jump to navigation

John Piper, Theodicy and Moral Dumbfounding August 30, 2009

Posted by Damian in Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation, Ethics, Psychology and Religion.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Richard Beck wrote about Moral Dumbfounding:

Haidt’s research suggests that this just might be backwards. Emotion precedes cognition. Feeling causes judgment. We feel something to be wrong and then go in search for a reason. Moral warrants (the stuff of an ethics class) are, essentially, post hoc justifications. And, for most of us, we operate with a “good enough” search criteria. That is, people, seeking to justify their knee jerk moral judgements, generally land upon warrants that provide “just enough” justification. [...] People already know what they believe. Or, more properly, they feel it. Deep in their bones. And words just don’t penetrate.

I read this in the context of Mike Aubrey’s comment on my own summary of Halden’s posts on John Piper (that was a mouthful of a sentence), which went like this (Mike, I hope you don’t mind that I quote you here):

Theologians reading each other, or anyone for that matter, when they read the writing of someone they disagree on something very fundamental, cannot understand the other side. its impossible. [...] he also appears to be naive enough to think that humans are consistent and for some reason assumes that its possible for piper to be consistent about what he believes & thinks. let me tell you its not. but you guys want him to be. that’s what you’re last paragraph says. but it won’t happen. and you don’t understand piper’s theology. and you probably never will. the day you understand piper will be the day that you agree with piper.

Here, Mike is observing the same thing that Richard Beck is writing about. That is, that the two sides of discussion regarding Piper’s theodicy are arguing on an emotional basis, rather than a rational one (even though they like to think they are). From what I’ve read, Piper and those who agree with him, feel that the sovereignty of God is too important to reduce in any way, resulting in the God that Halden presented in his post. Halden (correct me if I’m wrong) and those who disagree with Piper, feel that God’s morality is at stake by presenting such an extreme view of his sovereignty.

Personally I feel that much is to be lost by rationalising a theodicy in the way the Piper does – I agree with Halden that the logical conclusion of Piper’s theology is a God with a selfish rather than loving character. However, I do agree with Piper that there is much to be lost by stripping God of his sovereignty over evil; scripture is quite clear that God is sovereign over both good and evil. The issue with both is that they seek to make theodicy consistent, when scripture is anything but. My own view on this is anything but consistent (in fact, it’s plain paradoxical), but that paradox does not risk minimising either sovereignty or divine morality.

In a way, this argument seems to be those who favour the God of the Old Testament against those who favour the God of the New Testament. So I think that in the light of my understanding of scripture as a record of our ever-improving understanding of God, my preference for the New Testament’s (improved) viewpoint makes sense. Simply because God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, doesn’t mean that we’ve understood him the right way and always will. However, given Piper’s less flexible understanding of scripture, I think his viewpoint makes sense in the light of that.

However (and interestingly), as Richard (and Mike) say, it is highly likely that the understandings of both sides of the discussion are entirely arbitrary. All of this conversation I have is simply a way for me to rationalise the beliefs I already hold. And, of course, this is why discussion in the blogosphere rarely changes anyone’s mind: The things that get posted are rationalisations of an already-held viewpoint. And people (Mike, for example, and more than likely me too on occasion), get disproportionately emotional when their rationalisations are challenged.

Nevertheless, I, with Halden, and despite what I feel is a thorough understanding of Piper’s viewpoint, feel disproportionally emotional about the logical conclusions of that viewpoint. And I feel that my rationalisations of that feeling are sound.

Defending myself: Why I am against abortion November 18, 2008

Posted by Damian in Ethics.
Tags: , , ,
8 comments

I recently passed this video on to friends and co-workers, (don’t watch it if you’re squeamish or under 18). I received some surprisingly personal responses from otherwise reasonable people.

  • Refusals to watch the video on the grounds that ignorance of the procedure is not a problem.
  • Pointing out that mothers who make this decision often regret it for the rest of their lives and do so with extreme pain.
  • Accusing me of judging mothers who have had to make this decision. As someone who has not had to make the decision have no right to judge those who have.

