The Island of Mr. Mayeux

Why, hello there, my lovely little Thronglets!

Last time, for your amusement and homiletical edification, I engaged in my very first ever bona fide blog war with a very clever chap going by the nombre David Mayeux. We concluded with a spectacular cliff-hanger, wherein I uncereally questioned whether I would go on with the blog, given the withering manner in which Monsieur Mayeux had questioned the raison d'etre of said blog. As you can see, I've decided to soldier on.

That's right, I mayn't be the most prolific blogger, but by the noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'll see this Ultimate Truth-Seeker Challenge business through to the bloody end or my name isn't Rev. Pudgemuffin. And it isn't.

So, many many moons ago, Mayeux posted a comment on one of my blog posts. I won't quote him in full this time, because to do so would make this post interminably, circumlocutionally long-winded and perhaps even a little palaverous. Besides, that would make it way more obvious when I intentionally misrepresent his views and quote him out of context.

Let's dork it up!


Mayeux defines "faith" as "the collective aggregate of individual beliefs, Dogmas and Tradition."

This is certainly one way to define "faith," but this definition leaves out much of the essence of faith, including the biblical definition of faith which I cite in the original post (see point #2). Every source I've checked (plain old regular dictionaries, fancy-shmancy dictionaries of philosophy, chichi boom-boom dictionaries of theology, le Bible, lay theists, lay-lady-lay atheists, etc.) defines and understands faith as being a form of incredibly strong, confident trust that goes beyond the available evidence. Indeed, this is how I would have defined faith when I was a believer, thinking faith picks up once you reach the limit of reason. Many go further, suggesting that faith is believing strongly in the face of no evidence at all or even in defiance of contradicting evidence.

Yet Mayeux's definition says nothing about these aspects and treats "the faith" as merely the collection of beliefs held by the faithful. So, David, if that's even your real name, how do you square your understanding with that of all these other sources?

Also, what are we to do in the event of two opposing or contradictory faiths? How do we determine which is correct and which is mistaken when faiths come into conflict?

For that matter, suppose faith is an acceptable means of apprehending truth. (Obviously I don't actually think this is the case, but you know, for the sake of argument and all that nonsense.) How are we to go about verifying/confirming and/or falsifying/disconfirming a given faith-based pronouncement or conclusion? What methodology ought to be employed? Perceptive readers already see where I'm going with this. Why not just cut to the chase, chuck faith into a pile of rubbish where it belongs, and use those reason- and evidence-based methods in the first place?

In a similar vein, can some idea or claim that is held to be true based on faith ever be overturned? If so, how?

Mayeux defines "love" as the "practical application of faith," and he further explainifies saying that love (or charity or caritas as he prefers to call it) is "being in right relationship to one's deity and others according to one's faith." As he correctly notes, "In that sense of love, there is possibly very little emotional content to the theological virtue." Umm...Yeah, this certainly takes the emotional component right out of the equation. In fact, I think he  goes a little too far to that end.

If love is devoid of emotional affection, it doesn't have quite the same forceful impact when we are commanded/instructed to "love" our enemies as we do ourselves. As Jesus is reported as saying, "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5:43-48). Can I get an "Amen!" from my Red-Letter Christians?

According to Mayeux's description of love, all Jesus is really saying is simply to "Be in right relationship to your enemies." Well, what the helter-skelter does that mean? If love simply means to be in right relationship to others, perhaps the "right relationship" to have with one's enemies is one of emotional hatred, anger, and violence, which comes just as easily to us (pagans and tax-collectors, among other unmentionables) as loving our families and friends. It seems that passages such as this do imply some sort of emotional affection toward our enemies, the same sort of feelings we have for those close to us, the ones we love, who do so much for us and us for them. You know, the ones we have the warm fuzzies for. It seems that this is what made Jesus' statements about loving our enemies so radical and profound in the first place. If Jesus had Mayeux's dry, desiccated, barren, shriveled form of love in mind for our enemies...Meh, big whoop. I wouldn't see what all the fuss is about. Even I can be in right relationship to my enemies (depending on what that means), and I'm a dirty, filthy, evil, disgusting, hell-bound atheist.

