Can I make a faith-based argument about donor conception in public?
The short answer is yes.
Over the last several decades, our country and the makeup of our culture have slowly begun to embrace a pluralistic worldview when it comes to life and the pursuit of happiness. A plethora of worldviews are gaining influence and strength within the public square. Unfortunately, those who profess a strong conviction for tolerance of all kinds of people and ideas are actually becoming more and more intolerant of the segment of our nation that happens to view life and happiness from a ‘religious’ perspective. From their view point, it seems that to engage in public debate, one does not need to bring up their ‘religion’ because ‘religion’ isn’t relevant or valid to today’s complicated social issues.
So to argue that one should not acknowledge their religion in public debate is to say that every point of view is valid except a religious POV. Why? Simply because someone doesn’t acknowledge the validity of a religious view over them doesn’t make the argument invalid.
The long answer goes something like this: every time anyone argues a position on a given topic, it’s always a “faith-based” answer. Your faith may not be the same faith as an organized religion; however everyone has some type of faith, including atheists. An atheist has faith in his or her assessment that there is no God. Basically faith is trust, so they are trusting in their own judgment/intellect/experience that what they believe is right. So there is trust, even if the person is claiming to have no faith in any deity.
How do you interpret the world around you? How do you determine what is right and what is wrong? Where do your ethics come from? How do your ethics influence what you believe about a particular subject? What is your worldview? Do you have faith that your perception of the world is correct?
As a Christian, I believe Scripture, when it says that God created the heavens and the earth. He determines what is right and wrong because of His character; He is always “right” and whatever is not right is sin; treason against God. So my sense of right and wrong and my ethics come from who God is. My view of who God is influences my POV on a given subject.
If a person puts their faith/trust/belief in secularism or atheism or humanism, etc., then I think it’s fair to say that everyone has some kind of “faith” so therefore every argument is a “faith-based” argument. Whether they may recognize it or not.
Categories: Faith and Families
Amen
Beautifully spoken Stephanie. Thank you!!
Although I hold no particular Christian/religious faith; I am often disturbed at the outright ridicule and contempt expressed towards those who hold a Christian/religious belief.
It seems to me to be an “ism” that in every other circumstance, would be regarded as an extreme form of intolerence.
You’re right that after a debater has reached the end of their rational capabilities they begin to make arguments based on intuition, and perhaps what you’d call “faith”, i.e. something not backed up by a logical argument but instead by their feelings that come from years of experience.
The problem with lumping in religious debaters with rational debaters is that the religious debaters come to the limits of their rationality much sooner and their arguments are necessarily much weaker.
My personal view is that religion has no place in public debate. Much higher quality discussion can take place without it.
There are perfectly good arguments against stranger-conception that don’t invoke religious principles, and I think we should stick to those.
Stephanie, I thank you for a very well-expressed and true statement.
Sadly, there are many, like Tom, who think that belief in a diety is equivalent to a lack of intelligence. I will admit that there are some who blindly follow a religion without knowledge or understanding of what it teaches, but to lump all believers as incapable of carrying on a rational discussion and to assume that “religious debaters come to the limits of their rationality much sooner and their arguments are necessarily much weaker.” exposes an ignorance that perpetuates the bias against believers.
One need only refer to the likes of Einstein and Kant, Augustine, Plato and Aristotle to refute that claim. We believers are perfectly capable of looking at the natural world to defend our arguments because it often validates what our faith teaches.
And please do not discount personal experience as valid. If one is open to reaching beyond the natural world, a whole new set of realities and answers are there for the asking. Just saying…
Your approach actually minimizes the role of “faith” by basically making it meaningless. If I trust that that red light will turn green, you call that faith comparable to your faith in the resurrection story, for instance. That’s insulting to all involved.
I say let “faith” argument rise and fall on their own merits without trying to expand it to be more inclusive.
