Even in our deeply - and often simply - relativistic cultural milieu, the notion that it is wrong to be prejudiced (specifically in the sense of an unfair bias toward a perceived minority group) enjoys widespread acceptance. In fact, it is often taken as an unquestioned truism, and few people give much thought to if it is indeed wrong, and if so, why it is wrong. The Christian has a unique answer to offer to both questions, and (leaving aside the implications of calling something "wrong" that should be highlighted for our culture) the difference between those answers and the answers given by most secular non-Christians is quite telling, though often unarticulated.
A couple of days ago, I had occasion to talk about this with the youth group at my church. A parent had noticed displays of prejudice both from some of the youth and from himself, and wanted to talk with the group about it. There was some discussion at the outset about what prejudice is, how we can identify it in our own lives, and how we can avoid it. I didn't let the conversation get very far, however, before asking the question, "Do you know why prejudice is wrong? Specifically, why is it wrong for you as a Christian?"
The first answer I received was not really all that suprising. It is the answer usually given from the secular worldview- in fact, the only logically consistent answer available to today's common combination of moral relativism and the materialistic view that reduces morality to an evolved characteristic of the human species derived from self-interest (a la Dawkins' The Selfish Gene) . "You wouldn't want someone to treat you that way, so you shouldn't treat other people that way. If you're prejudiced towards other people, they'll probably be prejudiced towards you, so that makes it wrong."
This idea does more than merely root morality in empathy (as many have mistakenly done*); it says morals, even the most altruistic, are driven by the evolutionary forces of self-interest and self-preservation. That, because we evolved as social animals, and these rules of social interaction were advantageous to our ancestors in getting their DNA passed on into the next generation, we now have moral notions like "it is wrong to be prejudiced" - and that ultimately, whether something is "right" or "wrong" depends on how it will benefit or harm me, and my moral reasoning should be subject to my own self-interest.** So prejudice is wrong because it will have a negative impact on me - which is really the only consistent answer a materialist can give.
The Christian, though, has a different answer, as I tried to explain to the youth that night, and that answer makes all the difference in the world. For the Christian, basic human dignity and equality is grounded in the imago dei - that we are all created in the image of God and because of that have intrinsic value as individuals. Furthermore, "good" derives its definition from God's character; "evil" is a deviation, a departure from that character. We as humans were originally created to be in line with the character of God, but, as Francis Schaeffer said, man is now abnormal - we have been separated from our Creator by our sin through the Fall. This has had dire ramifications on our relationships with our fellow man. We do not treat each other as we should, as we were originally intended to treat one another. When we participate in evil, then, we are not being true to what we were initially created to be.
This helps to make sense of the two greatest commandments Jesus pointed out: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself (neighbor here meaning fellow man, not just the folks next door). You see, because of the relational love within the Godhead between the Father and the Son from all eternity (Jesus spoke of this in John 17), and in light of our being created in God's image in this way, we should love our neighbor; and acts of prejudice (pre-judging), whether verbal or mental, is a falling away from - a bending and twisting of - our original purpose as people. It is certainly not loving. That is why, as a Christian, I can say that prejudice is wrong.
This is one of those increasingly rare areas where a popular, politically-correct moral notion does in fact correspond to a Christian moral principle. It is incumbent upon us as Christians to not just unthinkingly agree with this sentiment, but to be clear about why we hold prejudice to be wrong, and thus bring glory to God and an avenue of hope for a world in rebellion.
* Quite the opposite, actually - empathy is a result of moral knowledge, not its cause.
** This is dealt with rather well by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Aaron,
Great and timely post. A couple of points:
You said that "prejudice is wrong because it will have a negative impact on me - which is really the only consistent answer a materialist can give."
Not necessarily. Jesus said: "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:31). It isn't materialist, but relational. Fruitful relations between people entails that one treat the other as one would want the other to treat oneself.
You said that "For the Christian, basic human dignity and equality is grounded in the imago dei - that we are all created in the image of God and because of that have intrinsic value as individuals."
Does this apply to gay men and women too? Were they too created in God's image? If they are, what does that say about the prejudicial claims made by many Christians of the right leaning persuasian?
Jacob,
Good to hear from you - thanks for the comments. I'm grateful you stuck around in spite of my long absence!
