On all the views of faith considered in the last chapter, saving faith, the faith which is required for the practice of the Christian religion involves both having a good purpose and having certain beliefs, but on diVerent views of faith diVerent kinds of belief are needed. In this chapter I shall investigate with respect to religions generally, and in particular with respect to the Christian religion, the purpose of following a religion.
Then we shall be in a position to discuss in Chapter 6 the kind of belief which is required for that pursuit, and, in particular, the kind of belief which is required for pursuit of the Christian religion.
R E L I G I O N , S A LVAT I O N , WAY, A N D C R E ED D EF I N E D
What is a religion? This concept may be understood in ways varying from a very narrow understanding to a very broad understanding. One may understand a religion as a pursuit which involves worship of a God and an attempt to conform to His will. But such an understanding would rule out some forms of Buddhism, in which worship of a God has no importance. Or one can understand a religion as any pursuit which dominates the life of many people and cements them together in common dedication to an aim. On this understanding, not merely Christianity and Buddhism but Marxism would also count as a religion.
I shall adopt an understanding of religion which includes Buddhism as a religion but excludes Marxism. I believe that such an understanding conforms best to ordinary usage. It sounds odd to call Marxism a
‘religion’; religion is supposed to have some concern with extra-mundane entities and goals. It will be useful to me to conform to normal usage because the point of pursuing a Christian way and the
point of pursuing a Buddhist way have certain similarities, whereas the point of pursuing a Marxist way is rather diVerent.
I propose to understand by a religion a system which oVers what I call salvation, a term which I deWned in Chapter 3 simply as ‘deep well-being’. Well-being belongs to someone, I suggest, in so far as he performs good actions in a situation where it is good to be and he knows that he is in that situation and wants to be doing those actions.
The well-being is deep in so far as the good actions are of great sign-iWcance for the subject and for others: and the good situation includes a right relation to whatever is the ultimate source of being, as well as to all other humans; and the well-being is everlasting. Hence, salvation must include worship of whatever supernatural being deserves worship, and forgiveness from, and reconciliation with, any such beings whom we have wronged, as well as helping other humans to attain their well-being. Our situation may involve any source of our existence as well as other humans helping us towards well-being. The interaction with other humans in helping each other towards well-being will have a natural expression in a community, a Church bound together by ritual. And we shall need to know the nature of the universe and the purpose of our existence and so which actions are greatly good. And we shall need to want to be doing those actions. I shall call a system a religion if it oVers a package containing most of these elements.
Christianity is one of a number of rival religions which oVers such a package. It tells us that the world is dependent for its existence on God, and that He is dependent on nothing; and it tells us something about God’s nature. And it assures us that if we pursue the Christian way with diligence in this life and after this life, we shall grow into a very full understanding of these things. Like Islam and much modern Judaism, it oVers forgiveness from God and reconciliation with Him, and guidance on how to live an abundantly worthwhile life and the opportunity to live such a life of worship and service; and a continuation and deepening of this well-being in the joy of Heaven where the Blessed shall ‘see God’.
The religion of the people of Israel for all the centuries except the last two before Christ also oVered a package containing all these elements, except the last one—the religion of the Old Testament did not oVer a worthwhile life after death. Hinduism and Buddhism, however, also oVer salvation, but of a diVerent kind from that oVered by Christianity.
Buddhism and some forms of Hinduism do not oVer forgiveness from,
and reconciliation with, divine beings, but most forms of these religions oVer many of the other elements of salvation. They oVer humans an understanding of the world (often a very diVerent one from that of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) and show them a worthwhile way to live; and they assure them that if they follow that way, then, by a series of reincarnations in this world, they will eventually escape pointlessness and attain a deeply worthwhile state (e.g. nirvana). All of these systems provide a community (bound together by ritual) of people who seek to live in the way commended—a Church of some sort. Marxism, by contrast, oVers relatively little of the package. True, it oVers an under-standing of the world. But it oVers no forgiveness and reconciliation, no guidance as to the most worthwhile way to live (for a typical Marxist, values are subjective), and no long-term well-being (since the Marxist holds that one life on this Earth is all that a person has). I conclude that my understanding of a religion includes those systems which we most naturally include as religions, and excludes those which we most natur-ally exclude.
A religion involves two elements—a way and a creed. By a ‘way’
I understand a life style, a collection of kinds of action. In The Acts of the Apostles the Christian religion is often called ‘the way’;1 and living the Buddhist life is often called following the ‘noble eight-fold way’. A creed is a doctrinal system. Each religion teaches that one reason for pursuing its religious way, though not necessarily the primary reason, is to obtain salvation for oneself. The creed of a religion explains why the pursuit of its way will lead to salvation for oneself, and the fulWlment of the other reasons for pursuing its way. I shall now illustrate the concept of a religious way by spelling out what constitutes following the Christian way and what constitutes following the Buddhist way.
