Love and cosmic cold

“We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid.” (Christopher Hitchens) 

In the wake of this harsh stance, I searched the Internet and discovered the source of information for a majority (the Internet’s expeditious way of presenting and dealing with issues is already a given, we are forced to deal with it). There are a lot of opinion leaders with formulations in the same spirit. What I began to notice about some of these statements, however, is that although they belong to celebrities, they have a surprising common denominator.

The culture of activist discourse

Let’s return to Hitchens’ opinion, which opens this article. Unfortunately, under the guise of apparent critical thinking, the renowned polemicist formulates a simple insult. He speaks of “conclusive evidence”, which would imply that he uses research, surveys, and statistics to back up what he says with measurements and data… Except that this is practically impossible, because such surveys would perhaps refer to the level of education and the social status of believers compared to atheists, not to… “stupidity versus cleverness”—unprofessional, colloquial, and tendentious terms.

So, on the one hand, a subjective impression is presented as a well-founded opinion. But it seems as “well-founded” as the statement that “blondes are stupid”, without suggesting any logical connection between the two characteristics.

On the other hand, the author confuses two different concepts: while he is referring to the religious beliefs of contemporary Americans that he has been able to observe, he speaks of “religion” in its entirety, without any nuance. In fact, for Hitchens, virtually every religious phenomenon—from ancient polytheism to New Age spiritualist orientations, from Buddhism to neo-Protestantism, Catholicism or Baha’i worship —has the same outcome. What’s an Orthodox, a Bushman, a Mormon or a Muslim to make of what Hitchens says, if not outright insult? It is hard to see how such a statement could contribute to resolving controversies in the religious arena, to establishing dialogue between cultures, to reducing aggression towards those who think differently.

To be trapped in such a view of religious belief is, unfortunately, to be ignorant of the complexity of this part of life shared by many of our fellow human beings. It’s confinement in simplistic opinions, like those of childhood: “faith is for old ladies”, “the Bible was written by some fishermen”, “King David was a mere shepherd”, and so on. And if we refer to the values of humanism, which is proposed as an alternative, it becomes unacceptable for a humanist to label billions of fellow human beings as selfish, evil, and stupid simply because they have a religious belief. What kind of humanism are we talking about then?

On the other hand, meanness and selfishness are moral and character flaws, whereas stupidity is a genetic trait for which people cannot be blamed, any more than they can be blamed for being short or blind. To associate stupidity (not ignorance) with character flaws is superficial.

If you listen to believers, they generally paint a picture of a kind, merciful, eternally patient, pure God who so loved the whole world that He “gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). When you listen to atheists’ rhetoric, they often seem to be talking about an entirely different entity, one that is ruthless, indifferent to people’s fates, that punishes and rewards arbitrarily. Of course everyone would reject such an entity. But is someone who fights against it really an atheist? Or are they just argumentative believers? Of course, atheists can also argue that God may be good but does not really exist. But what is the point of assuming qualities of non-existent entities?

The attitude of those who fight religious belief with hostility seems strange. If they are convinced that God does not exist, it would be natural for them to limit themselves to being merely sober, rational thinkers, and not to ridicule what their fellow human beings cherish with all their hearts and understand differently. It’s like trying to slander someone’s parents, whom they love and respect, just because you have a different view of them. You can’t claim to be doing it for their good, to wake them up to reality, if you are pitting your external perception against their internal perception, to which you have no access. When it comes to subjective perceptions and beliefs, where emotions are also involved, the duel is meaningless, there can be no winners and losers.

The invocation of human dignity

“I am a humanist, which means, in part, that I have tried to behave decently without expectations of rewards or punishments after I am dead.”[1] (Kurt Vonnegut)[2]

“A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.[3] (Albert Einstein[4]) 

Indeed, it is not rewards or punishments that should animate believers to live a good and beautiful life, for that would be like training animals. That is not moral education, and the trained person is not a free being. However, the Bible emphasises—in the Old Testament, through the first commandment of the Decalogue[5], and in the New Testament, through the commandment of Jesus Christ[6]—that this moral law is a law of freedom and love. It is a law that can be respected or rejected precisely because we are free beings. Those who choose to obey it do so out of love and because they receive love, not out of fear of punishment or the pursuit of rewards. Such an attitude would be truly naive and even wicked, but it is not what Christian morality promotes. Believers declare that the ultimate reward is closeness to God. Therefore, they are naturally inclined to draw near to Him and to know Him. As they say, one cannot know Him and not love Him.

It is not right to contrast, as Vonnegut and Einstein suggest, the atheistic dignity that supposedly comes only from conscience, on the one hand, and the “poor way” of being moral only to receive divine reward, on the other. It’s a false problem. Yes, such a moral attitude would be poor, it would be selfish, but that is not what is at stake in the Christian’s good behaviour in the world, but love of God and love of neighbour (see Matthew 22:35-40).

