The Clash of Orthodoxies

I recently finished reading "The Clash of Orthodoxies", by Robert P. George.  Dr. George describes the clash that is at our doorstep between those who claim the Judeo-Christian worldview and those who have abandoned that worldview in favor of, what he calls, the "secular orthodoxy".  "The issues immediately in play," he says, "have mainly, though not exclusively, to do with sexuality, the transmitting and taking of human life, and the place of religion and religiously informed moral judgment in public life."

In this post I want to look at Dr. George's critique of secular views on sexuality as contrasted with the traditional, Judeo-Christian view.  Professor George is a philosopher.  As such, it might take a few readings of the included quotes to fully grasp what he is saying.  If you take the time however, I think you will find his views quite enlightening. 

Professor George claims that the liberal misunderstanding of sexual morality is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the human person.  He explains it this way:

Implicit in [secular views on sexual morality] is a particular understanding of the human person as an essentially non--bodily being who inhabits a nonpersonal body. According to this understanding--which contrasts with the Judeo--Christian view of the human person as a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit--the "person" is the conscious and desiring "self" as distinct from the body which may exist as a merely "biological," and, thus, sub-personal, reality.

Secularist ideology holds to a 'dualistic' view of the human person.  The body is seen as a mere instrument of the true "self".  The real "you" is your consciousness.  Your body is not truly part of you, but rather an instrument to be used by your consciousness in seeking pleasure and other forms of personal fulfillment.  Thus bodily unity, through sex acts that are procreative in type can never be personal unity because the body is not truly part of the person.  The most that can ever be achieved between two individuals is emotional unity.  Sexual conduct is simply a means to express affection, experience pleasure, and heighten the emotional intensity of a relationship through sex play.  This emotional unity through sex play can be achieved as easily by two men or two women as it can by a man and a woman (or as Professor George asks, "...if it is a purely emotional bond, some ask, why only two?)

Contrast the secular view of sexual morality with the traditional, Judeo-Christian view.  Professor George describes it as follows:

Rational reflection on marriage as it is participated in by men and women makes it clear: since men and women are essentially embodied (and not simply inhabitors of a suit of flesh [contrasting with the secular view]), the biological union of spouses in reproductive--type acts consummates and actualizes their marriage, making the spouses truly, and not merely metaphorically, "two in one flesh." The sexual union of spouses--far from being something extrinsic to marriage or merely instrumental to procreation, pleasure, the expression of tender feelings, or anything else--is an essential aspect of marriage as an intrinsic human good. Marital acts are the biological matrix of the multi--level (bodily, emotional, dispositional, spiritual) sharing of life and commitment that marriage is.

But, one might ask, is a true bodily or "biological" union of persons possible? Indeed it is. Consider that for most human functions or activities, say, digestion or locomotion, the organism performing the function or act is the individual human being. In respect of the act of reproduction, however, things are different. Reproduction is a single act or function, yet it is performed by a male and female as a mated pair. For purposes of reproduction, the male and female partners become a single organism, they form a single reproductive principle. This organic unity is achieved precisely in the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species--even in cases (such as those of infertile couples) in which the nonbehavioral conditions of reproduction do not obtain.

Properly understood in light of a non--dualistic account of the human person, the goodness of marriage and marital intercourse simply cannot be reduced to the status of a mere means to pleasure, feelings of closeness, or any other extrinsic goal. Indeed, it cannot legitimately be treated (as some Christians have, admittedly, sought to treat it) as a mere means to procreation, though children are among the central purposes of marriage and help to specify its meaning as a moral reality even for married couples who cannot have children. [Marital] acts realize the unity of marriage (italics added), which includes the coming to be of children.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition bodily, sexual union is personal union.  Since the body is not seen as a mere instrument of the conscious and desiring "self", sex cannot be reduced to a means of pleasure seeking, expressing affection, or even to the begetting of children.  It is properly viewed as a biologically unifying act that forms the foundation of a multi-level (biological, spiritual, emotional, etc.) sharing of life between two individuals.  As I have noted in a previous post, this view helps to make sense of the consummation requirement that is part of the legal tradition of all western civilizations.  Short of a sex act that was procreative in type, the marriage of a couple was not viewed as legally complete since it lacked the biological unity that was seen as an essential element of a completed marriage.