T H E C H R I S T I A N WAY
To follow the Christian way, a person must do the actions of the kind commanded or commended by, and refrain from actions of the kind forbidden or discouaged by, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and St Paul’s Letters. To do the actions commanded and to
1 e.g. Acts 9: 2.
refrain from the actions forbidden is obligatory. If there are actions commended but not commanded, and actions which we are discour-aged from doing though not forbidden to do, then it is good, but not obligatory, to do the former and not to do the latter. And following the Christian way includes doing what is good as well as what is obligatory.
Or, rather, in order to follow the Christian way a person must have the Wrm purpose to do what is commanded and commended—I shall take for granted throughout this chapter that while it matters that the Christian’s good purposes (e.g. to feed the starving) should succeed (e.g. that the starving be fed), what makes the Christian a person of faith is simply that he tries to make them succeed. The way of life which constitutes the Christian way is often given more detailed form in the teaching of diVerent Christian denominations, and especially in the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
Some of the actions commanded—it is highly plausible to suppose—
are morally obligatory anyway, and some of the actions forbidden are morally wrong (that is, obligatory not to do) whether or not there is a God. It is obligatory to pay one’s debts, and to feed one’s children;
wrong to lie and steal—whether or not there is a God. Many of the actions commended are good (even when not obligatory) anyway whether or not there is a God. It is good to devote one’s life to helping many people (including oneself ) to lead a deeply happy life, which will include understanding the world and beautifying it, and developing friendships. Some such actions are (at any rate if there is no God) supererogatorily good, for example devoting one’s life to feeding and educating the poor in distant lands, or throwing oneself on a grenade to save the life of a comrade. And some actions are bad (even if not wrong) whether or not there is a God, for example slouching in front of the television for long hours and watching third-rate sitcoms, while eating far more than one needs.
The moral quality (goodness, badness, or whatever) of some of these actions may be fairly evident to honest reXection. There are I suggest, however, some actions which would be good or bad or neither as the case may be whether or not there is a God, but ones for which Christianity is right to claim that many of us are not able to detect their moral quality without help from God. Honest and morally thoughtful people disagree about whether euthanasia is always wrong or only sometimes wrong; whether sexual relations between people of
the same sex are good or bad; whether abortion is sometimes justiWed, and so on. Roman Catholics and many other Christians claim, however, that God has revealed to his Church or in the Bible the answers to these moral dilemmas—and those answers give further content to what the pursuit of the Christian way consists in. Following the religious way will include trying to discover in more detail which actions are obligatory and which are good, in order that we may do these.
But pursuing the Christian way also involves doing many actions which would have no point (would be neither obligatory or supereroga-tory or otherwise good) if there were no God. It involves worship of God; and, more particularly, it involves being baptized, joining in the eucharistic and other worship of the Christian Church, and private prayer. The prayer will include seeking forgiveness from God for the wrongs we have done to him (our sins), petitionary prayer for the well-being of oneself and others, attempting to persuade others to pursue the Christian way in order to secure their salvation, and much else. Spend-ing quite a lot of one’s time doSpend-ing such actions is obligatory—on a Christian view. We owe such worship and service to God, who made and sustains us. And all actions which would be obligatory anyway (if there were no God) become doubly obligatory if there is a God—we owe it both to God who made us and them and to our children to feed our children. And some actions which would be good but not obliga-tory, e.g. supererogaobliga-tory, if there were no God, become obligatory.
Giving more of one’s money to feed the poor than would otherwise be obligatory perhaps comes into this category.
It has been a matter of dispute within Christianity whether—given that there is a God—there are any supererogatory acts (or acts otherwise good, but not obligatory). For the classical Protestant there are no
‘works of supererogation’; such is the extent of our obligations to God that there is no time left for us to do superogatory (or other good) acts.
The normal Catholic view is that there is scope for doing more than one is obliged to do; one is obliged to fulWl the Ten Commandments and various precepts laid down by the Church (for example, to attend Mass on Sundays), but total dedication to the good is not obligatory. Chris-tians also hold that God has particular plans for particular people, often whole patterns of life (vocations) to which He calls them; and it is an obligation to fulWl one’s vocation. Some Christians perhaps have a vocation to the monastic life, and so to take and fulWl vows of poverty,
chastity, and obedience; but that is not obligatory for all Christians. All of these actions are obligatory or supererogatory, as the case may be, either because of their intrinsic nature or because God has commanded them (and so are obligatory) or commended them (and so are super-erogatory).2 It is a matter of dispute within Christianity how far some-one has an obligation to seek his own salvation—the normal medieval and post-medieval Catholic view was that, although there is no obliga-tion to do those acts which most directly forward one’s salvaobliga-tion, there is an obligation to do acts which make some progress in that direction, and that means at least fulWlling the Ten Commandments and various precepts laid down by the Church. Thereby we would take some small steps towards forming our character for good.3 But, of course, there would be no guarantee that God will provide salvation, at any rate immediately after death, to those whose dedication to achieving it is thus limited. If there are supererogatory acts, following the Christian way fully will involve doing more than merely fulWlling one’s obligations to God and others.
Other religions commend other ‘ways’, other life styles. The ways of many religions overlap to a signiWcant extent with each other and with the Christian way. For most other religions, as for Christianity, it is good to feed the starving and obligatory to pay one’s debts; but they give diVerent teaching about whether, and how, God or gods are to be worshipped, and also about how far it is good, or obligatory, to convert others to that religion.
