Coerced Morality?

[Guest guest]

This is a great article concerning morality -- written by

Paul Roberts <netpaul and used with his

permission. It first appeared on the ContemplativEclectic

Mail List.

 

Enjoy,

 

Victor

 

========

 

In no small measure, hell's future and form in modern

religious life are likely to hinge on its efficacy in

influencing moral behavior. Can the threat of hell prod

people toward piety and virtue? In seeking to retrieve the

doctrine from the trash heap of modern skepticism, both the

pope and his more conservative Protestant co-religionists

seem convinced that it can. " If there is no God, no heaven,

no hell, " says Prof. Jerry L. Walls of Asbury Theological

Seminary, writing in Christianity Today, " there simply is no

persuasive reason to be moral. "

 

========

 

A while back, John Paul II wrote a brief survey of some of

the world's major religions...a book called " Crossing the

Threshhold of Hope " . In it, he made approving statements

about every path he surveyed (Judaism, Islam, etc)...with

the exception of Buddhism, much to the dismay of the

Buddhist community. (I am not a member of that community,

btw). Buddhism he viewed as a bad deal for the human race

....a pernicious idea...precisely for the reason articulated

above. His critique, and that of the conservative

protestants who speak through the pages of such journals as

Christianity Today, is worth examining...worth contemplating

eclectically, in my opinion.

 

For those of you not familiar with her process, Byron Katie

has this set of questions she uses to deconstruct memes...

belief viruses that infect our brains and cause us to

respond robotically rather than from our core. It can be

very effective (I have found) both in dealing with personal

clusterfucks (my own term for belief clusters which tend to

make me crazy in one way or another) and clusterfucks which

make the race crazy as well. Getting off the clusterfuck

train is, I assert, exactly the process of emptying every

mystic in every tradition goes through, by whatever means,

in order to be able to receive an infusion of what I will

call grace. Said another way, letting go (or at least

holding loosely) my beliefs about who I am (and am not), how

things work (or don't), what is true (or isn't), without

throwing the discriminative capacity of my rational mind

entirely in the toilet, allows me to know IT...and IT to

infuse and transform me.

 

So...here are Katie's deceptively simply questions...useful

to ask about any belief, assertion, story that you, me, the

Pope, or anyone else asserts:

 

Is it true?

Can I (or we) really know that it's true?

What do I (or we) get for holding that belief?

Who would I (or we) be without that belief?

 

The usefulness of these questions comes in asking them as a

meditation...or a contemplation...in being still with them

....not simply listening to the initial chatter of monkey

mind (with it's snappy, pre-canned, conditioned answers) but

to the still, small voice within. I have found them useful

in my own life when things have begun to feel tar-babyish...

when stuck in that which is my own conditioned and

conditional thinking which expresses nothing more or less

than my own snarled up programmed behavior.

 

So...to the propostion at hand: " If there is no God, no

heaven, no hell there simply is no persuasive reason to be

moral. "

 

First questions: Is it true? Can we really know that?

 

As I quiet myself, and listen within, I note that I live in

a world without the memes (belief viruses) of " God " ,

" heaven " , or " hell " . And yet (adjusting dented halo) I find

plenty of reason to choose a moral path for its own sake.

It simply feels like what I want to do...what causes me to

feel at home with myself and the universe at the deepest

level. It reflects my highest values...it is who I AM...it

aligns big SELF and little self in a way that feels right

(not righteous)...makes me feel whole (not holy).

 

I shift my contemplative gaze outwards...towards others,

living and dead, who seem to share a similar perspective.

The Dalai Lama comes quickly to mind. He also, I believe,

at a recent Congress of World Religions, has identified his

path as one without these particular memes...and yet he too

somehow finds persuasive reason to be moral...and to be a

world teacher of attitudes and characteristics such as

peace, tolerance, patience, love of one's enemies, etc that

are entirely congruent with the highest moral vision of

thiests like our brother John Paul II.

 

I contemplate further the historical arc of buddhism...and

the teachings in particular of the one we call Buddha.

