This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.
« Is Homeschooling the Best Option? | Main | Comments and Trackbacks Down Again »
April 26, 2005
Why Not Pragmatism?
“I'm still not seeing how I am contributing to the decline of American culture simply by insisting on following in the agnostic tradition of my family rather than converting to Christianity,” wrote a mysteriously named “s9” commenter in response to my post on personal responsibility last week.
s9 added: “I contend that identifying the problem of "cultural decline" is a more complicated job than simply blaming it all on the damned liberals. Satisfying as that might seem.”
I don’t believe I was quite that simplistic, and in fact the analysis was fairly thorough, particularly if the reader would at least scan the good article Stanley Rothman, titled The Decline of Bourgeois America.
My summary narrowed the blame, I’ll admit:
“With the growing rejection of the boundaries and guidance of the Christian tradition, American culture slides away from responsibility as it yields to the temptations of an “expressive individualistic ethic” that emphasizes self as the center of the universe. This makes the “collectivist liberalism” of an ever-active and controlling government attractive because of its promise of egalitarian nirvana.”
But nowhere in my post or in the cited article is there an argument for conversion (although I would recommend it for many reasons, mind you). But as Western culture rejects the moorings of the Christian tradition, the void has resulted in the two trends mentions: expressive individualism and collective liberalism. These trends are at least part of the reason for the decline in personal responsibility.
But I was intrigued by a question, which led to this exchange:
JWJ: If not Christian, on what ethic do you base a call to responsibility?
S9: If you must know, I hold ethics derived from Pragmatism. Yes, the capital 'P' is deliberate. I fail to see how my being raised in a family with a different ethic from a Christian one makes me complicit in the decline of personal responsibility. I was raised in a non-Christian household, so therefore my continuing choice not to convert to Christianity is a rejection of "the moorings of the Christian tradition." It would be nice to know how my choice to do this has contributed to the trends you mention.
JWJ: Actually your rejection of Christ is not necessarily a rejection of "the moorings of the Christian tradition." You enjoy many of the advantages of Judeo-Christian and Christian social, economic, and ethical structures. You can thank Christ for that, even as a non-believer.
If pragmatism is your only ethical basis, I'm glad to have you as commenter but I wouldn't want to have you as a neighbor.
S9: All of those are arguable propositions, but I'll decline the opportunity to argue them.
Worried that having an agnostic in the neighborhood will lower the value of your real estate? My, how Christian of you...
JWJ: If pragmatism reigns for you, please read Pascal's Wager.
S9: Good grief, not that again. You do realize that Pascal's Wager is not argument for the existence of God, but rather an argument for the belief in God. Worse, as a Pragmatist, I've seen the argument before— but presented more cogently.
Pragmatism asks its usual question. "Grant an idea or belief to be true," it says, "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms?"--William James, Pragmatism (1907)
It's not my Pragmatism that makes you dread having me as a neighbor. It's the agnosticism, isn't it?
-----------------
Since I’m not a philosopher or a theologian, I thought I’d pesent this to SCO readers. It seems to me that pure pragmatism, if truly ones life guiding philosophy, is utterly frightening. Living without a transcendent ethic, values based on something other then the utilitarian, is a recipe for social anarchy and spiritual suicide.
Christianity is pragmatic, but not limited to pragmatism. Its ultimate social benefit is that its “living hope” makes faithful adherents the best citizens.
What do you think? Why, then, not pragmatism?
Posted by Jim at April 26, 2005 08:34 AM
Trackback Pings
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Not Pragmatism?:
» Victimhood or Persecution? from drieux's blog
Slacktivist has been tracking the scary persecution complex, here and here, that appears to have infested 'american christianity'. But the real question is whether this is an actual persecution complex or has the VRRK ( Vast Rightwing Religious Konspir... [Read More]
Tracked on May 15, 2005 02:43 PM
Comments
While comments were down yesterday, James Woodyatt made the following comment by email:
This should be very interesting to watch. I'm actually quite interested to see a epresentative evangelical reaction to the philosophy of Pragmatism.
It's very curious to me that Jim should find Pragmatism so frightening. As a pragmatist, I have to say I'm pretty dismayed
to find I am the provocation for such fear and (probably) loathing.
Indeed, why should evangelicals have anything to fear from Pragmatism?
I understand why Catholics tend to oppose Pragmatism. They officially adopted the view that "Americanism" is a heresy, and you pretty much can't get to Pragmatism without first going
there. It's not at all clear to me why evangelicals should follow Catholic doctrine, so I'll be interested to see how this discussion
shakes out.
--
j h woodyatt
Posted by: Jim Jewell at April 27, 2005 05:46 AM
S9 noted the questions from William James:
"Grant an idea or belief to be true," it says, "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms?"
Lacking any transcendant truths, the answers to these questions vary widely from one person to another at one time or another based on one experience or another. Sounds to me like it would degenerate into simple situational ethics, just arrived at from a different place.
We humans are good at short-term thinking and not looking at the big picture over time. For Pragmatists, each of those questions could be suffixed with "today" or "now", as people would generally do, and you have situational ethics. Christians are no different in this predeliction, but a good scriptural foundation provides a peek at the big picture and its importance. If eternity matters, then my personal view of a particular truth, and whether I know enough to figure out its "cash-value in experimental terms", becomes less the issue. This is not to say Christians are to check their brains at the door, but admitting one's own limitations certainly is more pragmatic than imagining that one can figure it all out with time-limited human intellect. Taking some things on faith simply means deferring to someone who knows what he's doing when it's out of our realm of knowledge.
So why would it be frightening? Because I have no idea what the pragmatist thinks from one day or one moment to the next. There is not transcendant guiding principles of right and wrong. While Christians do indeed have a variety of thoughts on different issues, the overriding principle is that we're supposed to be doing what's good in God's eyes because he knows the big picture. (He made the big picture.)
Posted by: Doug Payton at April 27, 2005 09:39 AM
[yes, i'm the j h woodyatt who emailed above]
Doug Payton writes: So why would it be frightening? Because I have no idea what the pragmatist thinks from one day or one moment to the next.
Why should that be frightening? Put another way, why are you comforted by the perception that you do have some idea what someone who rejects Pragmatism thinks from one day or one moment to the next, and where did this perception come from?
Let's be clear: Christianity is not incompatible with Pragmatism. So, are you afraid of all Pragmatists? Or just the non-Christian ones? Or do you want to counter the proposition that Christians can be Pragmatists.
Doug Payton continues: There [are no] transcendent guiding principles of right and wrong.
I'm not sure you how you are using the word "transcendent" here. It's a word with several meanings, and it doesn't seem clear to me which one you are using.
It's certainly not true that Pragmatism admits no moral or ethical principles, but I don't think that's what you're saying. What are you saying?
Doug Payton concludes: While Christians do indeed have a variety of thoughts on different issues, the overriding principle is that we're supposed to be doing what's good in God's eyes because he knows the big picture. (He made the big picture.)
So, can Christians be Pragmatists? Is Pragmatism good in God's eyes? If not Pragmatism, then why not?
Posted by: s9 at April 28, 2005 07:27 PM
plese i have reseach on pragmatism on christianity and i'm going to defend at the of this month will plase send me information to back up my point. thankss
Posted by: Osborn THOMPSON at August 11, 2005 07:43 AM