My cousin recently placed this quote as her status on her Facebook page: “A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; 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.” – Albert Einstein
Boy that sounds reaallllly smart. And it’s Einstein for goodness sake. There must be something to it right? Not necessarily. Einstein also said “I want to know the mind of God, the rest is just details”, so I wouldn’t develop a philosophy of eternity based solely on the theological musings of a physicist. Einstein missed the point entirely, and trivializes both the “punishment” and “reward”. Both concepts have to do with our capacity, in eternity, to experience, or to be separated from, intimacy with the what the believer recognizes as the Source of our ethical and moral tendencies. I love my neighbor, not because I fear a divine spanking, or seek after some divine candy bar, but because I fear that by rejecting the Divine call to love on this earth, that mindset of rejection will only increase, and become absolute in me. If however, I embrace the Divine call to love, on the basis of my becoming aware of a revelation of a superior code of ethics and a greater love than was previously known to us humans (the life and teachings of Christ), I believe that such a mindset of affiliation will only increase, and be embraced by the Source of that love. As C.S. Lewis wrote “A thing becomes more of what it already is”.
If there is no God, then the universe did – on its own – develop consciousness and morality. We are the proof of that. The question is not whether there is some supreme manifestation of consciousness and morality in the universe, that is beyond question. The question is whether we are it. Choosing to believe that there is a higher, perfect (or perfected as some might argue) level of power, awareness, and morality may seem like so much naiveté, but it is also pretty likely. If one could argue that the level of power and morality the universe has arrived at, in the form of humanity, could be achieved solely through natural biological and geological processes, then I would have to assume that since current science teaches that the universe has been around for double the length of time the earth has (14 billion vs. 7 billion years), that it would be highly improbable that there would not be a level of consciousness and morality so much higher than ours that we would have no ability to see it as anything other than God. That is obviously not my own personal theology, but is far more likely than the narcissistic idea that we are the best there is in the universe, or that whatever other life that might be out there would be so much like us that we would recognize it and be able to either subdue it, or communicate with it. However, when one believes that there is a God, and that He is certainly no less aware (and self-aware) than we are, one then might naturally desire to emulate the superior ethics and morals of that Being. Even a grudging acceptance of human justice would have to affirm that it is far more likely that a person would be embraced (rewarded) by the Source for desiring to live in that higher ethical plane, and that a person would be distanced (punished) for choosing to reject such an obviously superior revelation of ethics, morals, and love.
It ain’t rocket science after all!
Pax Christi…
David
P.S. – You gotta read my brother Rob’s response. It’s in the comments section below!
The Church I Pastor
About Me
- Dave Gregg
- I’m married to Ruth – the greatest wife ever (not open to debate!), have 5 awesome kids, and pastor the best church in the world. Born and raised in So. FL, I’m a die-hard Dolphins fan, and I think that anyone who hasn’t seen the movie “Enchanted” needs to repent of that grievous sin. I have two speeds - full and dead stop, and I sometimes wish I could slow down time, as I can’t believe how fast things go by. But I remind myself that there will come a day when time will not be my enemy (will it even exist?), and figure that while I’m here I might as well try and radically transform the world!
That line of thinking baffles me. Initially, there are other metaphysical reasons to deter bad behavior besides eternal punishment (such as obeying the Creator and thereby fulfilling one's purpose in creation), but even more, the whole idea of ethics apart from an objective - and divine - standard seems impossible to me. Why should one's education, or social ties, or even sympathy keep one from acting other than self-interested when the rubber meets the road, if there's no transcendent (of human thinking) standard to inform and convict one? Einstein himself appeals to that standard when he says we'd be "in a poor way" if we rely on that very thing. Well then, poor way according to whom? Much as I respect his superior intellect, why should I (or anyone) care what Einstein thinks about humanity and the way it behaves? If we're all alone, an accident in a cosmic backwater, what good is it to call any behavior "good" or "ethical"? We do what we do to survive and gratify ourselves, and there's no reason not to if this is all there is. And I don't think you can, in a principled way, appeal to the opinion of the majority. There was a time when most people thought slavery was an o.k. idea, and we certainly don't detest it, or torture or genocide or rape, simply because we find those things inconvenient or not quite socially beneficial. We hate them because they're wrong, but where do we get the idea that they -or anything else on earth, for that matter- are wrong? I suspect it's because we do know, intuitively or instinctively or whatever you want to call it, that there is right and wrong, good and evil. And those things can never be the slaves of subjective notions of ethics.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand that what you are arguing is based on your training and belief, it is not unusual, even for "just" a physicist musing on the subject, to question the "reward" and "punishment" that govern human actions and spiritual repercussions thereof. The common person often has the same questions, and perhaps skewed reasoning. If they are scoffed at or ridiculed, then can we understand also that they question, "Where is the love?" I care about what Einstein thought, just as I care about what you think. In the end, I hope the knowing comes as easy to me as it has to you.
