Does anybody bring up quantum theory? Is it predestined how each qubit will collapse? Could my salvation be in a state of superposition? If God wants to play dice with the universe, who am I to judge?
3
So according to Calvin, Hitler could be going to heaven and Mother Teresa to hell. If that's true then Calvin's God is perverse. I fear not while writing this since He's already decided where I'm going.
17
I wonder whether there is an underlying premise here that the liberal spirit of the West has evolved from fanatic religious thinkers, and therefore we should not be too harsh in our judgement of contemporary fanaticism.
Surely Calvin, Luther and others had a far-reaching impact on the western world.
However, we should keep in mind that political liberalism was born out of overcoming these ideas. The French Revolution - Liberté, égalite, fraternité - is hardly Calvinism, and neither are democracy, human rights etc. I would guess the struggle with Calvinism shaped the modern world no less than Calvinism itself.
onourselvesandothers.com
Surely Calvin, Luther and others had a far-reaching impact on the western world.
However, we should keep in mind that political liberalism was born out of overcoming these ideas. The French Revolution - Liberté, égalite, fraternité - is hardly Calvinism, and neither are democracy, human rights etc. I would guess the struggle with Calvinism shaped the modern world no less than Calvinism itself.
onourselvesandothers.com
12
Well....you tend to lose alot people here too:
"Once you grant the first premise — that there is no God besides God and that he made the universe — reason itself apparently requires we assent to this terrible thought:"
I cannot make that leap, thus no assention necessary.
And btw....predestination was not used for benign purposes. How much money did the churches swindle out of believers back then to get predestined?
"Once you grant the first premise — that there is no God besides God and that he made the universe — reason itself apparently requires we assent to this terrible thought:"
I cannot make that leap, thus no assention necessary.
And btw....predestination was not used for benign purposes. How much money did the churches swindle out of believers back then to get predestined?
21
If Calvin was right, Protestantism wouldn't be fractured into the thousands of denominations that it is. Whatever the truth is, there's only one of it. And everyone should be spending their entire lives seeking it. Mostly, we're too busy acquiring things to look.
6
In the historical context of the damage that religion has done to humankind I can see the value of understanding how we got to the messed up state of affairs we have today, I can see some relevance in understanding this dribble.
Other than that, this person who does not subscribe to these fantasies ( I refuse to use the term atheist because it still puts me in your game of being against theists), I only feel a sadness for those humans who have not yet freed themselves from these wholly dangerous ideas.
Other than that, this person who does not subscribe to these fantasies ( I refuse to use the term atheist because it still puts me in your game of being against theists), I only feel a sadness for those humans who have not yet freed themselves from these wholly dangerous ideas.
32
class - meet my invisible friend.
25
So basically Calvinism is a reductio ad absurdum argument of an all powerful God. But Calvin was willing to embrace the absurd.
10
Calvin was human and thus had no more intuitive knowledge of how or why the universe was created. He simply had his own philosophy which is far weaker than any scientific reason for 'creation' that we can explore today.
13
Heck, don't worry about mean ol' Calvin. Try Jesus himself:
“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. But the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."
“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. But the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."
2
What I can't figure out is why, given his worldview, Calvin would have ever been angry or bitter, but apparently this was the case. (I realize he was human regardless of his beliefs, etc.)
Perhaps he was on the wrong side of predestination? How could Calvin know for sure that God's grace was on his side?
Just wondering.
Perhaps he was on the wrong side of predestination? How could Calvin know for sure that God's grace was on his side?
Just wondering.
4
I seriously doubt that this college professor is teaching a proper "History of Christianity" course to begin with, and is instead teaching a Theology Class.
A PROPER "History of Christianity" course MUST include
** The so-called Gospels are contradictory, completely unreliable accounts from unknown sources. Whatever consistency appears to exist, comes from the fact that Matthew & Luke are based mainly on the Gospel of Mark, and an obvious "lost source", referred to a "Q"
NONE of the Gospels even claims to be written from the perspective of an eye-witness, or even from a second-person perspective
NONE of the Gospels was written by any of the diciples, and originally had no names associated with them. NOBODY today, can honestly tell us how each of Gospels came to be named coincidentally after the names of diciples
** The first Christian Bible was produced around 325AD under orders from Constatine.
We know for certain, that he ordered 50 copies of this very first bible to be produced, and we also know, that the production was begun at some point, and under way.
Whether or not these bibles were ever finished, or if so, what happened to them is giant black-hole in the History of Christianity
** Examination of the horrors of the Inquisition, which tortured and murdered unknown thousands of people because of their supposed unfit Christian beliefs, likewise for the people who translated the NT into English
THIS should shock students, not the insignificant teaching of Calvin
A PROPER "History of Christianity" course MUST include
** The so-called Gospels are contradictory, completely unreliable accounts from unknown sources. Whatever consistency appears to exist, comes from the fact that Matthew & Luke are based mainly on the Gospel of Mark, and an obvious "lost source", referred to a "Q"
NONE of the Gospels even claims to be written from the perspective of an eye-witness, or even from a second-person perspective
NONE of the Gospels was written by any of the diciples, and originally had no names associated with them. NOBODY today, can honestly tell us how each of Gospels came to be named coincidentally after the names of diciples
** The first Christian Bible was produced around 325AD under orders from Constatine.
We know for certain, that he ordered 50 copies of this very first bible to be produced, and we also know, that the production was begun at some point, and under way.
Whether or not these bibles were ever finished, or if so, what happened to them is giant black-hole in the History of Christianity
** Examination of the horrors of the Inquisition, which tortured and murdered unknown thousands of people because of their supposed unfit Christian beliefs, likewise for the people who translated the NT into English
THIS should shock students, not the insignificant teaching of Calvin
10
Calvin teaches us the limits to infallibility in god construction. It's what happens when you suffuse divine purpose in an otherwise chaotic world.
The silliness of Calvin lies not in his reasoning, but in his premises: 1. that god exists and 2. he's out to damn most of us to hell. To be fair though, he had a lot of company in his time.
The silliness of Calvin lies not in his reasoning, but in his premises: 1. that god exists and 2. he's out to damn most of us to hell. To be fair though, he had a lot of company in his time.
7
Should theology be taught in the secular college classroom? It all depends on what you mean by theology. If theology is the study of the nature of God, then it's precisely as valuable as the study of the nature of unicorns or of the inhabitants of the surface of the sun.
If, on the other hand, theology is the study of religious belief, then it is indeed valuable--because you can't begin to understand humanity unless you're familiar with the belief systems that afflict such a large proportion of us. And by understanding the nature of the disease, we can hopefully take steps to inoculate ourselves against it.
If, on the other hand, theology is the study of religious belief, then it is indeed valuable--because you can't begin to understand humanity unless you're familiar with the belief systems that afflict such a large proportion of us. And by understanding the nature of the disease, we can hopefully take steps to inoculate ourselves against it.
24
As an actual Calvinist who believes this doctrine, I am glad to see students engaged in theological studies. However, I wonder if this is really the best format to actually explore Calvin's thought... Understanding Calvin's reasoning requires substantial biblical literacy — you can't approach these doctrines with a bird's eye view of theology or orthodox Christianity. Nor can you casually expect to study Calvin from a secular background and critique his worldview as you would any other literature: "This is not philosophy, after all. His work is not aimed at an abstract audience. Instead it is a direct address to you."
If you want to understand where Calvin is coming from, as an address to you and I, start by reading and understanding the Bible as Calvin did — as the authoritative and inerrant word of God. Granted, there are plenty of faithful, orthodox Christians who still disagree with Calvin, but it is useless to study Calvin without the illuminating light of the Gospel.
If you want to understand where Calvin is coming from, as an address to you and I, start by reading and understanding the Bible as Calvin did — as the authoritative and inerrant word of God. Granted, there are plenty of faithful, orthodox Christians who still disagree with Calvin, but it is useless to study Calvin without the illuminating light of the Gospel.
13
I'm a Jesuit-educated Catholic; theological studies were part and parcel of the education. Examination of ideas was paramount - Reformers included. It follows, then, that Calvin's ideas are interesting to me, but just that. The application of Calvin's ideas in America may have provided success to the rise of capitalism but, in this reader's view, also to a lack of compassion towards anyone who did not agree with those ideas. Calvin reminds me of Old Testament views of God as a punisher; I prefer my Sermon on the Mount and God's compassion. Sorry, Calvin burned Servetus at the stake - no love there.
22
Calvinist logic is impeccable. Starting from the premise that God is all knowing and all powerful he reasons that God made us as we are, including all that we consider flaws, and knows perfectly well what we will do with what we have been given. Free will is an illusion because God knew what we would do with the freedom we think we have. He gave us our character, as well as our bodies. If he wanted us to act differently than we do, he could have given us different character. If he gave us free will and didn't know how we would use it, then he is not all knowing.
