Consistency between beliefs and action
In his editorial, “Misreading U.S. society,” Richard Larsen himself misreads the Pope. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I am a Philosopher, and Larsen not only allows his presuppositions regarding religion to cloud his arguments, but also makes logical fallacies himself. I will only touch on a few due to space, I am leaving out at least two.
Pope Benedict XVI is quoted as blaming secularism as the cause of a, “growing separation of faith from life.” Larsen translates this to mean, “secular society must always take a back seat when a religion decides its moral and social beliefs must take precedence.” In a number of ways, Larsen simply misses the point. His ‘translation’ is a non sequitur. The Pope, from this and other comments he has made, means that people should live out their faith. In other words, if Americans believe something, they should act upon it. Why would he criticize that?
The Pope is later quoted as saying, “overcoming every separation between faith and life, and countering false gospels of freedom and happiness,” is one of the goals of religious belief. Larsen criticizes this as being un-American. But is it? Everyone’s belief, in a god, in humanism, in atheism, or in themselves, should be consistent with their actions. No one has the right to unbridled freedom and happiness. Besides that, to trade in your beliefs for freedom or happiness is not at all honorable.
Larsen states, “[i]f people are making choices in life that a religion feels go against faith, the fault does not lie with secular society, but with that religion.” Here, both the Pope and Larsen are incorrect, but Larsen’s view creates a straw man while Pope Benedict’s does not. Secularism may indeed contribute to inconstant living, but it is certainly no the cause. The Pope seems to put too much blame on society and not enough, from what is quoted by Larsen, on the individual. However, if an individual is living an inconsistent life, it is also not a religion’s fault. For instance, if a man believes adultery is wrong, but goes out and commits it anyway, how is that the fault of religion? Christianity made me do it? Hinduism forced me to compromise? I cannot be the fault of religion. Either way, it is still the husband who has made the choice, not religion or secularism. And, if the husband commits adultery, we also assume he has rationalized his actions or changed his beliefs.
The largest mistake Larsen makes is justifying humanity’s propensity to believe one way and act another. It seems as though all of us should seek to grow in consistency between our beliefs and our actions. Most would call this integrity or character. If I believe in atheism, then I should act consistently as I follow the outspoken leaders of my ‘faith.’ If I believe, as atheism does, that this life is all there is, then should I not act in a manner that will bring me happiness? It would be inconsistent to do otherwise. So why does Larsen promote an incongruency between beliefs and actions? I assume the writing of his editorial is in line with his beliefs. If he believes the Pope is correct and writes the article, this would be odd. I can only suppose, from reading his piece, that Larsen truly believes the Pope is wrong. At least that is the way the editor is acting.