(As an aside: Sophisticated Christians are often going on about how the relationship with Jesus is what matters and not the promise of reward or threat of punishment. But the passage above, referenced by Mayeux and straight from the zombie's mouth, is a direct appeal to the reward you'll get if you do as commanded. QED, beeyatches!)

Speaking of the Big Guy, I can't help wondering if Mayeux's definition of love applies for God to us as well. Is God's supposed love for us the mere "practical application of faith," (where faith is defined as the "the collective aggregate of individual beliefs, Dogmas and Tradition"), where God is merely in right relationship to us according to his faith? Should we infer from this that God has faith beliefs about certain things, perhaps even higher powers? Is confusing. You'd have to be a post-modernist to follow the pinball of self-referentiation that is Mayeux's description of the faith/love relationship. Though, again, if you take the warm fuzzies out of the picture, much of God's disregard for human life makes more sense.

So, to bring this back to the point I was initially making with the post that Mayeux is responding to, it seems that the Christian is caught on the two ornery horns of a beastly dilemma. Either the love Kreeft and Tacelli are discussing (in the section of the book I was covering with that post) is emotional (and runs the risk of biasing, clouding, and/or corroding our rational inquiry into God's existence), or this love is, as Mayeux suggests, not emotional at all (and empties love of all the characteristics that make it noteworthy in the context of this discussion).

Furthermore, if love/charity/caritas is the practical application of faith, what are we to do with practical applications of faith that strike us as the opposite of love, charity, and caritas? I have in mind the Old Testament atrocities and attempted genocides committed and commanded by God. I'm also thinking of horrendous contemporary acts of terrorism, many of which are done in God's name. Also, what about hell? I see nothing loving or charitable or caritas-y about a place of eternal suffering for disbelief.

Now, to be fair, Mayeux does say that, "Ideally one would perform the commandment(s) to love God and love neighbor with affection, but the intellectual assent is not necessarily predicated by emotional affection." M'kay, point well tooken. However, he says this is the ideal, which means it doesn't necessarily happen often, nor is it necessarily necessary for it to happen at all. Also, what is the "intellectual assent" here in reference to? God's existence? If so, while intellectual assent to God's existence may not necessarily be predicated on emotional affection, it sure as shite seems to be that way for many (if not most) Christians. And appeals to reward and punishment only heighten the problem of clouding rational inquiry with emotional provocation.

I know this is going to sound tritely heterodox, but I'm also a wee dollop troubled by the notion of God commanding us to love him and one another (whether its our enemies or not) in the first place. It's a bit forced, bullying, coercive, compulsory even.

Perhaps more worrisome (if no less trite) is the problem of God's commands in the first place.

Why should we follow God's commands? Which ones? The Ten Commandments? All of the hundreds of commands in the Old Testament? Or the few articulated in the New Testament, such as those given at the Sermon on the Mount? How literally should we take these commands? Must we actually stone people to death for minor offenses, or things which aren't really offenses at all? (Just in case I'm asked for examples of what I have in mind, behold!)

I don't mean to take us off on a tangent, but I can't help wondering: What evidence do we have of God's goodness? I realize the prophets and believers make this a constant refrain, that God is good and wonderful and perfect and other excessive hosannas. But I'd like to see some evidence for this claim. Looking around the world today and throughout history, I find indifference at best. Looking at God's behavior in the Bible, I find a violent, frightening, berserk and bloodthirsty, petulant, small, irrational, tribal, prejudiced entity not worthy of love or worship. How anyone can call such a being good is beyond me. To do so is to empty the word "good" of any meaning, employing mental and verbal pretzelfication, working backwards solely to salvage God from the dustbin of mythology where most other non-existent gods have gone before.

The next post will be a response to a longer piece by Mayeux on his blog. Then I'd like to get back into my discussion of Kreeft and Tacelli.

-Rev. PudgyCube, goin' straight back ta D-Town.