Why is the liberal view on sexuality so damaging?  Because it is a lie.  And like all lies, once it is accepted it leads to other lies.  Liberal views on abortion are a natural outgrowth of their views on sexual morality.  They want sexuality to be an innocent pleasure, but they cannot hide from the fact that quite often, sexual behavior manifests its biologically unitive characteristic in the creation of new life.  Rather than recognizing the error of their ways, they claim that the fetus (while human) is not yet a person (lacking the conscious and desiring aspect to qualify as a 'self').  Thus, it is not due full respect under the law and can be discarded at the mother's whim.  The mother, buying into the secular lie, is often faced with tremendous guilt following an abortion because she senses the lie at some level of her soul.  Once again, rather than acknowledging the lie, secularists hope that by repeating the lie often enough and loud enough, the guilt will be removed.

Sexual activity is immoral, secularists claim, only when it is non-consensual or when the consenting persons do not take proper precaution to avoid unwanted pregnancy or disease.  When presented with evidence of continued unwanted pregnancies, disease, and the emotional distress that are a natural outgrowth of their secular dogma (and this in spite of their best efforts to promote safe-sex and abortion as necessary), they blame it on 'Christian Fundamentalists'.  These problems are easily solved, they claim.  If Christians would stop blocking secular policy efforts and join the secularists in advocating abortion and safe-sex practices, individuals could continue to enjoy the free and easy pleasures of sex without the unpleasant side-effects.

What if secularists achieved their goals?  What if all of humanity joined in the crusade to make sex the innocent pleasure that secularists want it to be?  What if abortion put an end to all unwanted pregnancy, and safe-sex was practiced so perfectly that sexually transmitted disease was completely eradicated (actually if safe-sex was practiced perfectly I suppose there would be no need for abortion)?  Would we have reached the state of sexual nirvana where we could have our proverbial cake and eat it too?  Dr. George thinks not:

The psychosomatic integrity (i.e. mind/body unity) of the person is another of the basic or intrinsic goods of the human person. This integrity is disrupted in any sexual act that lacks the common good of marriage as its central specifying point. Where sex is sought purely for pleasure, or as a means of inducing feelings of emotional closeness, or for some other extrinsic end, the body is treated as a sub--personal, purely instrumental, reality. This existential separation of the body and the conscious and desiring part of the self serves literally to dis--integrate the person. It takes the person apart, disrupting the good of acting as the dynamically unified being one truly is.

Did our Christian forebears invent this idea of integrity? Did they dream up the notion that sexual immorality damages integrity by dis--integrating the person? No. Christianity has had, to be sure, a very important role in promoting and enhancing our understanding of sexual morality. But in the dialogues of Plato and the teachings of Aristotle, in the writings of Plutarch and the great Roman stoic Musonius Rufus, and, of course, in Jewish tradition, one can find the core of this central, important teaching about the way sex is so central to integrity, and therefore so central not only to us as individuals but to us as a community. Disintegrated, individual human beings cannot form an integrated community.

Individuals who are 'disintegrated' will be incapable of then integrating with other individuals to form lasting families, and communities that are necessary to the functioning of a free society.  The truth of this claim is most easily witnessed in those countries where state sponsored welfare is most prevalent.  Is it any coincidence that those countries that are most heavily dependent on the government to provide for basic welfare needs are also those countries most entrenched in secular orthodoxy?  As the voluntary forms of social bonding and support break down, it falls to the state to perform these welfare functions.  Once again, rather than recognize that this unfortunate result is the natural consequence of secular ideology, secularists pretend that state sponsored welfare is 'enlightened' and 'desired.'  This socialist dream, which sounds so wonderful in theory, does not look so rosy when viewed in the light of history. Perhaps it is this destructive state that the leaders of my faith had in mind when they said:

"We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

Religion vs. Science

I have been involved for the past few days in a discussion with mostly atheists and some agnostics on the value of religion. The discussion has helped me formulate my own thoughts so I decided to transfer excerpts to my blog (sorry for such a long post!).  Check it out if you have any interest and let me know what you think.  If you are interested in this type of thing, check out this 2006 debate between two evolutionary biologists: Francis Collins (a Christian, and Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute) and Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion.)  I also highly recommend Francis Collins book The Language of God.