The reason most religious people have trouble with this, is that they don't start from the same premise. They add another. God is all knowing, all powerful, and loves us. They have trouble reconciling that last premise with the clear consequence of the first two. That's not surprising, because the three are irreconcilable. It is logically possible for a God to be any two of those things, but not all three, but believers have difficulty conceiving of a God that is not all powerful, or is not all knowing. That's just not God. And they are not willing to believe in a God that doesn't care about them.
Of course the most reasonable conclusion from the Calvinist logic is not actually that everything is predetermined and God is indifferent to you, but that the premise is wrong. There is not an all knowing and all powerful God. So find some other meaning to organize your life around.
The reason most religious people have trouble with this, is that they don't start from the same premise. They add another. God is all knowing, all powerful, and loves us. They have trouble reconciling that last premise with the clear consequence of the first two. That's not surprising, because the three are irreconcilable. It is logically possible for a God to be any two of those things, but not all three, but believers have difficulty conceiving of a God that is not all powerful, or is not all knowing. That's just not God. And they are not willing to believe in a God that doesn't care about them.
Of course the most reasonable conclusion from the Calvinist logic is not actually that everything is predetermined and God is indifferent to you, but that the premise is wrong. There is not an all knowing and all powerful God. So find some other meaning to organize your life around.
21
Religious belief in America today, even among traditionalists is something of a solipsistic syncretistic mashup. Perhaps that’s unavoidable and maybe not such a bad thing: it’s how believers have always moved from affirming God in general to *this* God is *my* God—“and I will glorify Him.” It is also why so-called nones, too, seem to have something to say about it all.
2
It's very disturbing to me that the church I was baptized in still has predestination as one of its core beliefs, expressed in the Westminster Confession. I can't possibly bring myself that a loving God would preordain that some people born into the world as innocent infants are destined for hell, even if they confess all their sins, devote their hearts and minds to love of God's son, Jesus Christ, try to live a good life. To me, predestination is a paradox that can't be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus.
17
If Calvin argued that there is no free will, then predestination makes some sense. But I don't get that from this article.
If Calvin argued that an omniscient creator created imperfect human beings and then held them to account for their imperfection (which was obviously God's fault), then God is an idiot. Or, more to the point, our invention of God is idiotic. But I always seem to arrive at that last point.
If Calvin argued that an omniscient creator created imperfect human beings and then held them to account for their imperfection (which was obviously God's fault), then God is an idiot. Or, more to the point, our invention of God is idiotic. But I always seem to arrive at that last point.
21
The value I see in Calvin is that today's readers of his ideas, ideas that shaped the Pilgrims and the Puritans is that Christianity itself is fluid, so, yes, they had better be careful in what they believe. Me, I'm partial to "Holy Willie's Prayer" along with Donne's Holy Sonnets as both make predestination and being among the elect, and their contradictions, a but more accessible.
3
" 'Monstrous indeed is the madness of men, who desire to subject the immeasurable to the puny measure of their own reason,' Calvin exclaimed."
Clearly, Calvin didn't consider himself one of those "men," and therein lies the problem that persists to this day; none are fervent advocates of Calvinism unless they awfully sure they are one of the elect. And that fact has enormous (and yes, often even monstrous) ramifications for thought and ideas.
It's a great theological system for the winners; not so much for the losers.
Fortunately for those of us who follow a person rather than simply a human theological system, Jesus hung out with the losers a whole lot.
An honest look in the mirror on Calvin's part and the history of theology and western thought for the last 450 years might have been different.
Clearly, Calvin didn't consider himself one of those "men," and therein lies the problem that persists to this day; none are fervent advocates of Calvinism unless they awfully sure they are one of the elect. And that fact has enormous (and yes, often even monstrous) ramifications for thought and ideas.
It's a great theological system for the winners; not so much for the losers.
Fortunately for those of us who follow a person rather than simply a human theological system, Jesus hung out with the losers a whole lot.
An honest look in the mirror on Calvin's part and the history of theology and western thought for the last 450 years might have been different.
9
I spend NO time worrying about "theology."
What a ginormous waste!
When I realized that Christians believe that all newborn babies are sinners destined for hell and in need of salvation, I ended my belief in all religion.
What a cruel God!
Capitalism, the one true religion, and Money, the one true God, are far more kind!
What a ginormous waste!
When I realized that Christians believe that all newborn babies are sinners destined for hell and in need of salvation, I ended my belief in all religion.
What a cruel God!
Capitalism, the one true religion, and Money, the one true God, are far more kind!
6
Do ya'll really want answers to all these questions you raise here? John Calvin's God is relatable and if you will open your heart, ask Him about whatever your felt need is, and listen, you will know the truth.
2
As an agnostic (note:very different than atheist) I object to the terms theology or theologists. They are not studying god, they are studying religions, human concepts of what they imagine a god or gods to be. Reza Aslan, who I find very interesting and intelligent, considers himself to be a religious scholar, a far more honest term.
3
Words I have taken from the Old and the New testaments:
This you know, my beloved brethren But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
He who is slow to anger has great understanding, But he who is quick-tempered exalts folly.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
Cease from anger and forsake wrath; Do not fret; it leads only to evildoing.
Do not be eager in your heart to be angry, For anger resides in the bosom of fools.
Do not associate with a man given to anger; Or go with a hot-tempered man, Or you will learn his ways And find a snare for yourself
This you know, my beloved brethren But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Cease from anger and forsake wrath; Do not fret; it leads only to evildoing.
The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now.
Do not be eager in your heart to be angry, For anger resides in the bosom of fools.
This you know, my beloved brethren But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
He who is slow to anger has great understanding, But he who is quick-tempered exalts folly.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
Cease from anger and forsake wrath; Do not fret; it leads only to evildoing.
Do not be eager in your heart to be angry, For anger resides in the bosom of fools.
Do not associate with a man given to anger; Or go with a hot-tempered man, Or you will learn his ways And find a snare for yourself
This you know, my beloved brethren But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Cease from anger and forsake wrath; Do not fret; it leads only to evildoing.
The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now.
Do not be eager in your heart to be angry, For anger resides in the bosom of fools.
1
When Job was having big problems, his friends were convinced that his suffering pointed to a hidden sin in his life, because certainly God would not punish an upright person. But God's answer to Job refuted this false belief (Job 38:1-39:30). The Lord declared Himself completely sovereign. He is not obligated to bless those who obey Him. All His actions are based on His gracious nature and His own free will. Prosperity is not connected to people's goodness and suffering is not connected to their sin. In the book of Job, God reveals to all people that He is completely free, but also truly good and we must learn to submit to Him and accept by faith that He has a good plan for us.
1
About thirty years ago a supervisor who enjoyed dabbling in superficially profound thought exercises asked where, if I could go back to any time in history, I would journey. My completely spontaneous response was that I would travel back to the moment of John Calvin's birth and smash the infant's brains out. I was thinking of the millions of lives ruined by the notion that no matter what a person did, his eternal fate was predetermined. I thought of the Calvinist minister pretending to be one of the elect all the while suffering with the knowledge that his coveting of a parishioner's wife doomed him to Hell. Thirty years on the only reason I can see to change my original time destination is the belief that if it had not been for John Calvin, someone else would have as effectively expounded his principles. They are, after all, the natural extension of belief in a single, all powerful and all knowing deity.
Mr. Sheehan quotes Calvin saying, "Monstrous indeed is the madness of men, who desire to subject the immeasurable to the puny measure of their own reason.” Calvin's certainty is the clearest example I can think of a man applying "the puny measure of his own reason" in an attempt to understand "the immeasurable." And not content to simply opine on the practices of God, Calvin put his money where his mouth was by having Servetus burned at the stake for holding a different point of view.
Mr. Sheehan quotes Calvin saying, "Monstrous indeed is the madness of men, who desire to subject the immeasurable to the puny measure of their own reason.” Calvin's certainty is the clearest example I can think of a man applying "the puny measure of his own reason" in an attempt to understand "the immeasurable." And not content to simply opine on the practices of God, Calvin put his money where his mouth was by having Servetus burned at the stake for holding a different point of view.
6
All of theology and arguments for and against interpretations of dognand the a variation on the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin.
I really have difficulty believing I am a lab rat in a cage (ie: human being on planet earth) put here for expressly the amusement of a god so bored (and boring) that all of human life and endeavor is an ultimately futile attempt to fall into his/her good graces through 1. pre-determined lucky draw of straws or 2. helping my fellow rats with my motives always in dispute. We are further commanded to love this "grand experimenter" into the bargain because to fail to do so will result in punishments of the most intense suffering. We are asked to believe simultaneously that god is loving and fair yet, if all the literature is to be believed, as equivocal, temperamental, vindictive, biased, manipulative, punitive, and egomaniacal as Donald Trump (Calvin's evil twin).
