dan (2) -central beliefs and the problem of 'shared values'
dan's second post:
In his astute comment Tom has anticipated a number of things that I want to say, so I apologize for any redundancy. As Tom noted, there seems something important and difficult in the idea that it is in virtue of shared values that Micah and I are friends, despite our disagreement about a (the?) fundamental question, viz. Is there a God (for new readers, Micah says “Yes.” I say “No.”)? It seems like explaining a friendship between a theist and an atheist in terms of shared values works because the idea of shared values goes a long way toward explaining how most friendships work. But I don’t think that this kind of explanation will do the trick (without more being said) in this case. Why not?
It seems that there are two broad pictures we might have of what is involved in sharing values with someone. The first is rather intuitive and probably aligns most closely with the kind of things Micah talks about in his post: two people share a substantial set of beliefs, beliefs that guide their actions, how they live etc. The people’s beliefs and the overlap between them can be represented in a Venn diagram as two substantially overlapping circles. We might say that, generally speaking, these two people share the same worldview. Now, when I put it like that, it seems to immediately follow that this first picture cannot accommodate the kind of friendship Micah and I have precisely because it is the fact that we have different worldviews that makes the possibility of the friendship puzzling in the first place. But Micah is right to say that we do share many values. This leads us to the second picture. Here, two people share a number of values, but theses values are at the periphery of at least one of the person’s worldview. The easiest case to imagine is one where the values in question are at the periphery of both people’s lives: Bob and Jack might both love the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, but neither of them structure their lives around that love, so we don’t think that this “shared value” is sufficient to guarantee friendship. Notice that the same is true even if Jack’s love of the team isn’t central to his life while Bob’s is.
But talk of values that are on the “periphery” vs. values that “structure our lives” is ambiguous. Saying that a value is on the periphery might mean that the value doesn’t play an important role in our lives. But we might also mean that while the value does play an important role in our lives, it is peripheral in a structural sense. This just means that the role that the value in question plays in the person’s life can only be made sense of in light of some other, more fundamental, values the person has. Consequently (and this comes right from Tom), while it might look like Bill and Judy share important values, they in fact don’t since the only way to make sense of Bill’s commitment to the supposedly shared values is in terms of his commitment to other values that Judy doesn’t share. They may use the same words in talking about these important, peripheral values, but they don’t mean the same thing by them.
And now the situation looks grim. Our choices are:
a) Micah and I really share some values, but they are peripheral in the first sense (at least for one of us). That is, these values don’t play an important role in how at least one of us leads our life.
b) Micah and I appear share important, peripheral values, but in fact we don’t because (at least) Micah’s commitment to those values can only be made sense of in terms of his commitment to God – a commitment I obviously don’t share since I am an atheist.
Neither ‘solution’ seems satisfying. The first seems totally at odds with the kinds of values that we share, namely those discussed by Micah – our shared values are not peripheral in the first sense. But it also doesn’t seem like we only appear to share these values, while in fact we’re talking about different things. Micah seems absolutely right in saying that the values are both important and shared.
“Then why not say that you share important, non-peripheral values?” I have a longish answer, which I will only hint at here. The problem with this answer presents itself most clearly if we consider Micah’s beliefs as a theist. There is nothing logically wrong with Micah having a set of important values that don’t depend on his Christianity. But it seems unlikely, since this introduces a kind of atomism into his belief system that I’m sure he would reject. Micah need not think that his Christianity structures all his values and beliefs, but surely he must think that it structures his most important values. But if this is the case, the important values that he and I share become peripheral (in either one of the two senses) again. If Micah has a set of beliefs that are important and non-peripheral AND these beliefs aren’t his beliefs about God, Jesus etc., then the idea that his religious beliefs are one kind among many other important, independent beliefs looms as a possibility. But thinking of one’s religious beliefs in this way surely doesn’t do justice to the role they play in one’s life. I suspect that in Micah’s case belief in God is not just another belief. It’s not even a central structural belief. Rather it is the central structural belief. And if this is the case, then an appeal to “shared values” will not solve our puzzle.
In his astute comment Tom has anticipated a number of things that I want to say, so I apologize for any redundancy. As Tom noted, there seems something important and difficult in the idea that it is in virtue of shared values that Micah and I are friends, despite our disagreement about a (the?) fundamental question, viz. Is there a God (for new readers, Micah says “Yes.” I say “No.”)? It seems like explaining a friendship between a theist and an atheist in terms of shared values works because the idea of shared values goes a long way toward explaining how most friendships work. But I don’t think that this kind of explanation will do the trick (without more being said) in this case. Why not?
It seems that there are two broad pictures we might have of what is involved in sharing values with someone. The first is rather intuitive and probably aligns most closely with the kind of things Micah talks about in his post: two people share a substantial set of beliefs, beliefs that guide their actions, how they live etc. The people’s beliefs and the overlap between them can be represented in a Venn diagram as two substantially overlapping circles. We might say that, generally speaking, these two people share the same worldview. Now, when I put it like that, it seems to immediately follow that this first picture cannot accommodate the kind of friendship Micah and I have precisely because it is the fact that we have different worldviews that makes the possibility of the friendship puzzling in the first place. But Micah is right to say that we do share many values. This leads us to the second picture. Here, two people share a number of values, but theses values are at the periphery of at least one of the person’s worldview. The easiest case to imagine is one where the values in question are at the periphery of both people’s lives: Bob and Jack might both love the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, but neither of them structure their lives around that love, so we don’t think that this “shared value” is sufficient to guarantee friendship. Notice that the same is true even if Jack’s love of the team isn’t central to his life while Bob’s is.