SAM:  Religion responds to the 'why?' questions in life. Why are we here? What is our purpose on earth.  Where do we find answers to these questions outside of religion?  CS Lewis describes it in this manner ( from Mere Christianity):

"Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such -and such a temperature and it did so-and-so.' Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science--and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes--something of a different kind-this is not a scientific question. If there is 'Something Behind,' then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, 'Why is there a universe?' 'Why does it go on as it does?' 'Has it any meaning?' would remain just as they were?"

VANESSA:  Okay, so you say the question is "what is our purpose on earth?" That could be answered simply enough, in evolutionary terms. Our purpose is to survive long enough to pass our genetic material to the next generation. If the question is widened to include all humanity, then it could be answered that our purpose as a species is to survive and perhaps evolve in such a way that we stave off extinction for as long as possible.

If the question is, specifically, "What is our spiritual purpose on earth?" then you have to define spirit and spiritual and explain why you think these things exist and why they demand a purpose if they do.

If the question is "How can I as an individual find a satisfying purpose for my individual life?" then the answer could be any of a wide range of possibilities. It could come through work or through relationships with others or art or music or religion. But it couldn't be a universal answer, because different people can be shown to find meaning and purpose in different ways.

If you have chosen the middle option then we would have to first agree that there is something which could be described as spirit or spiritual before we answer. So describe what that thing is and why it's not a matter of brain chemistry and evolutionary or cultural pressures on the particular animal we call human.


SAM:  [On the first question] all you are saying here is that the purpose of life is to perpetuate more life. So we are right back to square one. Why do humans exist at all?

[On the question, "What is our spiritual purpose on earth"] I'm not sure I would draw such a strong distinction between the spiritual and material. If there is a spiritual realm, it is apparently integrated with the material and it seems unlikely that the two spheres of existence have completely separate purposes.

I think my question is better expressed in the following ways: Is there a purpose for the existence of humanity (besides just perpetuating more humanity)? Do we share a common destiny? Is there existence beyond this earth life? If so, do our individual actions determine our place in the eternities? If my actions do matter, how am I to act? Did I exist in some manner before I was born?

These are the types of questions that lead people to religious inquiry. Many on this board apparently don't care. That's fine...I don't suggest that people have to ask these questions. But many of us do. In fact, the history of humanity suggests that most of us do. And it is ignorant to suggest that only the deluded and irrational ask these questions. There are countless examples of brilliant thinkers who were also deeply religious.

VANESSA: If the question is posed in a fair way I think it would have to be "Is there a (greater, spiritual, etc) purpose behind the universe and our existence?" Asked in that way, the Atheist can simple answer, "No." If you ask instead "What is the purpose?" or "Why are we here and no fair answering with how we came about through evolution?" that is a rigged question. It presupposes that you can't simply answer that there was an evolutionary reason for religions forming or that something in the human brains pattern recognition systems tends to recognize patterns and intentionality even where none exist.

There aren't any questions that can't be answered by beliefs in things like brain chemistry and evolutionary pressure. This does not mean that those are the true answers, just that I insist that it be recognized that some people find them perfectly acceptable and explanatory.

I tend to think that there is something to the totality of lived experience, morality, beauty, consciousness, that is better explained by spiritual answers than by science. However I don't see any reason to privilege one religion over any of the others unless it happens to be the religion you were brought up into.