If that is not a thought to turn your stomach, then you are probably a maggot.
I really have difficulty believing I am a lab rat in a cage (ie: human being on planet earth) put here for expressly the amusement of a god so bored (and boring) that all of human life and endeavor is an ultimately futile attempt to fall into his/her good graces through 1. pre-determined lucky draw of straws or 2. helping my fellow rats with my motives always in dispute. We are further commanded to love this "grand experimenter" into the bargain because to fail to do so will result in punishments of the most intense suffering. We are asked to believe simultaneously that god is loving and fair yet, if all the literature is to be believed, as equivocal, temperamental, vindictive, biased, manipulative, punitive, and egomaniacal as Donald Trump (Calvin's evil twin).
If that is not a thought to turn your stomach, then you are probably a maggot.
8
The classic problem with omnipotence and omniscience. If God is both omnipotent and omniscient, he must have caused or must know all that will happen. But of course this is the God of Constantine, who needed a God alongside whom he could rule his world.
Oddly, denying the existence of God implies that one is at least omniscient.
Oddly, denying the existence of God implies that one is at least omniscient.
1
I remember when I was first taught of Calvin and predestination in my high school sophomore World History class, one of the best classes I ever attended. It shocked me and struck me as totally absurd. The idea that a god that is all powerful and all knowing but also all just and fair could create individuals for the purpose of suffering forever violated the human sensibility of what is right.
But it seems Calvin's logic is beyond reproach. The only way to dismiss it is to resort to the bastion of faith and admit that there are certain things which the human mind and its logic cannot discern.
Perhaps the chief result of Calvin's teachings for the modern mind is the need to embrace atheism. Calvin exposed the illogic of believing in God that can only be avoided by taking the "leap of faith". For many, including myself, this leap of faith is a leap too far. There simply is no justification for it.
Unfortunately, a world without God can lead to a world without meaning, an existence of the Absurd. Yet every day existence argues against this. As I look at the sun shining on the trees in my back yard, I become aware of the beauty of this world and the wonder of existence.
But it seems Calvin's logic is beyond reproach. The only way to dismiss it is to resort to the bastion of faith and admit that there are certain things which the human mind and its logic cannot discern.
Perhaps the chief result of Calvin's teachings for the modern mind is the need to embrace atheism. Calvin exposed the illogic of believing in God that can only be avoided by taking the "leap of faith". For many, including myself, this leap of faith is a leap too far. There simply is no justification for it.
Unfortunately, a world without God can lead to a world without meaning, an existence of the Absurd. Yet every day existence argues against this. As I look at the sun shining on the trees in my back yard, I become aware of the beauty of this world and the wonder of existence.
10
The dog barked. Scared the cat, who then ran across my keyboard sending my post shy of final corrections.
Divine intervention?
Dumb luck?
You decide.
Divine intervention?
Dumb luck?
You decide.
5
One of my favourite classes in high school was Introduction to Philosophy. The readings were difficult, as the only textbook on the subject was designed for university students, but our teacher, who happened to be an engineer, then trained to become a priest and subsequently settled down with his wife, has been one of the best I have ever taken. No course has been as thoughtful, as boundary pushing or as transformational as that course.
An unexamined life is not worth living.
An unexamined life is not worth living.
3
Interesting article, Professor Sheehan. However, your article's contents suggest that you may have not adequately exposed your students to the teachings of St. Augustine. If your students are appalled by Calvin's theology, but not by Augustine's, they need to go back and re-read Augustine. Anyone who has compared Calvin's Institutes with what one find's in Augustine's vade mecum, The Enchiridion, immediately discerns that there is very little new in Calvin's theology. The doctrine Calvin expounds is pure Augustinianism. A revision to your syllabus would appear to be in order.
4
I see nothing wrong with teaching theology in a public school classroom, it can teach rigorous thought, analysis and understanding of other cultures (like the past). What I see problems with is teaching faith in a classroom.
10
Funny how the atheist fundamentalist posting here fail to capture the point being made that is also espoused by one of the unholy Trinity, Richard Dawkins: "I think it is important to give children a healthy dose of religious education early on, teaching them a broad range of comparative mythology and religion from a phenomenological approach. Children are naturally curious, and what is more interesting than the ancient belief systems that so many of our peers and ancestors have dedicated their lives to? By teaching them about the world’s religions, we are giving them the information they seek and filling a gap in their knowledge in the same way we do when we teach about history or politics."
The point is not that God doesn't exist. The point is that religious thought has shaped society for millennia and how it has shaped our own country.
The point is not that God doesn't exist. The point is that religious thought has shaped society for millennia and how it has shaped our own country.
9
"Once you grant the first premise — that there is no God besides God and that he made the universe — reason itself apparently requires we assent to this terrible thought [i.e. predestination]."
But obviously reason doesn't "require" this. We can just as rationally imagine that an all-powerful God created humans beings with free will and the ability to attain salvation through their choices; perhaps he even intentionally shielded himself from knowledge of their future actions. (If God can do everything why can't he create a world in which he doesn't know everything that will happen?) Or we can imagine that God created a world in which some people were destined for eternal damnation, but he felt terrible not pleased about this business. Or perhaps he created a world in which no one is damned but rather everyone is destined for heaven. And so on.
The point is that, far from demonstrating the "puny measure of [human] reason," this argument for predestination is itself nothing other than an effort by human reason "to subject God to itself." And many philosophers--most notably Kant--have shown not just the arrogance but the *irrationality* of any such argument: when you begin with the premise of an infinite God you can reach any conclusion you like.
"This is not philosophy, after all. " Of course it's philosophy. It's just bad philosophy.
But obviously reason doesn't "require" this. We can just as rationally imagine that an all-powerful God created humans beings with free will and the ability to attain salvation through their choices; perhaps he even intentionally shielded himself from knowledge of their future actions. (If God can do everything why can't he create a world in which he doesn't know everything that will happen?) Or we can imagine that God created a world in which some people were destined for eternal damnation, but he felt terrible not pleased about this business. Or perhaps he created a world in which no one is damned but rather everyone is destined for heaven. And so on.
The point is that, far from demonstrating the "puny measure of [human] reason," this argument for predestination is itself nothing other than an effort by human reason "to subject God to itself." And many philosophers--most notably Kant--have shown not just the arrogance but the *irrationality* of any such argument: when you begin with the premise of an infinite God you can reach any conclusion you like.
"This is not philosophy, after all. " Of course it's philosophy. It's just bad philosophy.
7
All religion - Christianity for certain - is based on several assertions:
- God exists
- Some humans over time have "understood" God's "design"
- God's design must be imposed on everyone, or else
The fundamental flaw is the first assertion. Nowhere has anyone ever delivered reliable physical evidence for the existence of God. Consequently, it does not matter what Calvin has ever thought, or written, or hinted. His basic premise is invalid on its face, and all that comes from it is fruit of the imaginary tree.
Logic and reason do not work for those who believe in imaginary beings. Calvin was simply making stuff up as he went.
- God exists
- Some humans over time have "understood" God's "design"
- God's design must be imposed on everyone, or else
The fundamental flaw is the first assertion. Nowhere has anyone ever delivered reliable physical evidence for the existence of God. Consequently, it does not matter what Calvin has ever thought, or written, or hinted. His basic premise is invalid on its face, and all that comes from it is fruit of the imaginary tree.
Logic and reason do not work for those who believe in imaginary beings. Calvin was simply making stuff up as he went.
8
The book "American Jesus" makes the point the rejection of Calvinist predestination and embracing of free will is precisely why Christianity became so successful in America, as compared to its dying state in Europe. What's the point of holding up John 3:16 placards at football games if viewers don't get to choose what to believe? What's the use of preaching the Gospel at all? Why bother going to church if it's all in vain?
Perhaps it's a coincidence that American Christianity is going into decline at the same time many evangelicals are re-embracing Calvin's teachings. Or maybe not.
Perhaps it's a coincidence that American Christianity is going into decline at the same time many evangelicals are re-embracing Calvin's teachings. Or maybe not.
This article does shine a light on Calvin that I hadn't seen before.
I still believe, however, that John Calvin is the face of modern American fundamentalist Christianity, not Jesus.
I still believe, however, that John Calvin is the face of modern American fundamentalist Christianity, not Jesus.
3
"once you grant the first premise"..........you are lost.
The existence of something is apparent to our senses and like it or not has to be accepted. Non existence can't even be debated.
