“I BELIEVE; HELP MY UNBELIEF”

Apparently, I was meant to face intellectual challenges today–witness the Dave Fried post below, and now James Joyner comes along with a discussion on “Biblical” worldviews and their prevalence (or non-prevalence) among American Christians these days.

(James references a couple bloggers with whom I am not familiar, Jen and Joe Carter.)

Jen points to a longer post by Joe Carter, which in turn links to ongoing debates on blogs I’m unfamiliar with, questioning an assertion made on one of those blogs that the vast majority of Americans who call themselves “Christians” don’t actually believe these things:

–> read more

BLOGGER, DEFEND THYSELF

I’m being accused (by Dave Fried) of throwing existentialism under the bus:

Mark blames the shirking of public responsibility on a sort of selfish existentialism. I feel that while his point is good, he’s being unfair to existentialism.

(N.b.: this is in reference to this.)

Mark quotes from Sartre: “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.” He might be misinterpreting this quote, however, in two different ways. First, Sartre understood that people could find value in choosing to help others, in essence stating by their behavior that all should help their fellow man. Second, Sartre disapproved of putting people in situations which necessarily limit their ability to make moral decisions.

Valid. What I’m guilty of, though, is not making myself sufficiently clear. Sartre certainly recognized that human community required some degree of collective responsibility. Dave continues:

We’ve created a society in which the amount and type of choices available to a person differ greatly from the lowest to the highest classes. It is in no way violating the principles of existentialism if people in our country choose that they would rather live in a society where, for instance, all people have access to adequate education and an opportunity to go to college.

Granted, but in the context of the original Goodman column, the burden of action is shifted away from the subject making the value judgement and onto other actors. I don’t have any problem with people who want to say that the world would be a better place if only the fiscally self-sufficient were to have children; the problem is, that’s not the world we have, and everybody knows it. (Put in terms of Christianity, it’s easy to believe that the world will be a better place when other people take care of their sins–or that the worst possible sin is one you, personally, do not commit.) Asking why I should support the education of other people’s children–as Goodman’s complainants did–is like asking why my money should support the construction of freeways in Los Angeles, since I’ve never been there.

Fried continues:

Also, consider the implications of existence preceding essence. If essence preceded existence, then you could at least make an argument that somehow, poor kids are qualitatively different to start out with than wealthy kids. Perhaps some quirk of reincarnation or predestination would sort out the souls of the yet-unborn so that the most deserving ended up in the best situations.

(Perhaps the Hindus are on to something after all!)

If existence precedes essence, on the other hand, then all children should start out as the same sort of blank slate. Anything that affects their development before they are able to make informed moral choices - health, early education, etc. - would necessarily be someone else’s responsibility. Going back to the principle of the categorical imperative, if I make a decision that my children should get top-quality education and health care, shouldn’t all children receive the same? (And yes, I’m aware you can make an opposite argument - I’m just showing that the opposite argument isn’t the only one that follows.)

Point well taken, but here’s where Fried and I part company. If children come into the world as tabulas rasas, they don’t stay that way for long–certainly not long enough to reach the age of moral action. Environmental factors are surprisingly quick to assert their influence. (I’m married to a pre-school teacher who can certainly tell you stories about that . . .) So I think that existence precedes essence for a nearly-trivial period.

True existentialism is not ultimately solipsistic, and if I implied that it was, mea maxima culpa. My real complaint was the one I alluded to earlier: that it’s easy to insist that others live life according to your personal categorical imperative, but it’s something else entirely to try to walk in their shoes. A true existentialist (such as Sartre) would never make the statements Goodman’s correspondents did. Rather, an existentialist point of view would assert that, since people are wont to give birth to children they can’t fully afford, a moral person cannot ignore their needs in arranging his or her life.

IN WHICH MR. CASBURN CUTS TO THE CHASE

Steve Casburn deserves to be the New York Times quote of the day for this:

There are people who say that 9/11 “changed the world forever”. These people know very little about the world.

Straight up, brother. Although you could also say they knew very little about “forever,” too.