Do you mean, this is not necessarily the only consistent answer a materialist can give? Or do you mean that this is not necessarily why prejudice is wrong? If the latter, I agree wholeheartedly, to which the rest of my post can attest. If the former, I strongly doubt it, as I have seen no other answer consistent with materialist presuppositions.
Are you giving me an alternative explanation for the "wrongness" of prejudice? I think you may misunderstand me (if I am understanding you correctly). My position is decidedly not that of the quote you isolated ("prejudice is wrong because it will have a negative impact on me - which is really the only consistent answer a materialist can give.") I am not arguing with the Golden Rule - far from it, I am trying to give an explanation for the moral force it bears.
As the student stated the reason, there wasn't an appeal to the desire for a "fruitful relationship" as a sort of synthesis understanding of the situation. The response I heard - which I have heard many, many times in similar discussions - really was motivated by self-interest alone. Sort of an, "I don't want to be treated badly, so I'm not going to treat others badly in the hopes that it will insure my own fair treatment." This is truly a reductionist view of human nature, relationships and morality.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that your appeal to a "fruitful relations" motivation can also be reduced to materialist self-interest. The true questions becomes, why would someone want fruitful relationships? This is what I mean by moral force - what makes it a should instead of an is?
"Does this apply to gay men and women too? Were they too created in God's image?"
Yes, certainly.
"If they are, what does that say about the prejudicial claims made by many Christians of the right leaning persuasian?"
What prejudicial claims are you referring to here?
I should add - to say that something is wrong because it doesn't give me a desired result is a utilitarian view of morality, which is also rejected by the Christian worldview.
Hi Aaron,
Yeah, I'm still hanging around looking for good conversation.
You said: "Do you mean, this is not necessarily the only consistent answer a materialist can give?"
I'm saying that to do unto others as one would have done unto oneself is not necessarily a "materialist" response. It is a relational response. To do anything anybody (person or God) implies that we are in a relationship with them. It could range from a violent and destructive relationship to a loving, caring and life giving relationship.
What do you mean by a "materialist" response?
I guess my qualm is that you seem to presuppose that there are only materialist and nonmaterialist answers. I'm suggesting that that is a false dichotomy. I'm suggesting that a third view is a relational view that isn't reducible to materials or nonmaterials--it is about concrete practices.
You said: "Unfortunately, it seems to me that your appeal to a "fruitful relations" motivation can also be reduced to materialist self-interest. The true questions becomes, why would someone want fruitful relationships? This is what I mean by moral force - what makes it a should instead of an is?"
My response: Fruitful relations aren't motivations. Fruitful relations are the concrete products of truthful relations with oneself, one's family,one's friends and with God. A fruitful relationship may be something someone strives for, but the relationship itself is not a motivation.
Besides, what do we mean by "motivation"?
By predudicial claims, I mean the prejudgement by many self-identified Christians that gays (as a whole category of people) are going to burn in hell. I mean the prejudicial positions that many Christians take/assume that they are superior to gays (even actively gay Christians). Those types of prejudicial claims are what I'm talking about.
(Sorry, the above two deleted posts were my own that I posted acidentally!)
Jacob,
"I'm saying that to do unto others as one would have done unto oneself is not necessarily a "materialist" response."
I agree - I would never say that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is necessarily a materialist response - but this was not the response I was given, as I tried to elaborate upon in my previous comment. My comments were in the context of that response.
"It is a relational response. To do anything anybody (person or God) implies that we are in a relationship with them. It could range from a violent and destructive relationship to a loving, caring and life giving relationship."
Again, I agree, but this is a very surface observation and misses the point of what I was trying to say. Perhaps I didn't articulate it very well. I'm trying to get deeper than just a description of what's going on. I want to know why.
To clarify, I mean "materialist" in the formal sense of materialism, i.e. that the only thing that truly exists is matter and that all phenomena are solely the result of material interactions. In this instance, the phenomenon in question is a moral notion, and the explanation usually given from a materialist perspective is of a remnant of an evolutionary advantage developed by a social animal (Man), which I believe boils down to self-interest. Now, I wasn't trying to say that the young man who said this was consciously operating under a materialist viewpoint - you don't need to be a materialist to be selfish - but that the main animus for this sentiment in today's culture is, I believe, materialism (I also tried to qualify this, in this particular discussion, as a form of reductionism, so specifically I would call it materialist reductionism).
"I guess my qualm is that you seem to presuppose that there are only materialist and nonmaterialist answers. I'm suggesting that that is a false dichotomy. I'm suggesting that a third view is a relational view that isn't reducible to materials or nonmaterials--it is about concrete practices."