The issue is not whether someone can make a ‘faith based’ argument in public debate. Of course they can. The question is whether religious beliefs should or rightly carry any weight when it comes to questions of policy or law in a society in which they are not universally shared. If the argument for or against a given law or government policy depends on the truths of controversial religious beliefs, why should those who disagree be bound by it? Laws in our kind of society should not enforce any kind of religious orthodoxy even indirectly. In that case, what is the point of religious arguments in public debate?
As a simple example, consider two arguments for taking “In God We Trust” off of currency. One would go something like ‘we know God doesn’t exist, so the government shouldn’t put such nonsense on money.’ The other would be the more familiar constitutional argument that the state shouldn’t endorse any particular religious position. Now you can disagree with both, but isn’t the latter more of the right of argument precisely because it is neutral about religion?
Of course you can make a faith-based argument; if I don’t share your particular faith or beliefs though, that argument isn’t going to be convincing.
And let’s be frank here: when you speak of hostility toward religion, you’re really speaking of anger against Christianity, and in particular the fundamentalist version. Surely you understand where that anger comes from? That it isn’t held solely by atheists or those hostile to “religion” or any form of spirituality? It’s the anger of people who are bone-tired of having that form of religion be the only form respected in the public sphere (and indeed, backed by law: I commented on another post how clergy are allowed to perform not merely religious ceremonies of weddings, but actual legally recognized marriages, as agents of the state. That is wrong.).
There is less common ground to cover when arguments are reduced—yes, reduced—to faith-based. And I think it confuses the issue when all religions or spiritual viewpoints are lumped together; people who hold to authoritarian religious practices have a necessarily different outlook on how their religion informs their viewpoint. People who hold to experiential-based religious practices do not have the same relationship with their religion. People who have a Father God believe and practice much differently than people who have a Mother Goddess, or a pantheon of gods and goddesses, or who have a Great Mystery or Oneness or Void or who practice nontheistic religion.
I assume when I make any argument, that the person I’m making the argument to either (a)doesn’t share my beliefs, or (b)possibly does share some of my beliefs, but may have had different experiences that further shaped their own beliefs. That’s why I leave faith out of it; it doesn’t add to the argument—it can only add to another person’s understanding of who I am, which is a different conversation entirely. Also, I find appeals to faith confusing; I came to my religious practices as a result of my beliefs—not the other way around (which is the direction most Christians are coming from).
The last sentence in my post should have read “the right kind of argument”, not the “right of argument..”
I’m kind of curious, La Lubu, why you think giving religious marriages legal force is wrong. It seems fine to me, so long as it’s a privilege granted all religions equally, and so long as there are legal alternatives for those who want no part of that.
Tristian, my religion allows for same-sex marriage. My state does not. Allowing clergy to perform a function of the state is privileging certain religious beliefs over others. The reason same-sex marriage is not legal in most states of the US is because of predominant religious beliefs (or, the privileged position of the people who hold those beliefs and their influence over the law, and hence the rest of the citizenry).
So, to allow clergy to perform ceremonies that are legally recognized as well as religiously recognized, the state is taking sides amongst religions. Clergy and officiants in my congregation are de facto put in the position of treating some congregants as second-class citizens because of this—which is against the precepts of our faith. That may be a harsh way of seeing it, but there’s a reason my minister feels compelled to apologize for the fact that although he can preside legally over opposite-sex weddings, he can offer but a “wedding in name only” to same-sex couples. Every time the signature of clergy goes on a state-recognized marriage certificate, the state is de facto privileging some religious beliefs over others. Full. stop.
Mind you, I’m not against religious ceremonies. I enjoy weddings. I just don’t believe they should hold authority where the state is concerned. That would be more equitable.
Tom, I don’t remember saying “after a debater has reached the end of their rational capabilities they begin to make arguments based on intuition” but maybe I implied it somewhere and didn’t realize it. If I implied it somewhere, I didn’t mean to.
I disagree with you assertion that “religious” arguments run out of steam before rational arguments because if Christ is creator of all things, which he is (Col. 1:16, 17), then even rational, logical thought is part of his creation, which means that, used properly, it will always lead us to what is true.