People have claimed that I am:

  • Accusing women who make this decision of being cruel monsters.
  • Ignorant and uninformed of the complex nature of the problem
  • Imposing Christian beliefs on others
  • Consider myself superior

Now, I feel I should defend myself against these charges, and present my viewpoint. I’d like to stress that if you have not watched that video in its entirety, you cannot understand my viewpoint. The ethical arguments of both pro-choice and pro-life parties are strong. Until I saw this video my opinion was based purely on intellectual argument. So please, watch the video before formulating a response or forming a judgement. First of all:

  • I am not ignorant or uninformed regarding the complex nature of the issue.
  • I am male. So, of course, I am removed from both the decision and the procedure.
  • I don’t consider myself superior to anyone. I have no right to judge anyone. Christianity is fairly clear on this, and any Christian who feels they have the right to judge is on very shaky, unbiblical grounds.

The issue is complex because often two sides are arguing different issues. Those who are pro-choice focus on abortions that occur where the mother or the foetus are endangered, or there are complex circumstances surrounding the conception – rape pregnancies, for example. Those who are pro-life focus on abortions that tend to occur when a mother wouldn’t be able to keep the child (teenage pregnancy, for example). It’s important to realise that those who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. I don’t think anyone would argue that abortion is a good thing. Previously, I had disagreed with abortion as a form of contraception, but not as a medical procedure used to save the life of the mother. However, viewing this video changed my mind. It did this by illustrating – to me, at least – that even at their youngest stages of development, foetuses display sure signs of life. To me, if a foetus shows signs of life, if a foetus is recognisably human, then – and I know many will switch off at me saying this – abortion is murder. I’ll illustrate why with a hypothetical:

A mother is recently pregnant. She has been informed that the pregnancy endangers her life, and that the child too is highly likely to die before the pregnancy comes to term. Should the pregnancy be terminated to save the mother’s life?

A mother has a five year old child. She has a heart condition that is endangering her life. The child has a medical condition, not affecting his heart, and will die within the year. Should the child’s heart be taken, killing him, to save the mother’s life?

If you answer yes to the first, and no to the second, I believe your opinion will be challenged by the video. It, for the first time, made me feel that abortion was truly murder. I don’t think anyone would argue, regardless of the complexity of any issue, that the answer to that issue is murder. And if you watch this video, I am convinced that you will see that. If you don’t feel that way, after watching the video, then you are entitled to your opinion. I respectfully disagree, and – because of the strength of my convictions – I won’t stop in my trying to convince you otherwise. But if you don’t watch that video, then you’re not open to alternative opinions. You’re the one being judgemental, avoiding evidence and maintaining your own ignorance, not me.

Of course there is heartbreak, emotion, and psychological impact involved in abortion, especially for the mother. I would never imagine otherwise. I wouldn’t minimise it either. I don’t believe that women take abortion lightly. But nevertheless, my opinion stands. The fact that people struggle over it does not redeem what it is. Situations can become even more complex in situations where the child is a product of rape, or of an abusive relationship. But, given that I am convinced that that foetus is a child, how can I condone the death of that child due only to the circumstances of its birth?

Finally, I do not judge any mother who has had to make this decision. And this is why: One day I shall have a beautiful wife, and equally beautiful children. And then, my wife may fall pregnant. And there may be complications. And the doctor may say to me, “Damian, either you abort this pregnancy, or your wife will die.” My children will be left without a mother, and I will be left without a wife. The life that I had built would fall apart. And, honestly, despite my conviction, I’m not sure what decision I would make. I hope I would not choose to draw a line, to say, that that child is not truly human – that it’s not yet my son or my daughter – that it’s somehow worth less than the life of my wife and the happiness of my children. That would never be an easy decision to make. I don’t think it’s difficult to grasp, by being honest with yourself, the complexities around the issue.

But nevertheless, my opinion stands. The fact that people struggle over it does not redeem what it is.