The existence of something is apparent to our senses and like it or not has to be accepted. Non existence can't even be debated.
1
I was a student at a Jesuit university for 2 years and found the discipline they brought to the study of philosophy and religion VERY helpful in developing a strong critical thinking ability.
Calvin's basic premise is that GOD is omniscient. If this is so, knowing the future means that the future is pre-determined. It is perfectly logical.
The only possible flaw is the premise.
Is GOD omniscient?
Calvin was incapable of questioning the premise that led to such an extreme and apparently absurd outcome, one that appears to contradict all we know from our own experience. At virtually EVERY moment of our lives we appear to be confronted with choices and seem to be making them. And yet, absolute Determinism is the logical conclusion from the assumption of GOD's omniscience.
Calvin, like virtually all Christian thinkers, seems incapable of questioning the basic premise, one that is based purely on Faith, not on human experience, but is willing to accept it even when it leads to a conclusion that appears to contradict everything about human experience.
That the logic of this Christian thought, and these thinkers, accepts a premise based purely on Faith and leads to a conclusion that appears to contradict masses of human experience should suggests a great deal about its relevance to physical reality.
What if the Creator of the Universe is not omniscient? Where does that lead us? Do we dare ask?
Calvin's basic premise is that GOD is omniscient. If this is so, knowing the future means that the future is pre-determined. It is perfectly logical.
The only possible flaw is the premise.
Is GOD omniscient?
Calvin was incapable of questioning the premise that led to such an extreme and apparently absurd outcome, one that appears to contradict all we know from our own experience. At virtually EVERY moment of our lives we appear to be confronted with choices and seem to be making them. And yet, absolute Determinism is the logical conclusion from the assumption of GOD's omniscience.
Calvin, like virtually all Christian thinkers, seems incapable of questioning the basic premise, one that is based purely on Faith, not on human experience, but is willing to accept it even when it leads to a conclusion that appears to contradict everything about human experience.
That the logic of this Christian thought, and these thinkers, accepts a premise based purely on Faith and leads to a conclusion that appears to contradict masses of human experience should suggests a great deal about its relevance to physical reality.
What if the Creator of the Universe is not omniscient? Where does that lead us? Do we dare ask?
2
I am glad Calvin is in the classroom. We must think.
Absolutely nothing wrong with classes on theology as long as they are not classes in indoctrination.
2
Good article. It's relevance is not just to the Liberal Arts or to the awakening of more Americans to their actual culture. Calvin's legacy is still strong in America, especially among the offspring of Scots-Irish immigrants. It still plagues Northern Ireland.
The first error of Calvinism, of course, is one shared all across Christianity: that there is a God who holds us responsible for our acts, and that there is a debt to be paid now or in the hereafter. Accepting that premise and then stumbling on Calvin's arguments is comical.
The first error of Calvinism, of course, is one shared all across Christianity: that there is a God who holds us responsible for our acts, and that there is a debt to be paid now or in the hereafter. Accepting that premise and then stumbling on Calvin's arguments is comical.
Calvin really is the Ayatollah of Christianity. Study Islam and you encounter theologists who argue predestination, but you also encounter a god who rules by fear. Fully 10% of the verses in the Koran are threats of torture in hellfire and the death penalty for apostasy...
3
This compelling piece by Professor Sheehan diverges from most of the essays that appear in The Stone. Sheehan is not here to argue in favor of Calvinism. As he declares at the outset, he writes to make the case for the teaching of theology within a secular college curriculum. In so doing, what he does so marvelously well, is to make a case for critical thought and reason itself.
His essay also underscores, without ever saying so, the value of good pedagogy. Here he uses the case of Calvinism but he very well might have used another, say the thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas or Maimonedes.
What is important is how the professor systematically lays out the argument, invites what are often the predictable reactions of the students --even from such a diverse student body as that found in a California pubic university -- then demonstrates how the thinker him(her)self anticipated these objections.
Imagine a professor droning on about Calvinism without this level of pedagogical effectiveness?
Even within the confines of this short piece, readers were taken on a provocative journey of what critical reasoning looks like. Sheehan has no interest in convincing us of the importance of Calvin, though in fact he may succeed in doing so. What he does want is to open the minds of his students and teach them to think conceptually and critically. Clearly he is a professor who succeeds at this task.
His essay also underscores, without ever saying so, the value of good pedagogy. Here he uses the case of Calvinism but he very well might have used another, say the thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas or Maimonedes.
What is important is how the professor systematically lays out the argument, invites what are often the predictable reactions of the students --even from such a diverse student body as that found in a California pubic university -- then demonstrates how the thinker him(her)self anticipated these objections.
Imagine a professor droning on about Calvinism without this level of pedagogical effectiveness?
Even within the confines of this short piece, readers were taken on a provocative journey of what critical reasoning looks like. Sheehan has no interest in convincing us of the importance of Calvin, though in fact he may succeed in doing so. What he does want is to open the minds of his students and teach them to think conceptually and critically. Clearly he is a professor who succeeds at this task.
13
Duh, it's you DNA and your circumstances that determine the outcome of your life. Calvin was better with Hobbs.
5
Somewhere back there in the fog of the past, it became clear to many of those who were "leaders" that one of the best, if not the best way to maintain their positions of power was to con those over whom they exercised their power into "believing" that they were somehow superior to them and that they were hand picked by some god or other to rule. This was the end of religion being anything other than a manipulation tool for maintaining power of a selected few. Church and State were basically inseparable. Together they enslaved the "surfs" for centuries.
Calvin simply put into very tedious language what had been status quo for centuries. This was the effort by a bunch of self selected ego maniacs to wrench control of some groups of people out of the hands of the then Popes, and Anglicans that Henry 8 had previously extracted and set up.
If you want to help your students to learn to think, You first have to realize that thinking is not data processing. Thinking happens elsewhere.
Try Plato or Keats.. Try ”Beauty is truth, truth beauty, – that is all/Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." Ask them, what does this mean? what does this signify?
Calvin simply put into very tedious language what had been status quo for centuries. This was the effort by a bunch of self selected ego maniacs to wrench control of some groups of people out of the hands of the then Popes, and Anglicans that Henry 8 had previously extracted and set up.
If you want to help your students to learn to think, You first have to realize that thinking is not data processing. Thinking happens elsewhere.
Try Plato or Keats.. Try ”Beauty is truth, truth beauty, – that is all/Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." Ask them, what does this mean? what does this signify?
7
“All those who do not know that they are God’s own will be miserable through constant fear.”
But one could say
“All those who know that they are not God’s own will be miserable through constant fear.”
Which misery is the worse?
I suppose the latter, if one were to believe this nonsense.
Nonsense it is, no matter what the provenance.
But one could say
“All those who know that they are not God’s own will be miserable through constant fear.”
Which misery is the worse?
I suppose the latter, if one were to believe this nonsense.
Nonsense it is, no matter what the provenance.
4
I applaud Professor Sheehan's creative pedagogy but wonder why one must approach "intellectual virtues that we need in our modern world" through the study of "a creed founded on the belief in the innate moral depravity of the individual" (Louis Menand, "The Metaphysical Club," p. 12). Are there no other avenues than his misanthropic, bitter, defeatist theological view of man's estate to travel to enlightenment? I, for one, would on the first day of class consider myself damned and cut the rest of the term.
6
" “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6)"
I am not Christian but doesn't this directly contradict Calvin's theory on predestination? And if so, why was Calvin taken seriously even in his day let alone today.
I am not Christian but doesn't this directly contradict Calvin's theory on predestination? And if so, why was Calvin taken seriously even in his day let alone today.
3
Calvin's thinking is at the heart of Reformed thinking and churches. The context for his thought was little Geneva surrounded by mostly hostile Catholic powers. In the tradition of the Biblical book of Revelation, there faced with the vicious persecution of Emperor Diocletian, both works are a way of reassuring fearful Christian communities. The concept of predestination may have been very comforting to the little town of Protestant Geneva. You are the elect of God through the Gospel. However, the terrible uncertainty this thinking introduced as to whether one were really part of the elect produced intense inner struggle to find a religious certainty of being elect. This evolved into being overcome by an emotion of the Spirit -and thus produced the revivalism that still lives in our country. Calvin's use of election was distinctive in its being read as abstract mathematical certainty in later Reformed thought. But, perhaps it was not the best Christian concept around which to organize Christian faith in that culture. In Western Catholic and Lutheran theology, the concept of grace was the more defining concept based upon one's baptism. The Calvinist existential uncertainty is not present in those religious cultures. But the Reformed uncertainties produced one sect after another having a form of religious certainty, whether rational or emotional. It also intensified personal discipline with time, vocational seriousness and social justice which led to our modern secular culture.