La Luba: I don’t really like the word “religious” unless we are talking about ALL organized beliefs, because you can’t really lump Jesus in with anyone else, but I’ve used it, because it seems to be the word here that folks use. So unless I’m talking about something all encompassing, I’ll start using Christ or Christianity. That was a point that I wanted to make in this post, but there was really no place to put it without starting a whole other train of thought. So thanks for calling me on it and giving me the opportunity to make it clear.
Jeffrey, I agree – “faith” has different levels of meaning. The faith that is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8) is the kind of faith that a person must have in order to be saved (forgive for sin and literally saved from judgment). It is not the kind of faith that I have that allows me to know that the light is about to change colors. But it’s still a “trust” nevertheless. No, not all “faiths” are created equal.
Tristan, the thing is, I think that there can be neutrality about “religion” in general, but not about Christ specifically (see Matt. 12:30).
I think it’s fine to argue “faith-based” arguments as long as one realizes they aren’t “get out of Jail free cards.” They can (and should be) questioned, the Theology can (and should be) questioned, and the discussion can include the role of faith-based reasoning on public policy in a non-theocratic state.
Too many people who make “faith-based” arguments thing that they shouldn’t be challenged or questioned and that quoting Scripture ends the conversation.
Tristan, the thing is, I think that there can be neutrality about “religion” in general, but not about Christ specifically (see Matt. 12:30).
And therein lies the rub. Can you develop this thought further? Because the assumptions I’m mentally making as to where you’re going with this is sending up huge red flags. Under no circumstances should the power of the state be used to enforce the religious practices of a particular religion (whether over the avowed practitioners of that religion, or others who do not share that religion). It should merely insure that people have the ability to practice their own faith(s) without the interference of those who object to that.
In other words, a Christian church has every right to enforce the tenets of their beliefs upon their members; they have no right to expect the enforcement of beliefs particular to their faith upon the populace at large.
This is critical, and is at the heart of a lot of the objection to faith-based argument. If we are to live in peace with one another, we must respect one another’s right to privacy—which includes religious privacy. At the same time, it is part of the tenets of some religious sects to—let’s not mince words here—force their beliefs upon others by any means necessary. They are literally not practicing their religion correctly unless they are taking that hard line—”this isn’t just MY truth; it is THE truth.”
Which is why I believe a firm line needs to be drawn separating church and state. We don’t all have the same beliefs. We don’t all come to the same conclusions. We don’t even come to our beliefs and conclusions from the same direction or same influences. Our differences need to be respected—and that’s why I don’t use faith based arguments.
I understand that Christians have a certain set of beliefs (though there are a multiplicity of beliefs within Christianity, and multiple means of expressing and practicing those beliefs). I understand that they may come to political conclusions that are different from mine because of their faith. But. I take strong issue that their interpretation of reality—in particular, that part of interpretation that comes from faith and not science—should take precedence over mine. “My God can beat up your God” shouldn’t be a matter of policy in a pluralistic society.
La Luba, I think there are two issues here that need to kept separate. If all religions are treated equally when it comes to recognizing marriages performed by their clergy, then there’s not a problem as far as that goes. Whether gay marriages should be recognized is another matter entirely. If, as I believe, gay marriage should be recognized, then gay marriages performed by all denominations should be recognized. That seems a better route than trying to say no religious marriages should carry legal weight.
Stephanie, I’m not quite sure what your point was, but in conjunction with the passage from Matthew it’s hard for me to find a generous interpretation–it’s sounds like you’re suggesting Christian simply have to try to use the power of the state to enforce Christian orthodoxy (no doubt as you define it). If that’s your position fine, but clearly it’s beyond the pale of mainstream American political discourse. That the state is not in the business of defining or enforcing religious orthodoxy should be common ground.
