Feel-good theism

I just got off the phone with K____, who is reading Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation. He is finding many of the arguments quite compelling, just as I did when I read it about a year ago. And we discussed how this begs the question: "Why is it that people like us find these arguments convincing while it is obvious that a majority of Americans (and people throughout the world) are not so compelled?" In fairness, as I understand it, K____ has never had any intuitions or predilections about the existence of God or the messianic status of Jesus, and I could rightly be labeled a flip-flopper, as I've gone back and forth on the issue over the years. But maybe there is something to be said for the fact that I have had different intuitions at different times, and certain arguments have proven to stick with me more so than others. But that doesn't tell me much about why people like K____ and I remain in the minority. Here's my hypothesis: Much of contemporary America has subscribed to a strange form of theism that defies both traditional Judeo-Christian conceptions of the nature of God as well as grounds for reasonable exchange.

I know that sounds like a rather strong statement, so I would like to make a qualification. I have a number of friends with very interesting theological positions and well thought out arguments for those positions. These are people that are well read in both the bible and theological literature and have a great deal of knowledge that grounds their intellectual/faithful position. What follows does not reflect those individuals, and people like them. Nor do the preceding qualifying statements reflect what I take to be the mainstream in American religion. Though I'm certainly willing to field objections. That being said, here's what I take to be the problem...

Traditional Christianity, founded in the New Testament as prophetic substantiation of the Hebraic literature that preceded it, provides a distinct (yet sometimes ambiguous) vision of the nature of God. As in most conceptions of a theistic God, the Christian God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Furthermore, this God sent his son to die on the cross for the sins of mankind. Finally, certain (yet sometimes conflicting) prescriptions are set forth for followers of Jesus to live by. While I will not attempt to lay out all the specifics, I take the fundamental tenets to be a commitment to God the father and his word (as inscribed in the Old Testament), love of mankind, and adherence to traditional Judaic morality (as codified in the ten commandments and the books of law). Not inessential to the Christian world view is the belief that in the end, God is going to somehow sweep in and right the wrongs of time immemorial. This last claim is perhaps controversial, but I don't think the words of Jesus can properly be understood without some recognition of this apocalyptic world view. While this all seems straightforward, I find it not to be reflected in much of the dialog (or lack thereof) pertaining to contemporary American faith. Rather, what I find instead is what might be understood as "feel-good theism", or perhaps "Oprah spirituality" if you would prefer.

What I hear so much in conversation and in past philosophy classes is an adherence to a God that is good, and provides meaning, and will accept you for whoever you are. While none of these claims are necessarily opposed to the outline I provided above, I find furthermore, either explicit in articulation or implicit in behavior, a pattern of inaction. What I see so often is not a lifestyle reflective of Christian belief, but an individualistic lifestyle that takes the mere agreement with above principles to be enough. What I hear so often are justifications for arguably unholy behaviors on the grounds that, "God knows me and my flaws and is accepting of all my illicit behavior [even if I am making no effort to alter that behavior]." What I find even more confusing is the pluralism of this feel-good theism. My impression of the Judeo-Christian God is that he is a rather jealous God who is wholly uninterested in alternative religious allegiances. Yet what I hear so often is the fuzzy acceptance of all forms of spirituality, no matter how incongruous they may be with the gospels. "It doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you believe in something, and my God will be down with that." The point is, in some ironic reversal, the feel-good theists have created God in their own images. I take this to likely be a product of a society that has grown increasingly individualistic since the end of World War II. A society where belief is not required to be founded on external justification but on what makes one feel good, or what best lines up with private goals and aspirations (no matter how inconsistent those goals and aspirations might be with civic or religious responsibility). You might rightly wonder, "So what? What's got you so worked up about this?" So I'll tell you...

The biggest problem with this kind of belief is, as Sam Harris might say, it is a complete conversation stopper. There is no way of arguing with such positions, regardless of what unfortunate behavioral outcomes might stem from them. Letter to a Christian Nation can never convince a feel-good theistic nation (even if it has enough trouble reaching a Christian nation). There are no grounds for reasonable exchange when belief rests on some sort of psychological need rather than evidence or justifiable argument. And this strikes me as bad for democracy. If the goal of democracy is to achieve a better society through persuasive discourse, I take better forms of persuasive discourse to be that which stems from the presentation of evidence and factual information. Otherwise debates are reduced to rhetoric. Which I take to be a bad thing. Admittedly, the realist in me recognizes that this might be the case regardless of religious or political persuasion, and the pragmatist in me wonders if I shouldn't just learn to play the game. Regardless, the idealist in me hopes that the epistemological impact of post-war individualism will one day retreat to allow for more reasonable democratic exchange. Fingers crossed, eh?