Search by Subject
Video
Cast
BlogFaith, the free market and financial crisis
Listen to an extended interview with Professor Harper.
Click here for the full interview in our podcast here for all the videos in our video library.
Subscribe to our iTunes Vodcast/Podcast - If you have a podcast reader other than iTunes click here
| 04-Apr-2009 03:34 PM Anonymous |  |
| So people are experiencing fear, hopelessness and a loss of control as a result of the global financial crisis! Hey, wouldn’t this be a great time to tell them about the Christian message? Catch them off guard. Get them at their most vulnerable. . . Echoes of Karl Marx here methinks: “Religion is the opium of the people.” If you really want to help people in their current situation, then you don’t just offer them ‘the hope of a better life in the world to come’. They might well lap it up, and play ‘happy’ for a while. But only at the cost of repressing perfectly legitimate feelings of fear, anger and vulnerability. No, what you do is to honour and respect their human dignity and their right to REAL happiness and REAL freedom. You join with them to confront and change the political and economic systems that are causing so much oppression and fear. You strive for real, tangible justice in THIS life. You offer them human friendship, solidarity and compassion. You work to create a society in which non-materialistic values and goods have a greater role and status. More ‘faith’ is the last thing they need. Cheers, Anon. | |
| 04-Apr-2009 05:14 PM Anonymous |  |
| No feedback was left by this visitor. | |
| 06-Apr-2009 03:42 PM Simon Smart |  |
| Anon, I have picked up that you understand Christian hope to apply only to 'the world to come'. I think that is a mistake and a misunderstanding of Christian theology (that admittedly many Christians have also made). Christians believe that they experience and work towards the Kingdom of God now (albeit in an incomplete form), and that it is a life that offers fulfillment, meaning and a richness that would otherwise be lacking. And that very much involves the things you suggest - working for justice, non-materialistic values, friendship, love and compassion. The difference is that Christians feel those things are grounded in, and given eternal significance by, the author of all those good things. You have some large objections to that idea I know, (I can hear them now) but it is not accurate to think we are all about 'Pie in the Sky,'even though the vision of a time and place where there is no more crying or pain etc remains an uplifting and inspiring one. Simon | |
| 06-Apr-2009 06:15 PM Anon. | |
| Thanks Simon. I accept your corrective, but I don’t think it answers my concern. I can see how a ‘vision of a time and place where there is no more crying or pain’ might function as an imaginative ideal toward which we aspire, knowing it’ll never be perfectly realised. But Christianity claims that there IS in fact such a place, once we get through death’s door. Surely, this is like telling an artist: “You know your mental image of that painting you’ve been trying to produce? Well, if you walk through that door you’ll find that very painting, fully completed, hanging on the wall.” Do you reckon she’d find this news ‘inspiring and uplifting’? Wouldn’t she be far more likely to give up on that painting as a waste of time, and try her hand at something else? Likewise, the belief in a pain-free hereafter will invariably have a powerful demotivating or analgesic effect: people who hold this belief are more likely to endure (or ignore) injustice, poverty and suffering in this life. Cheers, Anon. | |
| 07-Apr-2009 12:36 PM Simon Smart | |
| Thanks Anon. I disagree. Far from being a de-motivating idea, the hope of the 'Kingdom of God' that is both present now and not yet fully consummated is (or at least can be) very motivating. Taking part in the life to come now, in the fullest possible sense, is what drives people of Christian faith to work against poverty, injustice, and to speak for the voiceless. It also encourages being fully engaged and enjoying the good things of life - like food and nature and love and fun and laughter. Working against suffering can be set within a story that is larger than all of us (and larger even than the suffering). Importantly, it is also being obedient to the one who called us to love God and love our neighbour. I actually find the Christian vision both realistic about the tragedies of life - and hopeful about this life and the life to come. Best wishes, Simon | |
| 07-Apr-2009 04:36 PM Anon. | |
| Hi Simon, thanks for your reply. I accept that Christians can FEEL motivated, but I’m not convinced that this motivation is rational or ethical. First, there is a radical discontinuity between this life and the next, such that whatever is done ‘here’ does not carry over or make any difference to what happens ‘there’. I might work toward eradicating HIV in Africa, but you could hardly say that this work will be ‘consummated’ in Heaven. There won’t be an Africa, let alone one that is HIV-free. How can we ‘take part in the life to come now’ when there are no causal connections between the two? Second, I just can’t see how you can love anyone authentically if the motivation is obedience – no matter how laudable or powerful the one who issues the command might be. Much more to say, but time and space are short. Look forward to your reply. Best Anon. | |
| 26-Apr-2009 09:32 PM John Dickson | |