The passage from Matthew doesn’t suggest a political position–it’s speaking to matters of personal belief and salvation. Historically of course that is a matter that includes certain understandings of a community, or the church. But it’s certainly not speaking to our situation. Our question is how do we carry out political discussion and argument in the context of a liberal democracy marked by moral and religious diversity? What matters there is that we acknowledge and cultivate the common ground–that we identify and work with those values and beliefs about rights and human dignity and equality that we share despite our different religious beliefs. In that context it’s just not the case that everyone who is not a Christian is against Christ.
That seems a better route than trying to say no religious marriages should carry legal weight.
Why? Clergy who perform as agents of the state in opposite sex weddings are doing so because of the history of certain religions having their tenets upheld by the power of the state. Religions that do not have a history of having their beliefs propped up by the state are not given that power. I still fail to see how this isn’t privileging certain religous beliefs at the expense of others. I used same-sex weddings as an example because it’s one of the more obvious ones, but the same opposition that exists to same-sex marriage also exists for abortion. The conflict around abortion is primarily religious. The people who are firmly against legal abortion aren’t arguing from a science-based standpoint when arguing that the human soul enters the body at the moment of conception.
Stephanie wrote ‘Tom, I don’t remember saying “after a debater has reached the end of their rational capabilities they begin to make arguments based on intuition” but maybe I implied it somewhere and didn’t realize it. If I implied it somewhere, I didn’t mean to.’
Stephanie, you didn’t need to say it. When the debate gets so complicated that rationality is no longer applicable, the next best thing is intuition and experience. What is your alternative?
Maureen, I don’t think that religiosity implies a lack of intelligence (or vice versa for that matter). But I do think belief in a deity implies unwillingness to clearly see reality, and therefore a strong tendency to be irrational regarding certain issues.
(My opinion here is in fact an example of what I was getting at with my earlier comment: my opinion is based on rationality to some degree, but past that point it is based on my experience of the world and the intuition about “deities” that come with it.)
It’s certain that all religions but one are incorrect, and it’s doesn’t seem to be stretching the point too far to suggest that all of them are incorrect.
Where I’m going with this isn’t political per se. And I’ll be honest, political discussions don’t float my boat, so I’m not going to address that issue here. The point of my post is that everyone comes to the table with a “faith-based” bias.
Tom, I think that you are proving my point. You seem to have a lot of faith in rationality, so tell me, how your feelings about being donor conceived square with a rational worldview?
Also, my alternative is to think Biblically. If I were relying on my life experience, I would say that I hate my parents for lying to me for 32 years about how my Dad isn’t my father and how I’d never forgive them for inflicting so much pain on me. But because I think, and therefore (try to) behave Biblically, instead I can say that I hate that I was lied to for 32 years about who my bio-father is, but who am I to withhold forgiveness when I’ve been forgiven for so much? I must forgive them, and it isn’t the kind of “must” that comes from duty, but from a joyful heart that is glad to forgive and get rid of bitterness. It’s Biblical to forgive. It honors Christ to forgive.
Stephanie, the “faith” that I have in rationality is a different kind of “faith” from that which you have in the Bible. We both have a “faith-based” point of view, but they are by no means equivalent, and they by no means have equal validity with respect to public debate.
My rationally based point of view on stranger-conception is that it causes harm — primarily to the stranger-conceived, and secondarily to other individuals in the family, and the family as a unit — and therefore should not happen.
Regarding forgiveness, I do not feel, unlike the christians that I know, that I am guilty of sin. Indeed I feel I’ve done very little wrong in my life at all. When I have done something wrong I’ve generally put it right and apologised. Thus I don’t feel the need for forgiveness.
NB: when I say I’ve “done very little wrong” I mean I’ve done very few things that have caused specific long term harm to other people. The person I’ve harmed the most by my own actions is myself but I don’t think I need god’s forgiveness for that.
I agree that “faith-based” arguments are legitimate and appropriate to make, but pragmatically they are problematic. First, I think if they are not used and considered with a LOT of humility they tend to obscure rather than enlighten (but not always). Second, by their nature, these arguments are narrowcasting which that limits their effectiveness in a wider discussion to all but those already in that narrow, target audience that share that specific faith. Third, they run the risk of alienating potential allies who, for historic reasons, may be antagonistic to that narrow audience. I think this discussion illustrates the point effectively.