I've always found my vague sense of something greater, my appreciation of art and music and nature, and my occasional doubts and tendencies towards atheistic explanations are very fulfilling and don't leave me with a sense of lacking anything either morally or in any other way. I also know that many atheists are perfectly happy explaining everything this through brain chemistry and evolutionary pressures and seem to feel they're not missing out on anything. They may feel the same awe I do on a mountaintop or under the night sky and enjoy it thoroughly without needing to find anything more than interesting neuro-chemistry behind it.

Now, a question for those believers who feel more strongly that atheists are wrong and/or their own religion is the right one:

If it's true that there are atheists (or believers in other religions) who have an internally consistent system of beliefs and live their lives in a way which is moral and find themselves as happy and satisfied in their lives as much as anyone, do you feel that this would somehow conflict with your own beliefs in some way? Does it make God less likely to be real?

Now I think of it, the question can be posed just as easily to the more vehement atheists. So:

If there are believers who have thought things through and arrived at a consistent set of beliefs which accord with science, and who are happy and moral etc, does this somehow threaten your own beliefs or your world view? Would it make god more likely to be real if other people persist in believing in spite of hearing all your arguments?


SAM:  Vanessa, thanks for a very insightful comment and great questions. As to your restructuring of the "Why?" question I posed, I think I see your point, but I don't think it gets us anywhere. If, in response to your question "Is there a (greater, spiritual, etc) purpose behind the universe and our existence?" an atheist answers, "No", the question is simply extended "How do you know there is no (greater, spiritual, etc.) purpose behind the universe and our existence?" It seems that the atheist has no answer other than to say, "that's my opinion." If this is the case, the best an atheist can claim is to be agnostic. All they are saying is that for some reason they don't care about asking the "Why?" questions.

[In response to your question to the believers,] it should be noted that the question is loaded with certain conditions that would certainly never come to pass. An astute believer would probably probe the atheist until they found holes in their supposedly "internally consistent belief system." The gaps in logic that the believer found would undoubtedly be challenged by the atheist, and an argument would ensue that would have no resolution. In fact, I think it is fair to say that this is the current state of affairs on the very question you are posing: an ongoing argument. Also, the whole idea of persons being "as happy and satisfied in their lives as much as anyone" presupposes that there is some objective measure of happiness agreeable by all. I can't imagine such a universally accepted happiness meter existing.


[In response to your question to the atheists,] once again, I think the question is posed with certain conditions that are unimaginable. Religious belief presupposes that certain premises are taken on faith. How could science ever prove (for example) that Christ truly atoned for the sins of mankind, or that His resurrection ensures the resurrection of humanity? Every religion has these type of faith-based features. These are the features that make them 'religions'. A 'person of faith' who's belief system accords fully with science has necessarily ditched certain faith-based beliefs and is no longer a 'person of faith'.

VANESSA:  Well, as you say Sam an atheist can always find things he feels to be inconsistent or ridiculous in the believer's system, and a believer can always say that a simple "no" answer to the question "Is there a larger/greater/spiritual purpose behind the universe" is not good enough. When I say "consistent" I mean, there's no question you can pose to this hypothetical atheist that they can't answer in a way they find satisfying enough for themselves, with the converse true for the believer.

What I intended was just to exclude cases where the believer insists on things are completely opposed to all scientific evidence (young earth creationism comes to mind). And also exclude cases where the atheist insists on things which can be proven factually inaccurate- like those who claim that religion is a consistent force for evil and is at the root of all wars and killing or whatever.

I'm not sure, but you sound like you might be saying that an atheist who considers themselves happy and moral and satisfied with their life isn't really any of those things, by your measurement of those things, and that yours is right and their own is wrong. Is this what you believe- that they don't know what they're missing?

SAM:  If that is what is meant by your question, then I think the answer is obvious in both instances (the question to the atheist and believer) for that is the situation in which we find ourselves. Atheists and believers are convinced of the internal consistency of their belief systems. If they recognized (and admitted) an inconsistency how could they possibly be 'happy' in their belief system? They would be forced to reevaluate their system of belief to find contentedness.