| Dear Anon, you are mistaken. The truth is, Christianity has an inbuilt genius that is easily misunderstood from the outside. It provides both an inspiring motivator to change things here and now AND a great comfort when change is not possible. The motivations are roughly (a) knowing that human beings are not accidents but infinitely and intrinsically valuable, (b) knowing that LOVE is the ultimate reality of the universe, being an essential quality of the universe’s Creator, (c) knowing the values that will last for eternity and so trying to embody them here and now, and (d) the work of God’s Spirit in Christians’ lives renewing and energising their commitment to live in accordance with all of these realities. All of these are logical and ethical. Christ’s ‘command’ is not really the ‘motivator’ for Christian behaviour; it is rather what gives shape and focus to the deeper realities going on in the heart of a Christian. When Alex Ferguson yells instructions from the sideline, it would be mistaken to think that such commands are actually what motivate Manchester United’s players to get on with the business at hand. But here is the balanced genius of Christianity. When change is slow or impossible, Christians don’t lose heart. They know that there is a kingdom coming that will utterly transform the world. Thus, they do not despair, as one would if one thought that meagre human efforts were the final factor in achieving change. It is this flipside of Christian activism that Marx—and, apparently, you—mistake for an opiate. It is nothing of the sort. It is what has always enabled Christians to endure unspeakable hardship while they wait for the opportunity to stand up again and do good. Finally, you should judge Christianity’s ideas on their actual effects. And here your case breaks down completely. Christians have (nearly) always been highly active in society for its good (leaving aside those times when they have acted against their fundamental principles with ill effects). Even today, Christians do a disproportionate amount of Australia’s volunteering, according to Government figures, and most non-Government social welfare in this country is delivered through Christian organizations. Activism is basic to Christianity. Our central ethical maxim, ‘love your neighbour/enemy as yourself’, is activism writ large. Warmly, John | |
| 28-Apr-2009 01:10 PM Anon. | |
| Hi John, thanks for your reply (and for expanding the word limit). Here’s a thought experiment. Suppose you believed that: (a) we were not created by a god; (b) love is one of the highest goods known to us, but it is only a human quality; (c) values like justice and peace only exist in the here and now; (d) deep moral commitment is instilled and energised by rational reflection, empathy, social support and life experience; (e) change is always slow and never guaranteed, so to keep going requires immense patience, courage, determination and a firm belief that, despite the odds, ‘human effort’ can achieve remarkable things. Now, if you believed (a)-(e), what would happen? Would you be any less concerned about the poor? Would you cancel your Oxfam donations? Would you go out and kill your neighbour, rape and pillage? I doubt it. Again, how many Christians sincerely profess your list of ‘motivators’, and yet behave as little more than ‘pew-sitters’? They may not be bad people, but to describe them as 'activists' would be a wild exaggeration. I'm sure there are quite a few. It follows that the items on your list are neither necessary nor sufficient for motivating moral action; and so there is no need to postulate a supernatural realm in order to be good. Everything we need is already within us. We can love our neighbors and help the poor for their own sake, not because we happen to believe in some metaphysical extravaganza. This suggests that Christian activists would remain activists even if they lost their faith. But if so, then it is highly likely that they are, in reality, motivated not by their surface ‘God-talk’, but by the same human qualities that inspire and motivate every activist. Cheers, Anon. | |
| 28-Apr-2009 04:06 PM John Dickson | |
| Thanks, Anon. We have never said that one cannot feel motivated to do good without Christian convictions. Nor have we said that all named Christians do good. What I would say is that anyone who sincerely believes the things I spoke about in the previous post will—by a deep and logical necessity—feel inspired to love others and do good in the world. It cannot be any other way; it is what true faith looks like. The empirical evidence for this, left unaddressed in your response, is the sheer disproportionate involvement of Christians in social action throughout history and today. I would answer your final challenge with my personal testimony, which I think most Christians would echo. Without the logic and beauty of Christianity in my life I, John Dickson, would definitely care less for the poor, work less for justice and probably try and get away with some ‘rape and pillage’ as well, at least of the metaphorical kind. Christianity has powerfully, albeit hopelessly incompletely, transformed my motivations and actions. It has made me better than John Dickson. God bless, John. | |
| 29-Apr-2009 05:06 PM Anon. | |
| Hi John, thanks for your reply. It reminded me of a radio interview with Dawkins, in which a Christian caller revealed that if God didn't exist, then he would kill his neighbor! No offence, but like this caller, I’m not sure you realize the enormity of your confession. The caller hasn’t killed his neighbor out of respect or love. Murder wouldn’t have crossed his mind if THAT were the case. His belief in God simply restrains him from acting on his murderous desires. Likewise, if you, John, really cared for the poor FOR THEIR OWN SAKE, if you really felt THEIR suffering, then none of this would change if lost your Christian convictions. It’s not as if their plight would suddenly improve. They would be just as deprived and powerless as before. But if your loss of faith meant that you could no longer SEE this, then you clearly didn’t care about THEM in the first place. Your motivation would have been more about demonstrating (to yourself and others) that you have “true faith”. Lose this motive, and the ‘love’ evaporates. But here’s the thing: I cannot believe that you WOULD care less about the poor. Christianity may have changed you for the better, John, but I can’t help but feel that you’re a far better person than Christianity will ever allow you to believe or say. That’s because I strongly suspect that you ARE motivated to help others FOR THEIR OWN SAKE. And that motive lies at the heart of true morality. P.S. Your argument about the number of Christians involved in social action is, I think, a red herring. To make your point relevant (for this context), you would need to show that their actions were motivated by ‘true faith’, which is not empirically feasible. Cheers, Anon. | |
