Belief and behavior are inseparable because what you believe determines how you behave. Nevertheless, there are significant differences between ideologies that emphasize "right beliefs" (orthodoxy) and those that emphasize "right behavior" (orthopraxy). That's especially true when it comes to religions. Why do you suppose that is?
Rob W. writes:
I still have a problem with how the whole issue of "belief" is taught in Christianity. I know that there are something like 2 billion Christians, and I don't want to slam all of them. I'm talking about the rhetoric I get from Fundigelicals.
If we are talking about beliefs directly relating to what is ethical in real life, then that's where I agree that beliefs are important. The problem I have is when someone says that the most important belief you can have is in some theological model (fairy tale?), and that such a belief virtually trumps all else for eternity. See Edward Currant's video on You Tube called "Atheist Meets G-d." This kind of belief sounds semi divorced from real life.
If you do acts of goodness and kindness throughout your life, but you don't buy the story of Jesus' magical blood washing away the sins of the (believing part of the) world, then you will be eternally punished!? What kind of stupid teaching is that?
And if you rape, torture, and murder a thousand nuns and orphans, but you sincerely repent (while you are still physically alive) and buy the Jesus story, then you get eternal reward?! And people say that G-d was mean in the so-called Old Testament.
At least in the OT, you can rest in peace after G-d smites you. The point is that Christianity is teaching that there is eternal punishment or reward based not on conduct so much as simply belief -- and theological belief, not necessarily ethical belief. That's the problem.
Jews are supposed to believe in the Revelation at Mount Sinai, but we don't burn in hell if we happen to be skeptical. But here's where your point returns to the forefront, Austin. If it takes believing in the Revelation at Sinai for a given Jew to behave himself, then you are right. However, if a Jew is a skeptic, but finds plenty of other reasons to behave well, his mere inner skepticism is not in and of itself a sin. That's the difference.
[original post]
On the one hand, it doesn't make much sense to emphasize beliefs to the point where behavior doesn't matter. When put in extreme terms like the above, it becomes no merely nonsensical, but downright immoral.
On the other hand, you can't count on behaving correctly in anything like a consistent, reliable manner unless you start out with correct beliefs. This is why, for example, science emphasizes methodology so much.
It's better to arrive at the wrong conclusions by using the right methods than to cheat in order to get the "right" results. By using the right methods, it's easier to make corrections and improve later. If you just flip a coin, cheat, or rely upon other incorrect methods and beliefs, you can't count on arriving at the right conclusions later. Or ever.
What do you think? Would you prefer that people do the "right" thing regardless of why, or do you prefer that people people adopt the correct methods and ideas and make some mistakes in their conclusions or resulting behavior?
No comments:
Post a Comment