Holiday Reflections

[Update at the end]

Psychoanalysis is based on the idea that we are only minimally aware, if at all, of our unconscious mental processes, and that these unconscious thoughts, wishes, and feelings have significant control over our behavior.  We typically use our rational minds to explain our behavior and make sense of it after the fact.  There is a growing body of research evidence, based on fMRIs, PET Scans, and other technological advances, which support the contention that many actions, even very complex actions, are based on unconscious processes, with our conscious recognition of such action lagging behind.  I review this briefly because it is germane to one of the struggles that is ongoing in our culture and to the season we are celebrating.

I have suggested (Political Deification) that our psychology demands the existence of God or of an idea or set of ideas that serve the same function as God.  This in no way should be taken as an argument for or against the actual existence of God; that is not a scientific question but a question of faith.   Science has done and continues to do a  miraculous job of explaining the world and allowing us to manipulate matter and energy, however, science can not answer the ultimate questions; where science fails, faith is required.  The Atheist who fervently denies the existence of God is showing as much faith as the most fervent religious adherent.  In other words, you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God by using the scientific method.

At our Seder the other night, I remarked to a friend my continuing surprise at an observation I made quite some time ago.  I have found that many of the Bloggers that I find most eloquent, illuminating, and thought provoking have turned out to be religious Christians and Jews.  He remarked, as if it was obvious (which it was on reflection) that that is because they have such a strong moral compass and are therefore able to write clearly and consistently.

Yesterday I found more evidence for this idea.

Amy Alkon at the Advice Goddess Blog wrote You Don't Need To Believe In The Big Imaginary Friend To Have Character and had this to say:

No need to waste your life on some hard bench closing your eyes and making wishes to a figure there's no evidence exists. Just copy The Six Pillars Of Character and start living by them:

Trustworthiness
Respect
Responsibility
Fairness
Caring
Citizenship

These points are found at charactercounts.org, via The Josephson Institute For Ethics -- secular ethics. And I'll let them answer the question that maybe came to mind for some of you:

But Isn’t Ethics Relative?

No. There are many areas in which we legitimately differ: politics, religion, sexuality, wealth, ethnicity, personality, ambition. But there is such a thing as right and wrong. Coalition members believe that adults and institutions have a duty to teach the young, in word and deed, that honesty is superior to lying, responsibility to dissolution, fairness to greed and caring to callousness.

OK. Whose Values, What Values?

Everyone’s values: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship.

She elaborates on each of the six points and if you are interested, you should take a look, by all means.  Her points are all excellent and I think most would agree that a person who lives by such standards is likely to be highly ethical.   As well, it goes without saying that a person can be a most observant Christian or Jew and not behave ethically or morally.

I have two particular problems with her premise, however.  In an answer to one comment she includes:

... to clarify something, those aren't my exact personal standards, merely a suggestion for those who don't have an articulated framework of their own.

There is the first problem; once you have introduced the idea that a set of standards is subject to personal adaptation you are treading on thin ice.  All of us will naturally find ways to rationalize and intellectualize our behavior to fit our own interpretation of ethical standards but to set up the premise a priori that there is no universal standard is problematic.  We have enough trouble excusing our own misbehavior without giving our blessing to an individualized de-standardization of ethics.  The thoroughly misguided effort to (mis) apply therapeutic ideals to excuse the misbehavior of designated "victims" should be all we need to know about what happens when we do not have a set of universal standards.

The other problem is that by using man as the arbiter of ethical standards, you are endorsing the idea that standards are malleable.  As such, they will be subject to change depending on circumstances; there can be no "strong, moral compass" in such a setting. 

Even if you firmly believe there is no God but that he is merely a human construct, I would suggest that the idealized construct, which includes the idea that He is greater than man in ineffable ways, serves an invaluable purpose.  With God, we have the 10 Commandments; without God, we have the 10 Suggestions.

Civilization needs as much help as it can get to support the difficult task of taming our instinctual drives.  A powerful Superego can be a crucial ally; what has been forgotten by many who celebrate the triumph of libidinal excess, is that religious prohibitions help the most vulnerable among us tame their impulses.

On a related note, I would like to address the concern that so many seem to have that we are turning into a Christian Theocracy.  Alexandra von Maltzan has a wonderful response to the question Do You Fear Christian Theocracy In America?  She performs a thought experiment imagining what a Christian Theocracy in America would look like.  It is a wonderful post, if only to remind people that Christianity in America does not exactly evince a monolithic, totalitarian political ideology.  For those who need reminding, the religion that, at the moment, suggests there is only one possible model of the world is Islam, though it comes in several competing flavors. 

Anyone who questions whose religious adherents present the greatest threat to our pluralistic democracy should immediately watch the most recent episode of South Park.

Happy Easter and Passover to all.

Update: Joe Katzman at Winds of Change has a post today which talks about Passover and the 10 Commandments as fundamental pivot points in human history.  Here is a key excerpt from Passover Special: Drops of Freedom:

In one sense, Passover is really about preparation for the giving of the 10 Commandments on Mt. Sinai. Abraham is the first major break: belief in the existence of one G-d, without shape or form. His acceptance of G-d's existence creates ethical monotheism, the belief in a single G-d who is goodness and who demands goodness - but its real impact is not felt until the second major break. For the corrollary of ethical monotheism is the idea that good and evil are real, and can't be set or altered by human authorities at their whim. They are things to discover and understand, rather than things to invent.

This idea will change the world - and the Passover story is both its grand entrance and its clarion call.

The post is well worth reading.