1
Thanks for unlocking the door to the study of the theological imagination. I can think of no more developed and sophisticated and fascinating and neglected tradition than this one. The ontological perichoresis of the trinity. Augustine's idea that you cannot know that you are loving God because of your own tendency toward self-deceit, but you can love the love with which you love you neighbor. You can embrace love, which is God. The fourfold interpretation of scripture (and for Dante of all poetry): the literal level, the allegorical, the practical/ethical, and the anagogic/mystical. Aquinas's idea that everything true we can say about God is true only by analogy, which leads to the idea that everything God is like, God is even more unlike. The idea that God is not a being but is the source of all being. And so the idea that you cannot believe in God the way you can believe that there are wombats in Australia. There simply can be no empirical confirmation--ever. The iconoclast controversy. The very idea of logos in the Johannine sense. Rarely in philosophy--or anywhere in our cramped, propagandish, inculcating, correcting college curriculum--do you get the breadth or depth of intellectual challenge and perspective you get in these theological ideas and controversies. Instead, in the theological tradition, almost everything is contended. Maybe in the cosmological wing of physics and in the arguments about string theory, mathematics, and empiricism you can get close.
1
An important article since most of the political and economic thought in the west is driven by Calvinism.
2
Teach theology if you want. Just don't call it science.
3
I taught a History of Christian Thought for 40 years at SUNY Geneseo and had experiences parallel to those of the author. My students too read Calvin with disbelief, anger, and despair. By coincidence, we once tackled Calvin in class on Good Friday, and it was simply too much for some students who, minutes later, were off to Good Friday services. The liberal arts are not the comfortable or always comforting arts. But they are the stuff of a free people. A Vietnamese student once told me that Plato made his brain hurt. I pointed out that both Plato and I are evidently doing our job well.
5
Whether or not there is a god or gods, a life well lived should include lifting those around you up. A commitment to something greater than yourself. Finding the ability to forgive those who have wounded you. And, most difficult of all, finding a way to forgive yourself. Doing the best you can in all circumstances. Realizing that you don't have to be perfect, that you will get another chance. Also realizing that life is a journey and that you will change over the course of that journey. Things that were of supreme importance during one part of the journey will be less so later. This is not the sign of a 'flip-floper' but rather a mark of maturity. That in the end, life comes down to simple things that have very little to do with wealth, power, or status. In the end, what seems to be important, are variations around one simple theme - Love.
2
Mr. Sheehan's represention of Calvin's position mischaracterized a contingent force of syllogistic logic as an onto-existential power. Writes Sheehan:
"...Calvin anticipated these objections, since they were raised in his day, too. He dedicated a whole chapter to dismissing the 'insolence' of the human understanding when it 'hears these things.' He knew that our first reactions would be anger and denial, that we would be baffled by predestination. So he demanded that his readers, then and now, think alongside him. His argument goes like this: If God alone created all things, doesn’t that mean that he did so freely? If he is free in his choices, how can it be otherwise than that God himself determines our fates, right to the edges of hell? Once you grant the first premise — that there is no God besides God and that he made the universe — reason itself apparently requires we assent to this terrible thought."
Indeed, God may have freely created all things, including Man. But Man is not an object, nor can Mankind be objectified as a mere literary artifact of the Divine Logos/Word in any plan of redemption. The ontological freedom and Reason inherent to Mankind except it from any predetermined destiny, as a matter of ontological right, even assuming the existence and sovereignty of God as creator remain operative a valid premise. For recognizing the necessity of justice is not insolence. Whether in the image of God or out, Mankind is not a widget.
"...Calvin anticipated these objections, since they were raised in his day, too. He dedicated a whole chapter to dismissing the 'insolence' of the human understanding when it 'hears these things.' He knew that our first reactions would be anger and denial, that we would be baffled by predestination. So he demanded that his readers, then and now, think alongside him. His argument goes like this: If God alone created all things, doesn’t that mean that he did so freely? If he is free in his choices, how can it be otherwise than that God himself determines our fates, right to the edges of hell? Once you grant the first premise — that there is no God besides God and that he made the universe — reason itself apparently requires we assent to this terrible thought."
Indeed, God may have freely created all things, including Man. But Man is not an object, nor can Mankind be objectified as a mere literary artifact of the Divine Logos/Word in any plan of redemption. The ontological freedom and Reason inherent to Mankind except it from any predetermined destiny, as a matter of ontological right, even assuming the existence and sovereignty of God as creator remain operative a valid premise. For recognizing the necessity of justice is not insolence. Whether in the image of God or out, Mankind is not a widget.
4
Yes, the kind of theological voluntarism the article describes is an extreme version. It's one Islam struggles with as well. This comment points to an important alternative--the creation of free beings with their own capability for reason and dignity.
1
The history of religion is not really about philosophy or even theology, it is about tribal affiliations and temporal power. The super-tribe of Christians will always oppose the super-tribe of Muslims not because of theology but just because they are different tribal alliances. When a religious tribe gets too big it tends to break up into sects and the competition between these can also be intense. These conflicts are not decided by force of philosophical or theological argument but by military might. Has man's material or mental benefit been advanced by these conflicts? His material benefit has certainly been advanced by rejection of supernatural explanations. If contentment is an objective it is more likely to be advanced by a scientific understanding of actual mental processes than by an appeal to the intention of spirits - at least it is not obvious that appealing to various spirits has done much for mankind.
14
Religion, in promising another life, assuages the reality of death which allows some among us to march off to war's senseless personal demise with one god or another on our side as comfort and perhaps inspiration.
This is a path rarely if ever followed by any who urge on and pray for those who are both doomed and saved by faith.
Very tidy concept.
This is a path rarely if ever followed by any who urge on and pray for those who are both doomed and saved by faith.
Very tidy concept.
2
Maybe the Greeks had it right with the various 'spirits' acting as 'archetypes', who visit us, moment by moment, bringing a multitude of points of view. 'We', are, influenced by these invisible, yet experienced, by their force and presence.
A prime example of the value of a Liberal Arts education and the intellectual stimulation it provides!
14
I've taught argumentation to teenagers for decades. In informal discussions of religion (not a topic we argue competitively) I've made the point that the question of the existence of God is actually a two-part question.
The first question is whether or not there is some being, force, or whatever capable of creating the universe we know. If yes, then the second question becomes one of what form that being/force/whatever takes. Most people arguing the matter start with the second question, not the first. (Because I start with the first question, and the fact that if the answer is yes how could I possibly know or understand such a creator, I consider myself agnostic.)
Teaching argumentation is often teaching about the implications of certain positions - where those positions lead, and why. On the one hand, this article will be quite useful as an example of starting point and eventual results. On the other hand, going through it (several times now) to determine that has played havoc with my morning productivity. A small price to pay, though, for the example it provides.
The first question is whether or not there is some being, force, or whatever capable of creating the universe we know. If yes, then the second question becomes one of what form that being/force/whatever takes. Most people arguing the matter start with the second question, not the first. (Because I start with the first question, and the fact that if the answer is yes how could I possibly know or understand such a creator, I consider myself agnostic.)
Teaching argumentation is often teaching about the implications of certain positions - where those positions lead, and why. On the one hand, this article will be quite useful as an example of starting point and eventual results. On the other hand, going through it (several times now) to determine that has played havoc with my morning productivity. A small price to pay, though, for the example it provides.
4
Heavens to Betsy, just teach Ethics and Philosophy. The actual existence or not of a higher being (or beings) can be theoretically assumed, or disregarded.
Religion is as subject to examination as biology or mathematics. It's fascinating to learn what crazy ideas some people have. Then you realize all the Immutable Truths you were brought up with can be considered just as crazy to others.
Religion is as subject to examination as biology or mathematics. It's fascinating to learn what crazy ideas some people have. Then you realize all the Immutable Truths you were brought up with can be considered just as crazy to others.
10
If you are teaching Calvin from a historical perspective, it seems rather important to balance your curriculum with other religious perspectives as well. After all the word "Catholic" means universal. From your description of student reactions, at least the students in your class won't fall asleep.
1
The class is, specifically, a course in the history of Christianity. Professor Sheehan makes it clear that he does teach other significant historical Christian thinkers in the course as well, including (but presumably not limited to) Augustine, Erasmus, and Luther.
I applaud Professor Sheehan's emphasis on cultivating among his students the practice of close and thoughtful reading of texts--an intellectual virtue that some Stone commenters would do well to emulate.
I applaud Professor Sheehan's emphasis on cultivating among his students the practice of close and thoughtful reading of texts--an intellectual virtue that some Stone commenters would do well to emulate.