For example, I don’t agree with Stephanie except possibly in a broad sense about the source of “good” because I am not a biblical literalist (I think it is idolatry, actually). Colossians is a good example of why if you read up on discussions of its authorship and theology (which I will not belabor). Thus, her references to Colossians turned me off, but then I thought some more. Even if I don’t believe what Colossians 1:15-23 has to say specifically, the passages are valuable for thinking about life, the universe, and everything. Even if one believes that there is no God and that what our brains interpret as good and evil is the product of evolutionary design, the implication is that the universe is set up in such a way so that brain-design has a selective advantage (*) That is worth some reflection that runs along similar but not identical lines to Colossians. There is identifiable harm in this behavior, what is it about the universe that makes that harm the consequence of that behavior? Scripturally-based arguments tend to get tripped up on their specificity, but there can be some underlying wisdom that is worth considering. This is my *very* long winded way of counseling against tossing out babies with bathwater.
Anyway, Tom, even though I basically back you on your underlying point, I have to note that your last post suggests more about your youth than your rectitude. One cannot really appreciate the long term consequences of one’s actions except in retrospect *especially* the ones you’re sure that you’ve “closed the book on”.
-Hernan
(*) don’t read too much into this, evolutionary advantage is much too context dependent and contingent to be read in the same way as “Good”. Hence, it is worth “reflection” rather than orthodoxy.
A religion based argument for or against a public policy is irrelevant because it is illegal according to the constitution of the United States of America.
You don’t like that, well go lobby for a change in the constitution.
By the way Stephanie I believe you are misunderstanding what secularism is. Proponents of secular arguments (who may well be religious themselves) do not buttress their claim by pointing to an absence of a deity. They focus on pros and cons of the practice itself.
I can’t speak for Stephanie but my impression about her motivations is not one of politics or influencing public policy, she is purely speaking from her faith based perspective. Although her experience and feelings about being ‘donor’ conceived do provide anecdotal evidence to the need for further public policy consideration of the offspring’s needs in relation to the gamete trade industry.
Tom, I think it’s great that you rectify the situations where you have done wrong. What about the situations where you messed up and don’t know about it? What is your standard of figuring out what is wrong what is right? What if your standard is too low? I’m not really looking for you to answer, I’m just asking.
Hernan, first, I want to assure you that I am the most humble person that I know. My husband and I argue over which one of us is more humble, and I always win that argument.
I’m not sure what you mean by “biblical literalist” – can you elaborate? Also, I’m not sure how discarding what Paul said in Col. 1 leaves room for valuable thinking about life, etc. Either Jesus and Paul are right, or Jesus and Paul are crazy. Is there room for any different interpretation?
Kisarita – Does “irrelevant because it is illegal” apply to same sex marriage, too?
But once again, the point of my post is that everyone has a faith-based POV, even those who claim to be secular in their argument. Secular means having nothing to do with religion/God. But even the definition of “secular” ties into God, even though it describes leaving God out. Interesting, isn’t it?
And Karen is right in her assessment.
But once again, the point of my post is that everyone has a faith-based POV, even those who claim to be secular in their argument.
While everyone has a POV, I think it’s stretching the boundaries of what “faith-based” means to claim that “every point of view is faith-based.” Stretching it to the point of meaninglessness, which is not the intent of faith-holders who are arguing from the position of their faith. One plus one equals two is not a faith-based position. Evidence-based positions don’t require the pre-agreement of terms and assumptions. Which isn’t to say there aren’t completely legitimate “nonrational” beliefs—you can’t prove you love your children (or your parents, or your favorite song on the radio) in a scientific sense. I wouldn’t then conclude from that that “love”, in its many forms, “doesn’t exist.” Just that….if I wanted to convince someone to take a positive view of my daughter, or my mother, or my favorite song, I’d better have something more to say than…”but I think they’re really great!”
