James Wood is appalled by the kind of thing
believers say when disaster strikes. The tone of his
editorial makes one wonder if he can speak about the approach to life he
opposes – belief in God - without caricaturing it.
Woods is right to point out that average
Haitians no less than preachers and Presidents respond to disaster by investing
it with significance of two fundamental kinds: (1) “it’s a wakeup call”; and
(2) “it could’ve been me.” But he is wrong to play off one response against the
other. And he is foolish to think that the “the luck of the draw”
interpretation of harmful events – the enlightened atheist interpretation on
his reckoning - marks an advance.
It is constitutive of the learning reflex to
think of bad things that happen as wake-up calls. The reasons why an individual
has a heart-attack are, from an empirical standpoint, next to inscrutable. Nature
(inherited traits), nurture (acquired habits of diet, sleep, and exercise), and
Wood’s global answer, the luck of the draw, are all contributing factors.
The wise individual who survives a heart
attack will nonetheless focus on the one factor she has control over: acquired
habits. She will identify habits worth changing and strive to modify them. She
may respond, not only be becoming less of a couch potato, but by reconciling
with a former friend and giving more of herself to others. It would be churlish
to point out that her response is misguided because her heart attack was caused
by a congenital condition. Even if that were the case, something about which
theists and atheists alike have no certain knowledge.
A Haitian put it this way, “I blame man. God
gave us nature, and we Haitians, and our governments, abused the land. You
cannot get away without consequences.”
Wood does not notice that this is a wise
response. He finds it wanting. But it is exactly the kind of response one hopes
an individual will take after surviving a disaster, whether the disaster is
personal (a heart attack) or cosmic (an earthquake, a hurricane). This is true
regardless of the fact that nature and “luck” may have had more to do with the
extent of the damage done than choices made by the individual and the
collectivity to which he belongs - structural, circumstantial, and singular
choices.
What about the response: “but for the grace
of God, there go I”? Wood finds this response as wanting as the first. He seems
to think of the two responses as an either/ or. In reality they are flip sides
of the same coin.
The “it could’ve been me” response, if
expressed by a well-adjusted person, is a mark of humility. We are not captains
of our own destiny. Life is a gift, not something we are entitled to.
If I’m driving down the highway, and a
vehicle flies into the ditch in order to avoid an accident, the responsible
thing to do is to stop and help the people in the vehicle in the ditch. They
nearly got themselves killed. One or more passengers may be injured. It’s time
to help.
But for a sheer gift of God or fate, it could
have been my vehicle that flew into the ditch, or my vehicle that made a
head-on collision with the truck that crossed the median and ploughed into
incoming traffic.
An awareness of how contingent life is on
“acts of God” does not lead, within the metanarrative a Jew or a Christian
espouses, to random acts of kindness or random acts of irresponsibility. It
leads to deliberate acts of kindness in the face of particular
tragedies.
The atheist gripe with the approach to life
of theists is trivial. It is bothered by the theistic personalization of events
that, from the objective standpoint of a Martian, are impersonal. It is no less
bothered by the theistic depersonalization of events that, once again from an
objective point of view, are clearly personal. Such as the believer’s response
to wanton harm caused by others: “Forgive them, for they know not what they
do.”
What the atheist seems not to notice is that
theistic responses to the vicissitudes of life are survival strategies
possessed of complexity and a high if inadequate degree of effectiveness.
This is more than one say of the atheistic
response to the vicissitudes of life. If there is such a thing.
“Dead trees grow greener when you pray,” sang
Canadian folksinger Bruce Cockburn. The famous atheist Dawkins self-identifies
as a “cultural Christian.” I’m happy for him. He needs something to get
him through the day. Even if he has no reason to be a responsible person
and engage in deliberate acts of kindness which cannot possibly redound to his
ulterior benefit except on the premise that the world is possessed of a moral
order, at least he does so.
If anything, that makes his actions more
commendable than the actions of someone who deals kindly with others on the
premise that to do so is its own reward, and will be rewarded again on the last
day.
But then, one must be a theist to draw such a positive conclusion about the commendableness of typical atheist behavior.
I wonder what Wood would say about the things
written by believers everyday in response to events in Haiti, for example, those
collected on Wordpress, not to mention the powerful reaction of fellow biblical blogger Celucien
Joseph, the only blogger in our midst, I imagine, who is fluent in French, Haitian Creole, and English.
