Wishes and Fantasies

I read a thought-provoking article this week by Frank Schaeffer (who, it turns out, is Francis Schaeffer's son). Although he has rejected his more conservative religious heritage, he is also critical of the so called "New Atheists" like Dawkins, Dennett and the like.

The article was about that topic that seems to circulate from time to time among people who talk religion: where does morality come from?

This topic is riddled with confusion. When religious people take the stance that morality comes from religion, atheists are quick to point out evidence that suggests otherwise. There are all sorts of standard objections, but I think most of them come down to a misunderstanding of the claim.

Most Christian theologians would not say morality comes from Christianity; they would say morality comes from God. Morality is a common grace, to use a theological term. The existence of a common morality becomes evidence for God's existence under this view.

Yet we all notice that there are significant differences between cultures on moral questions. This is where religious people can say that even though there is a common morality, we humans have still generally turned our backs on the Truth of God.

Atheists say instead that humans have simply not advanced enough in our understanding. And then again, maybe not all moral questions need to be settled; perhaps moral differences should be tolerated indefinitely, since we will never all have the same values exactly.

Of course, atheists aren't the only ones who say such things. It's just that their central mechanism for gaining understanding about the world, even morality, is science. It's modernism at its finest. There was a reader's comment on Schaeffer's article that made me smile:

"I'd like to add that rapid advances are being made in scientific understanding of moral behaviors as the products of evolutionary processes. I look forward to the day generally accepted science can explain not only why Jesus is quoted as saying the Golden Rule "sums up the law and prophets," which I take to mean summarizes morality, but when that accepted science can explain how to improve the Golden Rule."

Underneath this tragically funny comment is a deep conviction I think we all share, no matter what we may say: there just has to be a way to get what's good in life. And when I say good, I mean whatever it is that really gets at the core of our being and doesn't let go.

I really sympathize with Schaeffer's sentiment: "My beef with the New Atheists and with religious fundamentalists is that their ideas just don't seem aesthetically pleasing or imbued with the poetry that I experience in real life."

See, that's what we're really after. Poetry. Beauty. Hope. Meaning. Morality isn't there just because it "works." It's there because there's meaning in this world, and somehow we can just make out a tiny vision of Eden when people order their lives well.

Survival isn't enough. Not even a happy life is enough. We need to have what's good, and the reality of life is that we're always so close to it, yet so far away.

Wishes and fantasies, say the atheists. Eden is just wish, and heaven is just a fantasy. We will torture ourselves forever if we don't stop with these cravings for some ultimate satisfaction. We need to focus on what we can actually solve, and be happy with that.

Be happy with what, I wonder? Is happiness any better than sadness? Is health any better than sickness? Is solving problems any better than not? We'll only know what's better if we know what's good. And how can we know that unless it penetrates into our soul?

Christianity teaches that ultimately the good will be reality: He will come to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end. Personally I think Christians do a disservice to their fellow men by claiming to make some absolute authoritative statement on what is moral and what is not.

Far more valuable is the insight that what is coming is better than what is. Our moral life can be shaped by a certain kind of future, a future where there will be no more tears, no more death, and no more evil.

Moral dilemmas always face us because this future has not yet arrived. Frankly, I think the approach to ethics that seeks to iron out all moral dilemmas is ultimately useless. For me the purpose of a moral life is to live in hopeful expectation (and emulation) of the good future that is coming.

Not everything that you want to be true really is true. I understand that I'm wagering my entire outlook on life on the belief that Jesus actually rose from the dead, and that's how I know this is not all just wishes and fantasies. It's not a blind gamble, I don't think, but it is a wager--an act of faith, if you will.

In the end, I suppose it's not really what you think is right or wrong. It's what you hope for. You'll notice atheists are not without hope--they hope that somehow science will keep giving us answers. I have no objection to science giving us answers, but when it comes to understanding the good, I don't think science has any tools with which to approach the question.

But then again, neither does religion, unless it offers a true foretaste of future glory. Morality without future hope is not good; it's depressing. Morals should offer more than mere structure to society. Ultimately such structures do not last, anyway.

I hope there was a point to all this. Perhaps in God's kingdom, I'll know how to wrap up all of my blog posts.