It is his (Gerson's) own supposedly kindly religion that prevents him from seeing how insulting is the latent suggestion of his position: the appalling insinuation that I would not know right from wrong if I was not supernaturally guided by a celestial dictatorship, which could read and condemn my thoughts and which could also consign me to eternal worshipful bliss (a somewhat hellish idea) or to an actual hell.Comment: Gerson's argument seems to be an implicit argument that we should support Theist beliefs because such beliefs are conducive to moral behavior. I am concerned with a view that we should promote belief in something, whether we believe it to be true or not. It seems to me quite appropriate, especially in this country with freedom of speech and religion, for Theists to argue for the truth of what they believe as it is for Atheists such as Hutchins to argue for their views.
Implicit in this ancient chestnut of an argument is the further -- and equally disagreeable -- self-satisfaction that simply assumes, whether or not religion is metaphysically "true," that at least it stands for morality.
The alternative -- of promoting Theism because Theists are believed to act ethically -- taken to its logical conclusion would have us arguing for belief in Santa Claus who rewards good behavior and the boogeyman who get evildoers as matters of public policy.
It is one thing to promote patriotic myths, which are seen to be myths, for public policy purposes and quite another thing to promote true belief in something in which one does not really believe. We can have knowledge of a myth and believe a myth to convey some basic aspect of truth in much the same way that we can believe a play or a novel to be a work of fiction and yet to convey some basic truths. There is a difference between believing something to be literally true and to find it a useful story for pedagogical purposes, like a parable or koan. JAD
No comments:
Post a Comment