[As for the 'young creationists' as well as those who insist religion is always a force for evil,] I think individuals that fall into either camp are not even worth having a conversation with.

What I meant [in regards to the happiness issue] was that both sides would most likely define happiness in such a way that excluded the possibility of happiness to the other side. The religious believer may base a large portion of their happiness on the joy they find through their faith. They may, therefore, conclude that anyone lacking that type of happiness has bought into a false and fleeting form of happiness. The atheist may conclude that a believer who is 'happy' because of their faith is deluding themselves and is actually mentally deranged. "The believer would be much happier", the atheist might say, "if he would face the truth and drop his delusions." My point was that the whole idea of an objective version of happiness could never be settled on.

DIATRIBALIST:  I suppose [Vanessa's comments about those who claim religion is a consistent force for evil] was directed partially at me. I have read much on the history of the creation of the Catholic Church and the corruption associated with it. There is nothing factually inaccurate in my assessment. The Church has a history of cruelty and corruption. And after the reformation, the Protestant religions did not do much better.
I do not believe in evil. What I do believe is that humans are animals. They have animal instincts. Religion is an attempt to quell those instincts. Instead, it gives an outlet to those instincts for the leaders and some enterprising followers. The instinct to control others. The instinct to do as little work as possible for the greatest reward. The instinct to feel superior to your fellow creatures. These instincts have lead people, using religion, using the fear of god, to start wars for economic gain. To torture and kill for the glory of god and the riches of the church. From the Crusades to the Inquisition. To Prohibition and todays modern Isalmic Jihadis, Religion has been the bane of civility for centuries. Always with the "best of intentions" and for "the glory of god", religious crusades always end in a bloody mess.

Religion was created out of human instinct. Humans are animals, so it follows religion will conduct itself with animalistic characteristics.


[And Sam,]the goal of life should be truth, not happiness. But if people are happy believing in god, then so be it. The problem I have is when religionist take their beliefs into the public square and try to influence laws, forcing their specific morality on society at large. Pray in the closet, as Jesus suggested. Don't be proud in your faith, humble yourself before the lord and respect others right to disagree and possibly anger your god. That is the essence of religious tolerance.

SAM:  [In response to Diatribalist,] although there may be nothing factually inaccurate in your assessment, it is clear that you choose to selectively exclude the tremendous good that churches do as well. You speak about the history of 'cruelty and corruption' but you fail to include the work of someone like Mother Teresa who was motivated by her faith. That is why people like you are not worth having a conversation with. You look at religion with blinders on and you refuse to look at evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions. The irony is you accuse the church of 'cruelty and corruption' yet within the same breath you express your belief that evil does not exist.

Your foundation of moral relativism provides you with no firm basis on which to judge the actions of the church. The best you can say is that the church does things that you would choose not to do. But even in this statement you would be indicating the possibility of choice (and free will) thus lending an attribute to humanity that distinguishes it from the brute animal.

'Pure religion' is not created out of human instinct. It seeks to channel human insinct into its proper bounds. Human beings are agents in that they (i) possess a capacity to choose between options and (ii) possess the power (in many instances) to act on their choices (see Oxford Companion to Philosophy). This distinguishes the human animal from the brute animal, as the brute animal is guided entirely by instinct. Human beings are prompted by instinct, but they choose whether or not to act on those instincts. Religion seeks to guide those choices. I really like the way CS Lewis describes it:

"We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct--by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires--one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of' the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, 'Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,' cannot itself be the herd instinct."

 [And Diatribilist,] on the 'enforcing morality' issue, you are deluding yourself. Laws are by definition a codification of morality. Religious participants are wise to advocate their positions in terms that are agreeable to secularists, but they are under no obligation to do so. Astute religionists are every bit as capable of defending their moral positions rationally as any secularist out there. But the fact is, we live in a democratic society, and it is (as Prez Obama said) "[a practical absurdity] to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality into public policy debates."