For a pdf of this post, go here.
Wonderful reflections, John! I get what you're saying, but it's coming across with "Psalm 14" written all over it.
I can see in his article the modern assumption that suffering is to be avoided at all costs. Plus, as you mention, his (true) false dichotomy of causation.
What are your thoughts on how calamities impact people's theology? Do some people temporarily adopt a theological fatalism as a defense mechanism against the fear of vulnerability to calamity? Do others (hastily) assume divine judgment in order to assign meaning and thus escape theodicy?
Also, I think the one Haitian was not far from the mark when he said we sinned against the land. If Genesis is a normative story of faith, then this is true. In Genesis 3 we took from the land what was not ours. The next chapter had the perversion of human blood poured onto the earth. To save the earth from the corruption of violence, the flood... etc. And then Noah abuses the fruits of the earth RIGHT after God makes the new covenant with him. If we take the earth as a character in Genesis, then we did indeed mistreat it.
Posted by: Gary Simmons | January 24, 2010 at 06:58 PM
I was particularly annoyed by Wood's last line pitting reality against the God of the narrative. As a theist, and a firm believer in the God of the biblical narrative, I do not see the separation between what I experience as reality and the reality portrayed in the text. I read plenty of destruction, natural devastation and other topics that ignite passionate anger within me toward the God I love.
Anyways, Wood seems to me the perfect example of the New York leftist literati and thus I was intrigued to see his response. He's loosely religious (though an unbeliever), knows something of religion proper from his Presbyterian mother and generic Anglican upbringing. In other words, he's perfect for magazines like the New Yorker when they want a critique of the new atheists that doesn't come from a religious perspective (or when they can't get agnostic/deistic mystics like Robert Wright and Karen Armstrong to join in the conversation).
Although their writings and the responses seem so tired now, and I can't imagine the cultural impact continuing into this decade, Wood's "God in the Quad," tore the New Atheism to shreds. Unfortunately, it also showed a theological ignorance (although it obviously doesn't take theological maturity to dissect the writings he was critiquing). Thus, he exemplifies the leftist American who rejects faith, but needs something to fill the void...but fears actually digging deeply into theology. Naturally, the article received the expected rebuttal from Sam Harris, but surprisingly also from Thomas Long, who wrote in to defend Barth against Wood's interpretation (one should question those who attempt to defend Barth on any position, but I think Long was right in this regard).
This article only confirmed my opinion of Wood from his New Yorker article. He seeks to discuss the theological aspects without engaging theology too deeply. Thus, an article requiring a robust theological foundation ends up critiquing two views unjustly and concluding by forcing the reader to decide between a false dichotomy.
Posted by: Ranger | January 25, 2010 at 10:46 PM
Gary and Ranger,
Thanks for the comments. I sometimes wonder if loosely religious atheists like Wood find it impossible to locate a classical theist in the circles they travel, someone they might carry on a decent conversation with on these matters, or if they avoid classical theists as if they were the plague though they know right where to find them.
Posted by: JohnFH | January 26, 2010 at 12:09 AM
John,
You've asked the right question. It's no mistake that the recent n+1 panel on evangelicalism consisted of Wood, Malcolm Gladwell, who is "the son of liberal evangelical mennonites" and Christine Smallwood, who grew actually grew up in evangelicalism, was "saved" at a revival when she was 14 and shortly thereafter rejected evangelicalism (and possibly Christianity although she never really said?). There wasn't a single evangelical on the panel, the moderator was Catholic (I believe) and very few in attendance (from what I heard) would associate with evangelicalism.
Of course (as opposed to forty years ago) just about every major university in the United States has evangelical professors, many chair their departments. They are CEO's of businesses all over, and there are a few booming evangelical churches right in the heart of New York where I'm sure they could have found some interested intellectual evangelicals to discuss the topic with.
I think their circles are just very small and they are amazed to find people outside of them who are just as intelligent with different, dare I say, opposing viewpoints.
Posted by: Ranger | January 26, 2010 at 01:15 AM
Honest-to-goodness Catholics and Orthodox, if they are at all articulate about their beliefs, are apparently not a part of the circles in which people like Wood travel either.
The cocooning reflex is endemic among the literati of a certain cast. Whenever I see this among evangelicals, which is often, I am equally appalled.
