Today I was pondering whether the easiest way to dismiss Christianity (and, in fact, most religions) was to recognize their inherent reliance on anthropocentrism. I asked Edmonton based theologian Randal Rauser whether he thought the preeminence of the human species was fundamental to Christianity and he demurred by pointing to theocentrism. This reminded me of a question well posed by Acadia philosopher Stephen Maitzen in his Free Inquiry article On God and Our Ultimate Purpose:
Consider what theistic religions offer as God’s actual purpose for our lives: glorifying him and enjoying his presence forever. Surely we can ask - I hereby do ask—‘What’s so great about that?
What is so great about that?
TAM: Many thanks for the mention. By "so great" in my question, I mean "great enough to be an ultimately satisfying purpose for our lives." If we take ultimately as it's intended by theists in this context -- i.e., unquestionably -- no purpose could possibly be ultimately satisfying. Theism glibly offers "glorifying God" as our ultimate purpose but punts on why that counts as an unquestionably satisfying life purpose. It might be pleasurable as all get-out, but unquestionably satisfying?
ReplyDeleteSteve, thanks for dropping by. Hope all is well out east.
ReplyDeleteWhen Randal is pressed on this point, he comes back with comments such as: "I would take it that being in right relationship with the ultimate source of good and value is trivially a good thing for a creature to aim for".
By "trivially", I take him to to mean that it's axiomatic - no argumentation required. Just define god as the ultimate source of good and say: "baby, that's I where I want to go." I'm not sure how to respond to this kind of blather.
All's well here, thanks.
ReplyDeleteI'd respond to Randal's comment as follows. Just as plausibly, reducing suffering is a trivially good thing for us to aim for. But that doesn't imply (and no one accepts) that reducing suffering is the ultimate purpose of human life (or else we'd all be employed full-time in pain management). Even if God is the ontologically ultimate being, it doesn't follow that conforming to God's will is a life purpose it would make no sense to question. See p. 37 (column 1) of the article you cited.
Steve, it's too bad that counter-apologetics isn't as lucrative as Christian apologetics. Otherwise, you could be engaged full-time debunking the William Lane Craigs of the world. I would never place Randal in that dubious category. He seems to have fun stirring the pot, as evidenced by his most recent post: How will the Christians know when to commence the killing? It's a fair question.
ReplyDeleteTAM,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late reply. I don't know about the purpose of Theism, but the Bible teaches that as sinners redeemed by the blood of Jesus we are love God and love our neighbor. "In the same way let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." Matt. 5:16
Loving and serving the neighbor is the purpose of this life and in that love and service God is glorified.
Worship is gathering to receive the gifts of God's forgiveness and returning thanks to Him. Unfortunately lately it seems to have morphed in Western Christendom into some kind of pep rally for Jesus where people basically confess and sing, "Ain't God lucky we love Him so much."
Joel Osteen and his ilk certainly have turned the focus to self, rather than neighbor and this is hurting Christianity.
Hope all is well with you and that you shot well on the links today.
Peace in Christ,
Kevin
TAM: I am probably revealing my own ignorance here but I am not sure I understand how recognizing Christianity's reliance on anthropocentrism actually dismisses their beliefs?
ReplyDeleteMA, Christianity posits that humans were created in the image of God. Anthropocentrism is consistent with this belief by elevating humanity over that of other species. If you reject anthropocentrism (i.e. accept that humans have no greater intrinsic worth than any other species), I contend that you have already rejected Christianity and other anthropocentric theologies.
ReplyDeletePlease note that I am not contesting that humans have greater mental capabilities than other species and naturally prefer the welfare of their own species over others. I just don't understand why humans, viewed from a perspective outside of humanity, have a greater intrinsic value than any other species.
I tend to not like to reject anthropocentrism because I don't want to become a vegetarian. But, yeah, an insecure God seems less than great.
ReplyDeleteHi Grundy,
DeleteI'm not sure that glorifying God implies an insecure deity. I'm inclined to agree with Rauser that humans ought to acknolwedge God as the ultimate source of truth, goodness, and so forth (I'm paraphrasing). It certainly doesn't imply that God would require a bit of a spiritual "pick-me-up" on occasion. I suppose that resplendence is seen as an intrinsic part of the Deity, whether or not that quality is conceded by his creatures. Moreover, some of the biblical prophets explicitly condemn the obsequiousness of those who flatter God with with their lips, but who pursue injustice and corruption (Isaiah stands out in this regard). So, it's not simply about praising God with fine-sounding words in an attempt to stroke the divine ego, but acknowledging and reflecting the foundation of truth and goodness in one's life.
Thanks, TAM, for allowing more "blather" to clutter up the comments thread!
I wonder, do you believe that humans intrinsically are of no greater value than other species? And does that affect your actions (i.e. not eating meat, or using products tested on animals, etc.)?
ReplyDelete@Mormon Atheist
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that "intrinsic value" is a meaningless construct. "Value" is a concept that requires a subject (the valuer), which is assumed to have intentionality and an object (the thing which is valued), which can be pretty much anything.