Actually, it is a true dichotomy in the sense that I am using it, but I see where some of the confusion is coming from based on how you worded that. It is a true dichotomy because, granted that the physical world does indeed exist, it is a true dilemma - either the material world is all that exists, or it is not all that exists. There are no other logical options - you must choose one or the other. Moreover, in worldview analysis, one either starts from a basic presupposition that the physical world is all there is, or that there is more to reality than matter. Ultimately, all answers to these kinds of questions will stem from which fork in the road you take at this particular point.
So again, the "relational view" you've provided actually doesn't address, as a view, that which is in question. Also, WRT motivations, I think this is where some of our mutual confusion lies, as I alluded to above about missing the point. I am asking questions about what motivates, what animates the action/belief. You are answering by describing the action/belief. You are right when you say that the relationship itself is not a motivation - but the desire for the relationship could be a motivation. I'm assuming the relationship aspect here, and asking something different - e.g., why desire the relationship? Someone who sees morality as an evolved characteristic will give you one kind of answer; someone else who sees morality as a command given by God based on His character and our teleology will give a very different answer. That was my whole point.
Jacob,
Thanks for the clarification re: your comments on prejudice towards homosexuals.
As I said, all people derive their basic human dignity and value from the imago dei and thus should be treated with respect, compassion and integrity. This applies as much to homosexuals as it does to heterosexuals.
However, before I can answer your question on the specific points you mentioned, we need to be careful to do two things: first, we must define precicely what constitutes prejudice and what doesn't (which I did not really do in my original post); and second, we must determine what kind of a thing "homosexuality" is (i.e., when applied to a person, is it like "woman" or "tree," or is it like "liar," or "doctor," or "tall"?). Once we have that framework, we can see if your examples properly apply. I'll try to get back to this later when I have more time.
Aaron,
Great discussion.
You said: "It is a true dichotomy because, granted that the physical world does indeed exist, it is a true dilemma - either the material world is all that exists, or it is not all that exists. There are no other logical options - you must choose one or the other."
My response: the claim hinges on the word "granted." What lays behind "granted"? It is an ontological presupposition about how the world Is. In that respect, it does pose a logical decision between materials and nonmaterials.
But, I would add, a dualistic ontology is not the only presumption we can work from. Other presumptions about how the world Is, make different logical choices possible. Namely, in a logically consisitent relational perspective, the focus is on practices, not materials and nonmaterials.
So, I would say that from within a dualistic worldview in which we begin from the presumption that the basic elements of the world are divided into materials and nonmaterials, then yeah, I would agree that it is logically true.
A "motivation" is a tricky subject. How do you know you have the true, accurate, right motivation?
On “homosexuality” and the Bible, I’ve wrote two points on my blog. The links are below.
Part 1: http://talkingpoliticsandreligion.blogspot.com/2007/03/homosexuality-extra-biblical-storyline.html
Part 2: http://talkingpoliticsandreligion.blogspot.com/2007/03/homosexuality-creative-work-of.html
Jacob,
No. Read carefully. I said, "granted that the physical world does indeed exist" (emphasis added) not "granted that the physical world is all that exists." If I would have said the latter, then I would have obviously been presupposing a materialist ontology. The only thing I'm granting is that the physical world exists, a necessary presupposition for even your relational perspective. So you are incorrect - my only ontological presupposition behind the word "granted" is that the world is, not how the world is.
"But, I would add, a dualistic ontology is not the only presumption we can work from."
But I was not saying that. Materialism IS a monistic view of reality. The choice in the dilemma is exactly one of monist versus dualist, with precicely nothing in between. Again, you are misunderstanding both my presumptions and my point.
"So, I would say that from within a dualistic worldview in which we begin from the presumption that the basic elements of the world are divided into materials and nonmaterials, then yeah, I would agree that it is logically true."
Again, I am not starting here with the presumption of a dualistic worldview to claim that the dilemma I presented is a true, logically valid dilemma.
"A "motivation" is a tricky subject. How do you know you have the true, accurate, right motivation?"
Actually, this is beyond the scope of what I was posting. I was merely drawing out the distinctions between different motivations.
Thanks again for the conversation, Jacob. Hopefully I've made what I was trying to say a little clearer. I'll try to check out your posts on homosexuality.
Post a Comment