There is also the Jewish perspective that we are capable of (effective) remorse and repentance and that an eternal Hell is a man made idea.
2
At last, a message from the academy that extols the value of critical thinking. No save space in Professor Sheehan's classroom.
4
Try teaching a university level course on colonial American history or early modern European history without engaging Calvinism--can't be done and students just have to come to terms with ideas they find incomprehensible.
5
Another look at churches in America-
"Churches ad hoc: a divine comedy",
http://members.efn.org/~hkrieger/church.htm
"Churches ad hoc: a divine comedy",
http://members.efn.org/~hkrieger/church.htm
Taken to the logical conclusion in the political context, one could then surmise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were both predestined to meet in this particular political contest and context. Like the consequence of Calvin's absolutes, the choice before us between the two seems to well be an absolutist choice between a very liberal and very conservative, polar opposite worldview. Much as one would expect in the standard take on the views of both Heaven and Hell. To this black-and-white binary horror we can add the "leavening" of John Milton who would qualify being in such place as somewhat being in the eye of the beholder, i.e., "one can make a Hell of Heaven, or a Heaven of Hell." Like the election itself, it does seem we possess the free will to choose, unless of course, our choice was already predestined. In which case we are little more than semi-self-aware delusional automatons, thinking we think for ourselves, but are just so many puppets on a cosmic string. If the latter is indeed the case, little wonder the existentialist "life is absurd" argument can offer equal appeal. Given all this, I think I'll take Bill Watterson's "Calvin and Hobbes" instead. As I told my dad, he should be forever grateful it wasn't done when I was Calvin's age - I would have been inspired!
1
Just 'believe ' in your self and learn through your experiences.
Somewhere down the line man becomes his own philosopher.
Heaven and hell is just a state of the mind , governed by ones actions.
No need to complicate life delving too deep such matters But two things one must keep in mind is to always listen to your inner voice and treat others with respect.
Somewhere down the line man becomes his own philosopher.
Heaven and hell is just a state of the mind , governed by ones actions.
No need to complicate life delving too deep such matters But two things one must keep in mind is to always listen to your inner voice and treat others with respect.
4
I wonder how this same debate would go in a University of Texas classroom in a Bible belt buckle state where angry Christians are packing heat.
20
When I was a college freshman I eagerly took the required course, American Literature 101. A considerable portion of the course was devoted to such Calvinist divines as Cotton Mather and the Five Points of Calvinism. The horror of those Five Points has remained in my mind ever since. One of the most objectionable aspects of a Calvinistic society, in my opinion, is the notion that the community is responsible for (and must pay for) the sins of its individual members. This encourages neighbor to spy on neighbor to make sure they aren’t doing something naughty. This has led to the promulgation of all kinds of restrictions and behaviors wherever Calvinism rules - as is evident in the formation and history of England’s earliest colonies on the North American continent. In the puritanical world of Calvinism there can be no music (except in church), no dancing, no card playing, no attendance at theatrical presentations (including movies), no recreational or social activity on Sundays and a severely restrictive sex life (enjoyment of which is not encouraged.) In other words, if something feels good, tastes good, gives pleasure and/or satisfies any or all of the five senses in the Calvinist world it is a sin. No thank you - I pass.
I consider followers of Wahabi Islam to be Muslim "Calvinists." There seems to be a puritanical streak in all religions.
I consider followers of Wahabi Islam to be Muslim "Calvinists." There seems to be a puritanical streak in all religions.
113
"I consider followers of Wahabi Islam to be Muslim "Calvinists." There seems to be a puritanical streak in all religions. "
I agree utterly. And I find the Calvinist elements in our society to be more harmful than the Islamic terrorists. The latter are a brutal alien nuisance who, since 9/11, have taken dozens of lives and inconvenienced the rest of us. The former are deeply embedded among us and ruin millions of lives constantly.
I agree utterly. And I find the Calvinist elements in our society to be more harmful than the Islamic terrorists. The latter are a brutal alien nuisance who, since 9/11, have taken dozens of lives and inconvenienced the rest of us. The former are deeply embedded among us and ruin millions of lives constantly.
6
Christianity is based on the Bible (the "New Testament in particular) and not on the writings of men like Calvin or Luther. Any college course in Christian religions that overlooks the Bible has no validity.
1
Which translation of the Bible? There are many, some much more accurate than others. Some original Greek texts say that one must be "born from above" rather than "born again" as it appears in the King James version. That would not sit very well with most American Protestants.
As a Lutheran, I rely on the Bible, but my theology and form of worship come from Martin Luther. My Bible study is enhanced by readings of theologians such as the writer of this article. Are you a fundamentalist by chance?
As a Lutheran, I rely on the Bible, but my theology and form of worship come from Martin Luther. My Bible study is enhanced by readings of theologians such as the writer of this article. Are you a fundamentalist by chance?
1
Thank you for this piece to reinforce my belief that zealous religious preachers are the bane of humanity. They speak of free will, image of god, being of god, but god forbid if you don't truly believe because you're doomed to a fiery hell! Grimms fairy tales, mother goose, Aesop's fables, the bible, it's all the same.
54
Yes.
I keep trying to explain this sense of God's [or the Universe's] majesty]; how I don't "feel small" when I contemplate the hugeness of time, but rather startled and amazed that I am here to contemplate it at all. How I insist that I AM here, for however short a time; and that whatever else the GREAT I AM does, it loves.
It's a difficult set of thoughts for many; for a former Calvinist, not so much.
I keep trying to explain this sense of God's [or the Universe's] majesty]; how I don't "feel small" when I contemplate the hugeness of time, but rather startled and amazed that I am here to contemplate it at all. How I insist that I AM here, for however short a time; and that whatever else the GREAT I AM does, it loves.
It's a difficult set of thoughts for many; for a former Calvinist, not so much.
5
That should be, "None ... is," Jonathan. None is a contraction for "not one." Paragraph 10.
2
I find this stream of theology damning in itself and it's prevalence in evangelical Christianity horrifying. Jews have a choice -teshuvah - as does everyone. We are beings with minds.
3
"What gods of wood or stone you make matters not; the God that matters is the god you set up in your heart. The Calvinists never made a stone image of the thing they worshiped. If they had, the children would have run shrieking from its presence." -- Conrad Noel (1896-1942)
4
surely an omnipotent god could impart free will into a creature it creates.
7
But if God is truly God, and all-knowing, God even knows what you will do, beforehand, even if you freely choose to do it. We do not truly understand what omniscience is. Predestination is a tautology. God gives us free will. We choose, but God knows what we will choose, therefore God predestined the outcome, didn't God.
1
I would go further than that. What omnipotent god would want to create sentient creatures that lack free will? How could he respond to their worship? It would be like having sex with a prostitute.
1
Surely there must be ideas that are less "irrelevant or bizarre" than Calvin's that these students can apply themselves to, in order to hone their "integrity, reason, creativity and charity". Why waste your time debating fairy tales when there are real issues that need thought and discourse?
6
Since god does not exist everything in this article is irrelevant.
3
Your certainty is heartening, much like Calvin's.
2
Learning theology AND the Bible is a fine exercise in education, as long as one doesn't follow up with an unquestioning belief in magic and invisible gods. We should know about it, but we should refrain from subscription, which is a weakness of mind.
7
So that's what's the matter with Kansas! Thanks for clearing this up for me.
10
Not quite. The Calvinist theological influence was strongest in New England and the middle Atlantic area. That influence helped to produce the theological imagination of American-style unitarianism and transcendentalism. Or: Massachusetts. The point here is that the mind has to engage in these expansive forms of thinking for such developments to take place. I have no idea where Kansas came from.
From
From stardust we come, to stardust we return
From stardust we come, to stardust we return
1
Sometimes I wonder...
Maybe the author should have quoted one of Calvin's critics, who said "If Calvin's God created a few people destined for heaven and large numbers destined for hell, then he was a poor creator of people."
5
In 1533, Calvin burned Michael Servetus at the stake in Geneva. Took 30 minutes before the victim finally succumbed. So, what it is about Calvin that one is supposed to like?
21
Ultimately, I tend to agree. But only ultimately. People and serious thinking come in all kinds of bizarre and hard-to-imagine mixtures. But, ultimately, even if Calvin speaks "with the tongues of men and angels," that's not what's most important. As Augustine knew.
How horrifying! I have never studied Calvin in depth, but the little I read about him (his vicious hatred of Mary Queen of Scots, etc.) had not endeared me to him. I am a Lutheran, and I hope that the biography of Luther that I am ready to read will not disclose equally distressing facts.
1
Interesting article, but was I really hoping it would be about Calvin and Hobbes!
10
Thomas Hobbes was in fact very opposed to the thought of Calvin.
