“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 my 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?
rooftop 