It also obscures where the term originated, which is why I referenced politics. “Faith-based” originated as a political concept in the US. The purpose of faith-based organizations is most definitely to change the political landscape outside the church doors, outside of one’s own faith community. That’s why I cringe when I hear the term. It’s almost a shorthand for “and….your faith doesn’t count.” I’ll be charitable and assume that you do not intend this, personally. But, the term itself originated in and remains a “dog-whistle” that encompasses a certain worldview, and that worldview is very authoritarian in nature.
Let’s be clear on that. You alluded as much up above, Stephanie, when you said, “no, not all “faiths” are created equal” and “I think that there can be neutrality about “religion” in general, but not about Christ specifically (see Matt. 12:30).” The only society that leaves room for people who don’t agree with those sentiments is a secular society. It is secular society that allows for actual freedom of religion.
So, don’t knock the people who insist on secularism. Without it, there can be no authentic religious practice. What is done under coercion (even relatively mild levels of coercion) isn’t free. And in fact, puts barriers between a person and his or her concept of the divine, the sacred, the infinite.
“Hernan, first, I want to assure you that I am the most humble person that I know. My husband and I argue over which one of us is more humble, and I always win that argument.
”
HaHA! This is why the meek shall inherit the earth, they DOMINATE in humility contests. Oh yeah.
“I’m not sure what you mean by “biblical literalist” – can you elaborate?”
Sure, it’s one who believes the Bible (any scripture, really) is an inerrant and literal record of actual events. Idolatry isn’t just about building and worshiping statues, it is about the danger of directing your faith to something or through something that isn’t God. A Biblical literalist experiences not God but a vision of God through a Bible-shaped prism. In my opinion, that person runs the real risk of mistaking or substituting that vision for the real deal. Even if one accepts that he Bible is inspired by God, its words have passed through the filters of its many, many authors and copiers and editors and redactors and compilers and translators. There is, I think, significant moral hazard in not recognizing that reality when one reflects on what is written in there.
“Also, I’m not sure how discarding what Paul said in Col. 1 leaves room for valuable thinking about life, etc. Either Jesus and Paul are right, or Jesus and Paul are crazy. Is there room for any different interpretation?”
Sure, there is the interpretation that Jesus and Paul are neither right nor crazy because neither Jesus nor Paul actually said or wrote it and it was mis-attributed to them (for whatever reason). This isn’t really the place to go through the historical evidence for and a’gin that interpretation. Regardless of who said it or why or even if one agrees with the specifics of its claims, the passage reminds people to reflect on power that can shape the Universe (Col. 1:16) and the human heart (Col1:21).
My faith-based position is that the ideas behind the specific words are the important thing. For example, the core idea of the Golden Rule is the valuable thing regardless of the exact words one uses to formulate it. You didn’t ask me, but it’s the thing I use to work out what to do and not do and what to do after I figure out that I didn’t pay enough attention to the Golden Rule in the first place.
Yes religion based arguments are an unacceptable basis for policy for or against gay marriage.
I happen to be opposed to gay marriage on secular grounds. But since religious christians have been the most vocal against it, most people mistakenly think it’s only about religion! So religious arguments have actually done a disservice to their own cause.
Also if you use the word faith to mean pretty much anything, then you’ve trivialized the word faith.
(Kind of using hte word parent to refer to any caring adult)
I was trying to remember what I wrote about this subject in another online discussion, and then I remembered it was on this blog.
Arguments that deal with facts, instead of faith, are not an alternate version of faith. An atheist might argue that when we die, tiny organisms consume our body and we rot away until there is nothing left. A Christian might argue that our immortal soul is judged and lives on in some way, but that does not necessarily mean that our bodies are not consumed by microscopic organisms.
So, in a discussion of what happens after we die, atheists and Christians can _agree_ on certain material facts. That does not make the facts un-Christian or anti-Christian.