The students are fortunate to have this professor.
I am a little surprised, though, that there are students who say they are Christians but are shocked by this argument. Have they never read the New Testament? Romans Chapter 9?
I am a little surprised, though, that there are students who say they are Christians but are shocked by this argument. Have they never read the New Testament? Romans Chapter 9?
1
understanding Calvinism is critical to knowing American history and world religion. And Calvin is right as all Christianity believes in God 's omnipotence, although many have found ways to worm out of Calvin's mechanical conclusions about it. Yet it remains the precise issue with the Christian view that God is some type of Middle -eastern potentate and our existence is dependant on his whims.
6
The societal ramifications of Calvinism are well explored in Nathaniel Hawthorne's story "Young Goodman Brown." Supposedly about the Salem witch trial era, it's all about Calvinism and its destructiveness.
2
Wonderful article.
Makes me realize I believe in Dog. Only a dog — and Einstein before her, and Jesus before him — seem to take into account that we live not in past or the future, but only the now. One conclusion of which is "Love one another" or perhaps "May I cuddle up onto your lap?"
Another reader stated: "There is no heaven, no hell. Problem solved." I'd add "There is no yesterday, no tomorrow. Live today wisely."
Makes me realize I believe in Dog. Only a dog — and Einstein before her, and Jesus before him — seem to take into account that we live not in past or the future, but only the now. One conclusion of which is "Love one another" or perhaps "May I cuddle up onto your lap?"
Another reader stated: "There is no heaven, no hell. Problem solved." I'd add "There is no yesterday, no tomorrow. Live today wisely."
2
"Calvin was the most influential religious reformer of the 16th century"
I thought that was Martin Luther.
I thought that was Martin Luther.
1
And there is also this: Did not God create man "in his own image"? That seems an entirely Calvinist sentiment: separating other men and women into "baskets of deplorables," condemned from the outset, beyond redemption. Didn't I just read that idea in some politician's comments at a fund-raiser, no less? Calvin continues to have a strong influence even if unacknowledged.
11
I'm as confused by this comment as I am about the Trinity or Calvin's Predestination both of which had much more to do with human politics than the nature of diety. Logically, a person can hold deploable views and engage in deplorable actions and those ideas and actions can be noted by a second person, such is the beauty of a precept in emptiness. This is a simple function of time and space, and has nothing to do with either the Trinity or Predestination, and this is one objection to Calvin's "certainty" that hasn't been stated.
True Christianity offers the opportunity for repentance and redemption, but only if one seeks it.
No gods, demons, monsters, or spirits. Calvin proves that hell is truly other people.
6
I think it is valuable for people to understand the major religions of the world and favor teaching Comparative Religions courses at undergraduate level. But, if any religion is taught as "true" faith, you are overstepping a crucial line. As soon as a teacher assumes that one of the thousands of variations of religions and denominations, one is implicitly telling everybody in the class that one "absolute truth" has ascendancy over all of the others. There is NO place in a secular school for a teacher to imply that there is a particular supernatural entity. That is the job of houses of worship and explicitly religion-based schools, where belief precedes attendance.
If you want to teach Reformation Christianity (Calvin was only one of several people behind "Calvinism") as a subject from a historical point, you might include Paul, Martin Luther, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Zoroaster, Abraham, Mohammad, Krishna, Zeus, Amon-Ra, etc.
Compare and contrast the ways each faith answer their basic questions:
1. Is death final? Is there a form of "afterlife" (what about "before life?")?
2. How do you reconcile injustice and unfairness in this life?
3. How did humanity arise?
4. Is there any reason you exist, any purpose?
5. How do you treat your 'brothers'? Those who don't agree with you?
Religions have many different answers to these questions - If all the others are wrong, chances are overwhelming that yours is, too.
"An atheist just believes in one fewer gods than a theist."
If you want to teach Reformation Christianity (Calvin was only one of several people behind "Calvinism") as a subject from a historical point, you might include Paul, Martin Luther, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Zoroaster, Abraham, Mohammad, Krishna, Zeus, Amon-Ra, etc.
Compare and contrast the ways each faith answer their basic questions:
1. Is death final? Is there a form of "afterlife" (what about "before life?")?
2. How do you reconcile injustice and unfairness in this life?
3. How did humanity arise?
4. Is there any reason you exist, any purpose?
5. How do you treat your 'brothers'? Those who don't agree with you?
Religions have many different answers to these questions - If all the others are wrong, chances are overwhelming that yours is, too.
"An atheist just believes in one fewer gods than a theist."
11
Interesting--and in a way I agree. But would you hold political scientists and historians and philosophers to the same agnostic principle? I had Marxist, libertarian, and Rawlsian professors--even some who held conservative views occasionally--and they did not always conceal from us when they judged one idea or theory or even practice to be superior to another. How far would you take this principle? If you applied it only to religion, then why only the study of religion?
Calvin was a man of his times, writing in an age that was still oppressively patriarchal and subject to a level of organized religious violence that was appalling. Disease was rampant, and modern science as we know it was in its infancy.
Studying his writings is indeed valuable, but not if you divorce them from the times in which he wrote them.
Studying his writings is indeed valuable, but not if you divorce them from the times in which he wrote them.
7
Religion should be studied as a branch of psychology since its gods are all imaginary. If it's a God you need, the cosmos itself fits the bill very well and has the advantage of being real.
9
Just about everything in the study of literature is imaginary, so should that be studied as psych, too? How about mathematics?
Calvinism is the most pernicious cultural thread in American thought, for it justifies plutocracy and challenges democracy. It is amazing that this country has its current form of government given this cultural baggage.
93
I don't see how thinking about Calvin is about religion - to me it is more the history of thought. No-one can deny the existence of religions, and their importance in our historical paths. All religions should be studied, for anyone who cares to call themselves educated.
The better religions are known, the better we are able to see past their limitations.
How can you argue with that? -
The better religions are known, the better we are able to see past their limitations.
How can you argue with that? -
52
There's a difference between "teaching Calvin" and teaching "Calvinism". One we object to, the other is, as the author points out, a worthwhile endeavor.
5
The anguish over and desire for such "certainty" that Sheehan describes was a) shared by Luther b) as the historian Philip Gorski argues, was part of what led to a "disciplinary revolution" that laid the foundation for the modern "rationalized world" (as Weber notes) and c) helped to create what one scholar called a "sexual re-formation" that laid the basis of the modern sexual system.
1
I surmise that Calvin, like Luther- was deeply concerned with the new Protestant problem of how to establish authority once faith let go of the comforting presence of papal authority. One answer was the protestant insistence on scriptural inerrance, while another is Calvin's battering ram insistence on abject humility in the face of the deity. Again, Calvin is reworking Augustine's quarrel with Pelagius. We are saved by grace alone, so don't even think about trying to bribe your way into paradise with good works.
5
Capitalism is secular rationalism. It is ironic that, as Sheehan points out, the modern liberal economy and science as well might owe their birth to Calvinism. But not so surprising. The intellectual pride in Calvin’s brilliant arguments is palpable. As far as salvation is concerned, the certainty of uncertainty is the only persuasion modern mankind needs to take practical matters into its own hands.
Teaching religious history from the perspective of believers and respect is one thing. Teaching theology which presumes the truth of the faith being taught is inappropriate.
1
Every night and every morn,
Some to misery are born.
Every morn and every night,
Some are born to sweet delight.
Some are born to sweet delight;
Some are born to endless night.
- William Blake
Some to misery are born.
Every morn and every night,
Some are born to sweet delight.
Some are born to sweet delight;
Some are born to endless night.
- William Blake
2
What's hilarious about Calvin, and, for that matter, all theology, is that not one of those involved pushing the subject has ever proven a god even exists. Gods remain in the realm of human fancy like Santa Claus, Unicorns, Mother Goose, and the man in the moon. And given the obvious harm some of the stuff claimed to come from a diddely non-proven god, like the vile Islamic violence, murder, massacres, and mayhem so evident among believers of that foulness, or the medieval harm to humanity of the Christian Crusades... or the present harm to human wellbeing and freedom by twits like 'Dumbya' Bush who kept stem cell research from proceeding, and humanity would be in many case far better off without this unprovable god fascination.
6
The question of whether the "existence" of God can be proved is itself a theological question. How one interprets the success or failure or character of the ontological and cosmological proofs of God's existence are of theological and philosophical interest. These "theological" controversies reveal something about human thinking, at least.
But broad and ancient streams in the history of theology assert that there can be no proof of the existence of God--they agree with you--but they also assert that this is important for how we understand and relate to God. God is not a being. There are no instruments that can confirm God's existence. No place in space or time where we can go to find the particular being "God." A proof or confirmation cannot be completed because G-d is not one more being among the many beings that there are. G-d is the source of being, but that's something else altogether. In this part of the theological tradition, G-d requires something more from us than just the correct kind of cognizing.