Unlike Jesus called the Christ, he lived a life of peace

until age 80, surrounded by many learned men who wrote down

accurately many of his teachings...so we can have great

confidence, not in the truth of his teachings, but in the

accuracy with which they are passed down to us. Many

biblical scholars, on the other hand, seem to be in

agreement that the teachings of Jesus survived as oral

tradition only...and were not written down for some 70

years. That's some game of telephone (if you recall your

childhood fun).

 

Buddha was asked directly about the " God " meme...and his

reply was that it was an unnecessary question as far as he

was concerned...a distraction from the path he was offering.

It is important to note that he didn't assert that there was

no God...he simply refused to answer the question! And yet,

without engaging the " God " meme, either pro or con, he is

surely recognized as one of the greatest of moral teachers

in the history of the race.

 

So...back to the question: Is it true, this propostion,

that " If there is no God, no heaven, no hell there simply is

no persuasive reason to be moral. "

 

The still small voice tells me: No...it is not true. It

may be true for some people some of the time...but it is not

TRUTH.

 

So...next question: What do we get (as a race) for holding

that belief?

 

Of course there ARE 6 billion stories in the naked city...

but I'll simply ask the question and let each who wants to

share this contemplation find answers in their own personal

experience as well as their experiencial observation of

their families, friends and acquaintances. And (please

note) I am not asking the question about the generic

usefulness of the " God " meme (which provides great comfort

to many many people in many many ways), but about the

specific proposition about there being no persuasive reason

to be moral without it.

 

So, what's the payoff? What DO we get for holding that

belief? Some answers that bubble up are:

 

We can get to feel like we understand how the universe works.

We can get a sense of mission about persuading others to let

our memes in this area infect their brains.

We can get to feel that we are more moral than our neighbors

who lack this meme infection.

We can get to feel that anyone who rejects the

" God-heaven-hell " memes is wrong and we are right.

We can get to feel that anyone who rejects the

" God-heaven-hell " memes...and particularly anyone who teaches

from that space (like the Dalai Lama) is somehow a threat to

the moral unfolding of the planet.

We get to respond to the threat by warning the world of it.

We can get to feel our separateness as power.

We can get to experience contempt...however subtly it is

dressed up...for others and their path.

 

As I listen to the voice within, and these things bubble up,

I find myself recognizing that these " payoffs " have as much

power in my life, if left unexamined, as they do in anyone

else's life. In other words, I am no more immune from subtle

contempt, subtle metaphysical one-upmanship, than

conservative theologians, of whatever thiestic persuasion...

it's ALL the chattering of monkey mind seeking to enthrone

it's furry monkey butt on the throne where it doesn't really

belong. It's the human condition...it's what we do...you,

me, the religious/theological professionals and amateurs

alike...when we aren't quite paying attention to the voice

within the Silence.

 

On to Katie's final question: Who would we be, as a race,

without the belief " If there is no God, no heaven, no hell

there simply is no persuasive reason to be moral. "

 

Please note that stating this question does not ask anyone

to abandon their own personal meme toolkit. If such

" God-heaven-hell " memes serve YOU in YOUR walk, help YOU

keep YOURself from rape, plunder and pillage, then by all

means rock on. The question is whether it makes sense, adds

value, increases the general moral tone of the entire world

....of the race...to insist that YOUR memes should be mine

(and everyone's) as well...and that without accepting them

as my own, I have no persuasive reason to be moral (and by

extension will ultimately revert back to reptilian brain

behavior).

 

So who would WE be...what would WE be like...as a race,

without this particular belief?

 

Would we be more tolerant? Or less?

More judgmental of others? Or less?

More aware of our core oneness? Or less?

More respectful of others' path? Or less?

More virtuous? Or less?

More like Jesus and Buddha? Or less?

 

As I close, I lightly toss the following salad into these

scrambled eggs, just for the hell of it (whoops!)...a bit of

deconstruction instruction (with memes...grin) from the Tao

Te Ching (Mitchell translation).

 

========

19

Throw away holiness and wisdom,

and people will be a hundred times happier.

Throw away morality and justice,

and people will do the right thing.

Throw away industry and profit,

and there won't be any thieves.

 

If these three aren't enough,

just stay at the center of the circle

and let all things take their course.

 

 

==========

 

NetPaul