experience life together, care about each other, give a hug or a kiss and feel the presence of other people if not the presence of a God. That, I think, is what we really need— not to be left alone by others when life is at its most difficult. That’s what I’m working to help build— a Humanism that is about putting our most compassionate instincts into action, because we do not see any evidence for a divine being that can do this for us.

Q:I’m in your camp, but my partner on this website is a devout Christian who used the goodness argument against me repeatedly in our documentary A Purple State of Mind. I responded with arguments that will be familiar to any skeptic or agnostic or atheist and are echoed in your book. In your own life, do you have religious friends with whom you talk on a regular basis? Do those exchanges ever get heated, and if so, how do you deal with anger motivated by religious division?

A:I’m sure your site partner is a good person, but I’d remind him that is not good behavior on his part. I would remind him that in a world with millions and millions of nonreligious people, suggesting that an entire group of people can’t possibly be “good” is not an “argument” at all— it is a prejudice. And repeating such prejudice again and again, as some religious people do, can lead to discrimination. It can lead to a society in which millions of people are intimidated into silence about their deepest beliefs. And it can lead to a political arena in which we are unwilling to move forward in considering important policy matters such as stem cell research, because of prejudicial fears that only a certain narrow religious view can be considered “good.”

I have many religious friends and I enjoy talking with them all the time. And I’ve been having friendly public and private conversations since the book project began, with leaders from the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim communities. The majority of such leaders acknowledge one can be good without God, just as I’m happy to acknowledge they can be good with God. I don’t persist in trying to talk, however, to the folks who would not acknowledge good without God, just as I wouldn’t want to go around the country, or around my own city, talking to racists or sexists or homophobes. It’s just not something I consider to be a worthwhile use of my time. But again, if you have a good friend who insists he’s just making an “argument,” I would politely but firmly ask that he reframe his questions as “what motivates you to want to do good, if not God?” Or, “what do you see as morally or ethically right, given that you aren’t claiming a supernatural authority to tell you so?” Or, “where do you find the community support you need to be good, if not in Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Temple?” These are perfectly fair, constructive questions— in fact they are the basic questions asked and answered by Humanism. I answer them in much more detail in the book.

Q:In brief, can you give us your most basic argument for the goodness of non-believers?

A:I’m not saying every nonreligious person is a good person. Would anyone seriously argue that every person who calls him or herself religious is “good?” No, the point is rather that we are all just about equally capable of good or bad, selfishness or compassion, and we have to work, with or without a god-belief, to bring out the positive in ourselves and others. If you’re asking what motivates us to be good if not God, well, I could say, it’s actually sort of sad to me to think one would need a supernatural motivation to not harm others, to treat them with respect and care. But I would also want to add that the struggle to live a life of dignity is a profound motivation. What do we really have in this life, that we can be sure we can keep with us always? Certainly not our possessions. I think we Humanists are striving for the ability to look ourselves in the mirror every day and be able to accept what we see. We can never be happy all the time, but we always have the option available to us to live both for ourselves and for others, to refuse to be a doormat that people can walk all over while also refusing to be an emotional miser. That’s dignity. That’s what we’re after. That’s why we’re willing to work so hard, every day, to care about the world around us.

So how do I respond?  The question of suffering continues to haunt us all.  But some less so than others.   Is that the mystery of faith?  It is intriguing to me that like the Wolpes, my family has also battled Hodgkins lymphoma.  While for many, such struggles could undermine faith, in both our cases, it actually reinforced the power of prayer, perseverance, and community.

I’m not sure which ‘goodness’ arguments John Marks particularly dismisses (particularly because I’m not much of an arguer!)   After he summoned an array of historical Christian misbehavior, while I agreed on the particulars, I definitely felt compelled to point out how many positive differences people of faith have made in the world.  I stopped short of listing all the hospitals and universities founded by heartfelt believers.   I didn’t go into detail about the various Christian charities and NGOs that feed the hungry and shelter the homeless around the globe.   And I definitely agree with Greg Epstein that no one has a corner on that market.   Good acts of charity and sacrifice are desperately needed regardless of the motivation behind it.  Surely those suffering need any and all comforts we all can provide.

I definitely stand with Epstein in arguing for more compassion in this world.   Epstein and Marks justifiably argue that skeptics and atheists should not be discriminated against because of their unbelief.   Surely, Purple State of Mind is a tangible example of building bridges across the faith gap rather than shooting arrows.   I suppose my counter-argument is that I wish there were more Humanist soup kitchens and homeless shelters.  Maybe they are far too disparate and disorganized to create such visible entities.   But I am loathe to think about what would happen if Christians withdrew their commitment to making a difference.   The collapse and withdrawal of so many governmental social safety nets has taxed us all, especially social service providing charities.