ReplyDeleteA couple of problems with your response… First, I enjoy a good discussion, and I am grateful that you took the time to read my own musings, but I am careful not to allow people to place words in my mouth (or on my keyboard) that are not my own. You placed quotation marks around the word just, but I did not call Einstein “just” a physicist. Neither was he ridiculed. However, the original quote (his) was, and remains, a clear example of scoffing at, the theological concept of eternal judgment and reward. I did make clear mention of Einstein’s gravitas and caché, but also pointed out that simply because one is a brilliant physicist does not make one an unquestioned authority on theology.
ReplyDeleteMy second issue is that you seem to be employing a typical, if not overused, attempt at labeling anything that contends with “common” values, or which may rub someone the wrong way, as unloving. If so, then Jesus was perhaps the most unloving human being who ever lived, for He did so with consistent frequency. Love is not a synonym for nice. For example (using your own words), it would seem (or at least COULD appear) that you really do not wish to “know” as I do, for it sounded as if you were viewing my “knowing” as egotism – as if that knowing was misplaced, or came too easy. If I am wrong I truly apologize, but that’s one way that it could be read. If your words were NOT meant that way, please allow me to use them in that way, if only for the sake of argument. The words may not be “nice”, but if they communicate a truth about me that helps me in some way, and causes me to change for the better (to come more into conformity to the greater standards I spoke of) then they would as such be quite loving – even if they were sarcastic. Those who know me would not likely say that I tend to be vague in what I communicate, but the motivation behind the communication of what I am firmly convinced to be truth, is a genuine desire that the love I have come to know in Christ would be experienced by those who I have the privilege of influencing in some way.
I always enjoy reading your blogs Pastor David. I wouldn't presume that I know enough to formulate an adequate response. Suffice to say that I understand the points you are illustrating here and agree. Rob's response was also very interesting.
ReplyDeleteWhat I took away is this (in an extremely small nutshell)... If there is no God, then we would have no moral thermostat, nor would we be troubled by that fact.
Already looking forward to your next blog!
Thank you again for taking the time to read them. I feel I must apologize though. I did become defensive at the suggestion that the knowing came easy and allowed myself to read your words in a manner you seem to have not intended. The knowing doesn't come easy for me. In many ways, I have dealt with very real struggle -- not per se in my awareness of God's existrence, for as I mentioned, I find other options to be far less lilkely to the point of absurdity. However, in terms of being obedient TO that higher standard, ethos, plane, etc., that has been revealed in Christ, I stuggle mightily in many ways. As I read your initial response, my sense was that it was being suggested that my walk was easy, and given what I know about God, the only way that is possible, is when one really doesn't have much of a walk -- they just think that they do. I sense from your last post that this is not what you meant. Either way, my own offense was unmerited, so please forgive me.
ReplyDeleteHaving a conscience, I cannot go on letting you think that the second Anonymous is the same as the first, however I agree with the comment that Anonymous II made. It is me, Anonymous I, who apologizes to you for putting you on the defensive. I never intended you to think that I meant your walk was easy, only that not everyone is where you are. I sensed your sarcasm, and thought you were putting Einstein down for his thoughts ("reaallllly smart"), and was afraid that you might do that to some who are struggling with what you believe is obvious. I'm glad that you are sharing and hope you continue to do so. I too look forward to your blogs. So please forgive me. Really. No sarcasm.