| 30-Apr-2009 05:01 PM John Dickson | |
| Dear Anon, yes, I heard that radio interview and winced. I think I was more careful in my words than he, and understand well what my ‘confession’ amounts to. Let me make it explicit. Without the light of Christ, I would see things differently and would definitely follow my selfish heart even more than I do. You are too kind to my default self! You also miss the logic of Christian ethics entirely. Knowing Christ is not like a rule book—following its precepts because they are the right precepts. This is both circular and a very low motivation. What I have been trying to explain is that knowing Christ brings a new way of understanding reality (and a new power to live by it). Let’s stay with the topic of the poor. Of course, most people have moments of pity when they see poverty. I felt that before I was a Christian. But as a Christian I recognize that feeling not simply as a misplaced tribal urge deriving from my evolution (or any other materialist account) but as something rooted in core truths about the universe—the inherent and equal worth of the poor as God’s beloved creatures, for instance. Suddenly, there is a rational connection between my fleeting feelings and my acts of compassion—and this reason fuels and fosters the feelings and results in increased action. You misunderstand Christianity if you think any of this has to do with demonstrating to God or others my true faith. It is about living in accordance with what one has come to see as real. Your ‘FOR THEIR OWN SAKE’ comment sounds noble but it is actually empty, unless one stops to explain what ‘their’ value is. And as soon as you give me a reason for valuing the poor, then I could, if I followed your logic, say: “Ah, but you are only caring for the poor because you have this particular way of thinking about their value. Strip away this reasoning and then you will have a good reason to care for the poor!” That’s nuts. | |
| 01-May-2009 10:43 AM Anon. | |
| Hi John, perhaps it may help if I try to clarify the concept of ‘for their own sake’. Some examples: 1. Many universities have a ‘Blind Marking’ policy. This forces the assessors to concentrate on the intrinsic merits of the exam paper. It prevents them from being swayed by the reputation of the examinee, their parentage or a personal connection. They must assess the paper ‘for its own sake’. 2. Race, gender, creed, wealth, sexuality, appearance (etc) neither add to nor take away from our inherent worth and equality as human beings. This is why discrimination is a violation of one’s humanity: it involves treating others ‘for the sake of something else’, rather than themselves. Now Christianity entails that we are only of worth or value because we are valued or ‘beloved’ by God. In other words, we have no intrinsic value: it is entirely derived or bestowed by our Creator. Hence, we cannot value others for their own sake (since they HAVE no such value), but for the sake of another – God. I accept that your belief in this derivation fuels and fosters your feelings of empathy and compassionate action. But I think it does so in the same way that a journal editor is swayed to accept a submission when she finds out that the author is a famous and powerful academic. She might have been reasonably impressed by the submission itself, but it was the progenitor’s credentials that really got her going. It was the extrinsic factor that turbocharged her decision. [Continued below] | |
| 01-May-2009 10:45 AM Anon. | |
| [Cont.] Likewise, when Christians see a sunset, they might think it’s pretty nice. But their ‘enjoyment juices’ only really start flowing when they think of it as having been made by ‘the Creator’. ‘Knowing Christ’ acts as a kind of Berocca for the Christian, lighting up their otherwise dull and flat existence. I understand this, but it means that Christians are not ‘allowed’ to enjoy sunsets, music, falling in love, all the good things in life, just on their own merits, for their own sake. ("Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" – D. Adams). It also explains why Christians often say “I am nothing without Jesus”; that their good works are “as filthy rags”; that, if left to their own devices, they would be selfish to the core. It is their Christianity – with its central concept of derived or bestowed value - that makes them feel they have to denigrate themselves in this way. In short, the logic of my argument is this: “You only care for the poor because you think their value is entirely derived, and so extrinsic. Strip away this belief, and you might then be able to see their inherent value. At that point, it will be possible for you to care for the poor for their own sake – which is both the right and the best reason to care. Regards, Anon. [Apologies for the length.] | |
| 06-May-2009 12:27 PM Simon Smart | |
| Dear Anon, Let me take this on briefly and then we might close off this particular discussion. I really don't think you are appreciating John's point that Christians have had their eyes opened to the immense value each and every person as made in God's image. It is a deepening of our appreciation for human life. Far from being a mere response to an instruction to love, it is coming to see each person in light of an eternal story - giving them eternal significance and value. It is just wrong-headed to think that Christians value others in the kind of meagre and limited fashion that you describe. Also enjoying the good things of life - sunsets, music, falling in love, food, friendship etc - is, in my view, given even greater significance when these are understood to be gifts of the creator. without that, they'd still be good, but if you started to drift toward a materialist view of the world you might begin to doubt, at the intellectual level, that the feeling was nothing more than the firing of neurons: hence feeling and rationality are in opposition to each other. What John was saying, was within the Christian Worldview, the feeling is rationally grounded. May I recommend Yale's Prof Nicholas Wolterstorff's book 'Justice, Rights and Wrongs -' especially chapters 15, "Is a secular grounding of human rights possible? Best wishes, Simon | |
Comment