Posted by: JohnFH | January 26, 2010 at 08:19 PM
Thank you for your comments on my piece. You are absolutely right that most of us respond to terrible events by concluding that (1) they are wake-up calls and that (2) it could have happened to me. You are also right to conclude that the idiomatic phrase 'there but for the grace of God go I' is a statement of humility -- I made it quite clear in the piece that this is obviously how President Obama intended it.
What you don't address is why any of these perfectly understandable and humane responses are in any way specifically religious. What does God have to do with it? A God at best inscrutably absent, and at worst non-existent. That is what irritated me about Obama's phrase -- it was dead religion. He was using a secular humility, and a secular notion of luck, but rather lazily invoking God because it 'sounds better'. I wish he had just had the courage of his actual beliefs and simply said: 'Mindful of the fact that it could have happened to us.'
And nothing you wrote adds a single tincture of understanding to this awful tragedy, in a theological sense. However you slice it, theodicy is a lousy game, and best left well alone.
The intellectual quality of your evangelical correspondents is low. When 'Ranger' says that I don't 'engage with theology too deeply' what he of course means is that I don't share his belief in God. It's not quite the same thing...
Best wishes
James Wood
Posted by: James Wood | January 29, 2010 at 12:40 AM
James,
It's nice of you to comment. My first reaction: one man's trash is another man's treasure. A theistic religion provides a wonderfully resonant context in which the perfectly understandable and humane responses referred to can be fleshed out. That's how I see it. I would be in the wrong profession if I thought otherwise.
You might be right that Obama's religiosity is lazy. I prefer to reserve judgment. Other explanations are possible, such as: a sense on his part that the discourse of civil religion requires more often than not a high degree of superficiality.
Note that in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech he deployed Reinhold Niebuhr to reasonable effect (to the horror, perhaps, of his Euroleft audience).
I'm not so sure that one can detach the humane responses referred to *without remainder* from a religious matrix. No one doubts that religion is, historically speaking, their matrix. Sever the phrases from a location in that kind of humus, and they become cut flowers to put in a vase of water, destined to die in a day.
Since I am convinced that the book of Job gets it right, I am opposed to theodicy. The book of Job, as I understand it, is an anti-theodicy. Some relevant posts:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/12/when-apologetics-incur-gods-wrath.html
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2006/11/an_introduction.html
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/01/why-it-is-important-not-to-love-the-god-of-the-bible.html
Enjoy. I think you might.
Posted by: JohnFH | January 29, 2010 at 01:27 AM
James,
Thanks for the response. I'm sorry that you were clearly insulted by my comments, and I promise to work harder at my "intellectual quality" in the future With that said, I still feel that what I've read of your work shows a lack of deep engagement (entailing a respectful reading and accurate articulation of the work in question), and it has nothing to do with your lack of theistic belief. Thus, my comments about how both theologians and atheologians responded to your piece on the New Atheism (which I praised).
John,
I would have responded sooner, but I got sidetracked by the birth of our third child! I completely agree with your response and also think that evangelicals easily fall into the same trap.
Posted by: Ranger | January 29, 2010 at 04:20 AM
Ranger,
You are going to be gloriously sidetracked for a long time! Our third child, a caboose as they say in this neck of the woods, is a source of great happiness.
Posted by: JohnFH | January 29, 2010 at 09:23 AM
Earthquakes happen because Earth is still a cooling planet. It has boiling liquid at its core. It is a "dynamic" Earth, as one scientist put it, that's why tectonic plates move. Earthquakes happen not by the will of some supernatural powers. If you believe that some god is responsible for causing it to happen, then prove it. But if you cannot prove that a "god" exists that controls our destiny, then it is best to keep quiet. As Buddha said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Sir, it seems to me that you have just written a stupid article.
Posted by: freakclub | March 03, 2010 at 09:20 PM
Freakclub,
Did you even take the time to read the above post? It would appear not. You are quite off-topic.
For the rest, but perhaps you do not know this, followers of Buddha think they know of all sorts of things. Such as, it's important to feed and wash the Buddha every day.
I don't say this to make fun of Buddhism. I just want to point out how carelessly unconcerned you are with the bigger picture.
Posted by: JohnFH | March 03, 2010 at 10:04 PM