The common denominator of the views quoted reveals the same childish, simplistic relationship to Judeo-Christian morality. This can happen to complex personalities with excellent competence in some areas. But that does not entitle them to make judgements where they have no expertise or knowledge. We can notice in their opinions evidence of superficiality in their knowledge of the Bible.

The labyrinth and the map

No one has direct access to a final, indisputable reality. Each person’s view of their world is shaped by many factors: the knowledge they have acquired, the education they have received, the culture from which they come, their own preferences and choices, and so on. Each person is a world in oneself. As far as transcendence is concerned, no scientific demonstration can prove or disprove the existence of God. There are also personal experiences that cannot be shared or proven because they do not obey scientific laws. Some are called miracles. As our philosophy textbooks once taught us, the objective laws of nature and society that are partially known to us cannot prove miracles; laws are essential, necessary, general, repeatable, and relatively stable relationships between two or more phenomena. Miracles are not repeatable, they are not predictable, they are rare, they are… miraculous events according to the logic of heaven, but they cannot leave you indifferent. You don’t understand them, but you notice them, and they fundamentally change you once you’ve experienced them.

So what right do we have to consider those who believe in Him inferior to those who do not? Just because they cannot export their experience to others? No one requires atheists to prove the non-existence of God. Even if they tried, they would fail. But what if true believers tried to “prove” their faith? Their “evidence” would be: beneficial changes in thinking and feeling; a greater openness to helping their fellow human beings for their good; serenity; optimism; the reduction of flaws and the elimination of vices; good deeds that come of their own accord, unforced; respect for everyone as a possible brother, and so on. Above all, there is another driving force, the most powerful in daily life: love of neighbor born of love of God.

But will these ever be as conclusive and measurable as in a laboratory experiment? We are all in the realm of subjectivity, of impressions and experiences that to some extent make up our rational beliefs. And yet we’re inclined to believe, without proof, the psychologist’s explanation for the improvement of a person’s personality, but we’re reluctant to consider the theologian’s or the Christian ethicist’s explanation.

We find ourselves in the world as in a complex labyrinth, each in a particular position. Some argue that there is a perspective from above that encompasses the whole, a meaning to the labyrinth, a Creator and an exit to a better world. Others argue that there is none of this, that everything is random, that humans created the labyrinth, that there are multiple exits, that everyone makes their own way and exit as they choose, whether through change or stagnation, that there is nothing beyond the labyrinth, and so on. We can glimpse a drama of our destinies; although many are indifferent to their own or others’ paths, some still try to show their “map” to their companions. It is preferable to believe in a map, an order, and a creator than in pure chance. This is the predictable response of a consciousness searching for meaning in the world. It’s a perception that gives you calm, confidence, and the impetus to move forward. The other—the perspective of pure chance and meaninglessness —can lead to fear and despair. One must see things in the light of affective attitudes, because they go to the heart of each person’s view of the meaning of life.

One could reply: “Why believe in the ‘map’ of the labyrinth, just because it is preferable? That is, to deceive oneself? I’d rather choose cold, hard clarity!” Indeed, there is a difficulty in convincing this person that it is not just a reassuring choice of conscience and emotion. There are arguments, even evidence, but they have a strong personal character. Sometimes they can be shared and resonate in the conscience and soul of the other, sometimes they cannot. What is certain is that this faith implies personal experience of interaction with the Creator. One can only urge one’s fellow human beings to seek these experiences. There are common elements in them that can be identified and shared, which strengthen belief in the existence of the Creator. They involve thought, vision, knowledge, fact and feeling. So a cold, laboratory reporting will not be a solution. Neither will a rational-affective approach that is negative, condescending, mocking, provocative, or sarcastic.

All of this, of course, is the result of personal experience, because in the end no one can testify with the greatest openness and frankness except from personal experience. But anthropologists say that “every man is, in certain respects, a. like all other men, b. like some other men, c. like no other man”[7]. It is on these similarities that we can base our common beliefs, values, feelings, and experiences. The most noble of these is empathy. In this regard, Einstein intuited the wondrous bond that allows people to understand each other best, most deeply, effortlessly, sometimes instantly.

It is known that empathy is highest when there is love between people. So if those who have faith try to share it with their neighbours out of love, that is the only healthy, good, beneficial motivation. That is being of good faith, being well-meaning. Of course, even this love can be rejected, but it does not remain without effect in the world, it is not consumed in vain. It will not be lost in the cosmic cold, the stronger, the hotter, the more alive it is. If there is love, nothingness will perish…