T H E B U D D H I S T WAY
As an example of a religious way which overlaps signiWcantly with, but also diverges signiWcantly from, the Christian way, I take the Buddhist way. This way, I note to begin with, does not seem to have quite as sharp a division between the obligatory and the supererogatory, or the wrong
2 For full discussion of the extent and grounds of obligation and supererogation, given the existence of a Christian God, see Responsibility and Atonement (Clarendon Press, 1989), ch. 8.
3 ‘Since a precept can be fulWlled in diVerent ways, a person does not transgress the precept if he does not fulWl it in the best way; it is enough that he should fulWl it in some way or other’, Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2a. 2ae. 184.3 ad. 2.
and the merely bad, as there is at any rate in Catholic Christianity.
I delineate the Buddhist way in terms of the three trainings: in ethics, meditation, and wisdom. On the negative side, the Buddhist way of ethics has a list of ten bad actions from which people are enjoined to refrain. Three are physical: killing, stealing, sexual misconduct. Four are verbal: lying, divisive speech, harsh speech, and senseless speech. Three are mental: covetousness, harmful intent, wrong view.4 While followers of most religions, including Christianity, would agree that actions of each of these kinds understood in their way are bad, diVerences emerge in the detailed spelling out. While for Christians, as for Buddhists, it is good not to kill humans (barring special circumstances—e.g. killing enemy combatants in the course of a just war), Buddhists normally consider it a further good not to kill (or eat) animals, and to liberate them from captivity. It has not normally been thought by Christians to be bad to kill or eat animals, but, of course, some Christians have thought so and Christians have often conWned themselves to vegetarian diets for certain periods (e.g. during Lent). For the Buddhist, as for the Christian, ‘sexual misconduct’ includes incest, adultery, and rape. But while Christianity (at least has until recently) Wrmly prohibited all homosexual relations, premarital intercourse, and divorce (except that divorce is permitted in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but only on the ground of adultery), Buddhism has had a more relaxed attitude to such conduct, tending to judge particular cases diVerently in terms of the happiness or absence of suVering produced by particular actions. It is especially good to refrain from bad deeds as the result of a vow, though worse if you do them despite having vowed not to do so. On the positive side, the Buddhist ethic emphasizes giving, and especially giving to the sangha, the monastic communities. It is good to seek to beneWt the living in various ways, but also to beneWt the dead, and giving to the sangha can be a means of beneWting the dead, as can participation in funeral and other memorial rituals. It is also good to go on pilgrimage to Buddhist sites, and to show devotion to stupas, relics of the Buddha or other lesser holy persons; and to images of the Buddha. The goodness of some of latter actions is, of course, peculiar to Buddhism, and—
unlike the ones listed earlier—derive their point from Buddhist doctrine.
4 Donald S. Lopez, Buddhism (Penguin Books, 2002) 47.
Controlling the body by refraining from bad actions and performing good actions makes it possible to control the mind; and the direct way to do this is by meditation, concentrating on certain objects for long periods. Thus controlled, the mind can seek wisdom; and, in particular, understanding and accepting the doctrine of no-self (that there is no soul, no essential part of a person which continues un-changed from moment to moment, but only a continuing stream of consciousness.) Various semi-ascetic practices, prescribed especially for monks, will help this process—fasting, wearing old clothes, and sleeping rough. It is especially good to seek to become a bodhisattra, one committed to achieve Buddhahood for the sake of others, and this involves spreading Buddhist doctrine. A Buddha is one who is perfectly enlightened. Although there is clearly some overlap here with the Christian way, the overlap is small: Christian meditation is God-directed, and while there may be some similarity in the techniques practised in the two religions for getting the right direction of mind, the end sought thereby by Buddhists (including meditation on what Christians regard as a false doctrine—the doctrine of no-self ) is very diVerent.
R E L I G I O U S R E A S O N S TO P U R S U E A R E L I G I O U S WAY
As I noted earlier, some of the actions which any religious way includes are ones which are good to pursue anyway for non-religious reasons. But many of the actions of a religious way would have no point unless the creed of that religion or some similar religion is true. So what religious reasons, in the sense of reasons to attain goals which are attainable only if the creed of that religion (or that of some similar religion) is true, are there for pursuing a religious way? I know only of reasons of three kinds which have been given by major religions for pursuing their religious way. These reasons are the same reasons as those which I outlined in Chapter 3 for investigating which if any religious creed is true. It is
As I noted earlier, some of the actions which any religious way includes are ones which are good to pursue anyway for non-religious reasons. But many of the actions of a religious way would have no point unless the creed of that religion or some similar religion is true. So what religious reasons, in the sense of reasons to attain goals which are attainable only if the creed of that religion (or that of some similar religion) is true, are there for pursuing a religious way? I know only of reasons of three kinds which have been given by major religions for pursuing their religious way. These reasons are the same reasons as those which I outlined in Chapter 3 for investigating which if any religious creed is true. It is