ReplyDeleteI can see how you thought the line was sarcastic, but it was not a put down of Einstein. I was commenting on how sometimes statements seem smart because they're expressed eloquently (as that quote was), and how because it's someone like Einstein it might be intuitively accepted without appropriate intellectual scrutiny. I appreciate the honest sharing of your thoughts, but I would ask this... "do you think there is a place, given the arrogance of this generation, for those in the Body who are able, to 'insensitively' challenge the wisdom of this age?" Given what I see of this culture, I would surmise that more and more, God is going to raise up those who will be seen by many as patently offensive, as a last recourse to piercing the hardened, prideful hearts of our age. That was true of nearly every one of His prophets, and even of the Lord Himself in several obvious instances. Paul had some incredibly sarcastic responses to his detractors, especially in 1Cor. I want to be careful (and to warn others to also) to be quite sure that just because someone is communicating in a way that I may not like, or see as best, that I am cautious not to oppose it for that reason alone (that's egotism), but to line it up against the Word. I have often been challenged as to the way I communicate, but never once has anyone even attempted to show me where the "offensive" communication was not in line with God's word. Thank you again for prompting some good open dialogue.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that provocative dialogue is necessary, otherwise the reader or listener would not retain much of the subject. Anything less would be akin to tepid soup on a cold day. I don't know enough about the Word of God or the Bible, and so I look to those, as yourself, more educated. If the Lord Himself was offensive, I'm sure He had good reason, and a short time to deliver the message. I'd like to think he was challenging rather than offensive, since there must be a fine line before it becomes egotism, which I am certain He was not. Some people respond well to that type of communication. I might have not liked it then either, so I would have gathered for the parables instead. (Mona Lisa smile) One good thing is, at least you have two Anonymous fans! (Mona Lisa grin) Anonymous I
ReplyDeleteThank you again for the encouraging comments. I hope you don’t take offense at this! (no pun intended), but while I can see why it would be more agreeable to think that Jesus “was challenging rather than offensive”, that probably, in all honesty, says more about ourselves than about the Lord. The Bible acknowledges that Jesus’ message was offensive on many occasions – as in Matt. 13:57; 15:12; Mark 6:3 and John 6:61 just to name a few. Paul says that preaching salvation through the cross is offensive in Gal. 5:11, because it takes the redemptive onus off of our religious acts and places them completely on Jesus’ crucifixion. Just because we’re offended doesn’t make us right. I would respectfully disagree that there is a “fine line before it becomes egotism”. I would say rather that the distinction lies (as with all sin) in the heart-motivation of the individual; rather than with the message itself. People get offended for the basic reason that something is said or done that intrudes upon our own sense of “rightness”. The key distinction is whether that intrusion is merited. When the truth of God is proclaimed, it has the absolute authority to supersede man’s ethos. The conflict is whether we will yield to that superior reality or not (“We will not have this man to reign over us.” Luke 19:14). In every case where Jesus offended, the fault was not His, but at the same time He did not ever moderate or modulate His message so as not to offend. Quite often, He seemed to go out of His way to do things that He KNEW would offend. Think of how many times Jesus healed on the Sabbath, when He could have healed at any time, or purposefully ate with unwashed hands around strict legalists, taught women at a time when their testimony wasn’t even valid in court, allowed the unclean to touch Him when doing so violated the Law, [cf. Lev. 15:25-27 and Mark 5:24-34], etc. I would surmise it was because Jesus understood that offense is a very powerful means to gaining man’s attention, as it has the effect of simultaneously displaying our sinful desire to be the gods of our own lives. Believe it or not, I am every bit as prone to being offended as the next guy (happened to me yesterday in church actually) but I have tried to train my response to ask whether I am being offended in my own idea of what I think is right, or desire (ego), or whether I am being offended because God’s higher truth is being disregarded or scorned. Yes, of course an authoritative truth can be proclaimed in an egotistical way (self-righteousness), but again, the responsibility falls back on me to decide which is more important – that I am blessed with a greater revelation of the truth, or that it be delivered in a Dave-approved manner. As Proverbs 19:11 says “A man’s wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense.”
ReplyDeleteMorality and ethics are unlikely results of self-preservation or self-advancement. Nor are they results of an innate desire to perpetuate the species. There are just too many inconsistencies in human behavior for this argument to have credence. I can subscribe to the idea that it is a thing driven by the promise of intimacy or lack thereof of something eternal and good. I suspect that it is communicated and acknowledged through the individual and is not a direct result of any human organized activity, such as education or religion. Those institutions can help the individual to look within and examine his/her moral decree. I believe that failure to come to terms with one’s moral and ethical roadmap results in an incomplete reason for being. One’s moral charge is an agreement between that individual and the Ultimate Reality, whether acknowledged or not. Over the ages the concept has been put in terms understood by the temporal mind, particularly the idea of reward and punishment. To this day, sinners are threatened that they will “burn in hell”. It’s somewhat more motivating than saying that one will be perpetually on the outside looking in. Nonetheless, I believe that the cost of immorality is displeasure with oneself after this existence is over. I believe that we had a role in putting ourselves here and we did so with a purpose. Failure to satisfy that purpose will be more devastating than anything Dante could have dreamed up.
ReplyDelete