But talk of values that are on the “periphery” vs. values that “structure our lives” is ambiguous. Saying that a value is on the periphery might mean that the value doesn’t play an important role in our lives. But we might also mean that while the value does play an important role in our lives, it is peripheral in a structural sense. This just means that the role that the value in question plays in the person’s life can only be made sense of in light of some other, more fundamental, values the person has. Consequently (and this comes right from Tom), while it might look like Bill and Judy share important values, they in fact don’t since the only way to make sense of Bill’s commitment to the supposedly shared values is in terms of his commitment to other values that Judy doesn’t share. They may use the same words in talking about these important, peripheral values, but they don’t mean the same thing by them.
And now the situation looks grim. Our choices are:
a) Micah and I really share some values, but they are peripheral in the first sense (at least for one of us). That is, these values don’t play an important role in how at least one of us leads our life.
b) Micah and I appear share important, peripheral values, but in fact we don’t because (at least) Micah’s commitment to those values can only be made sense of in terms of his commitment to God – a commitment I obviously don’t share since I am an atheist.
Neither ‘solution’ seems satisfying. The first seems totally at odds with the kinds of values that we share, namely those discussed by Micah – our shared values are not peripheral in the first sense. But it also doesn’t seem like we only appear to share these values, while in fact we’re talking about different things. Micah seems absolutely right in saying that the values are both important and shared.
“Then why not say that you share important, non-peripheral values?” I have a longish answer, which I will only hint at here. The problem with this answer presents itself most clearly if we consider Micah’s beliefs as a theist. There is nothing logically wrong with Micah having a set of important values that don’t depend on his Christianity. But it seems unlikely, since this introduces a kind of atomism into his belief system that I’m sure he would reject. Micah need not think that his Christianity structures all his values and beliefs, but surely he must think that it structures his most important values. But if this is the case, the important values that he and I share become peripheral (in either one of the two senses) again. If Micah has a set of beliefs that are important and non-peripheral AND these beliefs aren’t his beliefs about God, Jesus etc., then the idea that his religious beliefs are one kind among many other important, independent beliefs looms as a possibility. But thinking of one’s religious beliefs in this way surely doesn’t do justice to the role they play in one’s life. I suspect that in Micah’s case belief in God is not just another belief. It’s not even a central structural belief. Rather it is the central structural belief. And if this is the case, then an appeal to “shared values” will not solve our puzzle.
posted by micah at 3:19 PM
1 Comments:
i would like to offer my thoughts on the friendship of micah and dan, and i will begin with a couple observations about the puzzle.
first, it is difficult to discuss this puzzle from a neutral point of view. in fact, i’m not sure that it is possible to address this puzzle without doing so as a theist or as an atheist.
second, maybe there is too much emphasis here placed on belief as intellectual assent.
i hope both of these will become clearer in a moment.
as a christian, i, like much of my tradition before me, do not conceive of God (only) as a transcendent force wholly other to us and our rationality, as only revealing Godself in bursts of mystical revelation that contradict everything we know about the world and ourselves. part of the thing about the Christian God (and to various extents, the Muslim and Jewish God) is that God is immanent in creation and especially in us. this is part of what it means to be made in the image of God.
there are a few consequences of this: first, our rationality and emotionality are structured such that our values should bear some semblance to God’s value structure; second, one can respond to this immanent God without believing in the existence of God (or, in fact, realizing that it is God to whom one is responding); and third, an atheist can respond to God more than one who “believes in” God. this last consequence speaks to the difference in the belief-as-intellectual assent mechanisms and the response mechanisms.
sidenote before continuing on puzzle: the place of God/Christianity in relation to values is mostly one, i think, of providing clarity, specific content, and resources for effecting. one example is forgiveness. i think both an atheist and a theist can come to value forgiveness, but for a Christian, the picture of Christ on the cross provides an image for what forgiveness looks like and it provides resources for being able to forgive (i have been forgiven in the costliest manner, so therefore…).
with these preliminaries in place, i think there is a more constructive way to talk about what micah and dan share without just telling dan that he is unknowingly responding to God. i don’t want to say that there is one character trait that is the “source of values,” but i would guess one important and fundamental thing you share is a pretty earnest desire and respect for truth. such a respect gives you several things important to a relationship: first, it gives you a common interest in which to absorb yourselves; second, it makes you sensitive to the world and people around you, ideally attending to them with care and other-regarding interest; third, it enables you both to grow and adapt as new variables are introduced into your lives; fourth, it takes you out of yourselves and minimizes relational fears and insecurities. this comment is too long, so i’ll resist explaining these consequences and pulling all my comments together, which could maybe take me, but maybe you see the direction in which i’m gesturing?
this is my basic point. for Christians, truth is a specific person: Christ. but as simone weil said, when Christ and truth seem to conflict, it is better to choose truth, which does not as easily degenerate into ego consolation, and through which we will find Christ as Christ really is. so the atheist search for truth and Christian search for Christ end up looking and in some ways being the same. in this situation, to the atheist, it looks like the theist’s belief in God is always peripheral. to the theist, it looks like the atheist is always responding/attending to God.
Post a Comment
<< Home