But broad and ancient streams in the history of theology assert that there can be no proof of the existence of God--they agree with you--but they also assert that this is important for how we understand and relate to God. God is not a being. There are no instruments that can confirm God's existence. No place in space or time where we can go to find the particular being "God." A proof or confirmation cannot be completed because G-d is not one more being among the many beings that there are. G-d is the source of being, but that's something else altogether. In this part of the theological tradition, G-d requires something more from us than just the correct kind of cognizing.
How God could elect to save this soul and allow the next to parish must be the stuff of nightmares for believers.
For an atheist that also understands that Free Will is an illusion, the need for God and the fear he creates is easily dismissed.
For an atheist that also understands that Free Will is an illusion, the need for God and the fear he creates is easily dismissed.
2
The doctrine of the Elect gives justification to the rich for believing that they have inherited or achieved wealth and power not by luck or ruthlessness but because it's God's will, and there's no reason for them to care about the poor, the hungry, or to do anything for them, because God wants them to be so. In this year's parlance, they're just Losers.
One of the Epistles says something about false prophets: By their fruits shall ye know them.
One of the Epistles says something about false prophets: By their fruits shall ye know them.
7
Anyone reasoning along those lines has clearly never read the Bible, much less encountered Jesus. If you have what you have because of God's will, how could you possibly be greedy or uncaring towards the poor? Or in other words, since God has given you absolutely everything you have -- with no regard to merit -- there is no limit to what God can ask of you. Thus, when Jesus says "Take up your cross and follow me, love your neighbor as yourself, etc." we have no excuse for not obeying.
1
It's wonderful to see students outraged by Calvin's theory. Maybe they will go out and change the world to prove him wrong. Their next class should involve Charles Darwin's thoughts about the success and/or failure of the human species during our time on this earth, since heaven and hell are here and now for many of us.
1
"This is not philosophy, after all."
After reading this piece, that's become abundantly clear. Rather than scramble to find value in a bankrupt ideology, why don't we just call a spade a spade? Surely, something as divisive as Calvinist predestination is worth teaching as an historical matter, just as a years from now we will hopefully speak of the Trump candidacy as the peak of hysterical national politics. Still, that doesn't mean we need to find virtue in the farcical.
After reading this piece, that's become abundantly clear. Rather than scramble to find value in a bankrupt ideology, why don't we just call a spade a spade? Surely, something as divisive as Calvinist predestination is worth teaching as an historical matter, just as a years from now we will hopefully speak of the Trump candidacy as the peak of hysterical national politics. Still, that doesn't mean we need to find virtue in the farcical.
5
Wow, this must be a very interesting class to watch. I congratulate you.
Being a Christian myself, this is one of the theological concepts that I always find myself kicking at the poke. It is conveniently smug, answering all the difficulties that come with who is to be saved and why so many people in the world can be damned for no reason of what is in their heart with the stroke of a pen. It stands by Calvin's letter of the law, but answers nothing of the spirit of Christ.
I think your 2nd&3rd points ("be careful what you believe in") and ("you don't have take the bait") are quite apropos. There are a lot of popular ideas even today that people rarely think through. The crazy ones that end up in the news the most immediate and appalling collateral damage, but even comparatively mild notions like reductionism, when poorly thought through at an administrative level, could cause great harm.
It is not exactly that people kill with greatest satisfaction when it is in the name of religion -- as Bertrand Russel alluded; rather, it is "when people think they have certainty". With certainty, there is justification, and with that, all is deserved. As Oliver Cromwell said, "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you are mistaken". hence, was we achieve greater and greater certainty through science and technology, we should all learn to heed these words when we are the most assured of ourselves.
Being a Christian myself, this is one of the theological concepts that I always find myself kicking at the poke. It is conveniently smug, answering all the difficulties that come with who is to be saved and why so many people in the world can be damned for no reason of what is in their heart with the stroke of a pen. It stands by Calvin's letter of the law, but answers nothing of the spirit of Christ.
I think your 2nd&3rd points ("be careful what you believe in") and ("you don't have take the bait") are quite apropos. There are a lot of popular ideas even today that people rarely think through. The crazy ones that end up in the news the most immediate and appalling collateral damage, but even comparatively mild notions like reductionism, when poorly thought through at an administrative level, could cause great harm.
It is not exactly that people kill with greatest satisfaction when it is in the name of religion -- as Bertrand Russel alluded; rather, it is "when people think they have certainty". With certainty, there is justification, and with that, all is deserved. As Oliver Cromwell said, "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you are mistaken". hence, was we achieve greater and greater certainty through science and technology, we should all learn to heed these words when we are the most assured of ourselves.
37
As a Christian I assume you believe in GOD's omniscience.
If GOD knows the future, then is not the future pre-determined?
How do you reconcile our apparent ability to make choices, in fact our requirement to make choices such as the accepting of Christ as our Savior, with this omniscience?
If GOD knows the future, then is not the future pre-determined?
How do you reconcile our apparent ability to make choices, in fact our requirement to make choices such as the accepting of Christ as our Savior, with this omniscience?
1
Have you ever heard of the uncertainty principle? Quantum physics is nothing but uncertainty.
The foremost "intellectual virtues that we need in our modern world" is the understanding that heaven is poison. If our superstitious species did not believe in a heavenly afterlife--they might take care of this life, this Earth. We should be praying that this "pre-ordained" superstition is not imbedded in our DNA.
3
Calvin could have used a dash of modern physics, not to say science fiction. Calvin posits that it can only be that God has decided on the fate of every soul (and all other temporal things) from the beginning of the universe, which then plays out over time according to the script. But this places God in time: the beginning fixes what follows in time; once begun nothing can change it that isn't already in the plan. But time isn't like that, nor is the quantum universe in which time is generated. God is not before time, in time, or after time. If I am a reprobate and damned, and because of my good actions and prayers ought not to be, God merely makes an adjustment at the beginning that changes my fate millennia on. God is like a novelist: no matter how far he gets toward the ending, he can always go back and rewrite; none of it's so until all of it's so, and the universe is published, and rolled up like a scroll.
1
Those who claim to "study" religious texts are almost always not actually studying anything, but seeking conformation of what they already blindly believe. The only people who can actually study religious texts are atheists.
I think Calvin should be listed among the worse examples of humanity that history offers.
I think Calvin should be listed among the worse examples of humanity that history offers.
7
“Monstrous indeed is the madness of men, who desire to subject the immeasurable to the puny measure of their own reason,” Is Calvin not appealing to reason with his doctrine of predestination? Even if we say his ways are not our ways, we only assume. Perhaps men come to know God, after a fashion; but, it seems to me they are inevitably shaped by their human circumstances. Conviction runs the gamut from crucifixion to holocaust.
As a professor of European history, I can hardly avoid the topic of religion. (nor would I wish to.) In one class I spend a few weeks on the Protestant Reformation and had gotten to the point of explaining Calvin and the idea of predestination. A kid in the back row shot up his hand. "Any body believe this stuff?" he asked, incredulously.
72
and of course they not only believed it, they killed and died for it.
3
It troubles me greatly that hundreds of generations of kids were terrorized and beaten as a loving gesture in Calvin's name.
3
I've seen the results of this belief system first hand. My father grew up in a Calvinist religion. He did live his life in fear, as prescribed. Believed that children were born evil, and must have it beaten out of them to be brought up properly. Most of all, he was terrified when it came time to die. I think his world view was a significant cause of my getting a masters degree in religion. I needed to look closely at "original sin."
66
As proof of Professor Sheehan's assertions about the " powerful conversations" generated by Calvin's teachings I offer my own example over fifty years ago beginning with a college class introduction to Perry Miller leading back to Tawney, Weber, than Calvin himself.
The floodgates opened to the most fundamental of questions: What is the relationship between predestination and the rise of capitalism? Isaccumulated wealth in such a system a symbol and proof of God's favor, an unfolding natural order? What about free will, and historical determinism?
No doubt about it. However one responds to Calvin, he provides powerful motivations, if not a little disturbance, to one's intellect.
The floodgates opened to the most fundamental of questions: What is the relationship between predestination and the rise of capitalism? Isaccumulated wealth in such a system a symbol and proof of God's favor, an unfolding natural order? What about free will, and historical determinism?
No doubt about it. However one responds to Calvin, he provides powerful motivations, if not a little disturbance, to one's intellect.
3
To me, today's Evangelical Christians seem to have this Calvinistic attitude that they are the chosen ones, the correct ones. I guess this allows them to support Donald Trump without any fear of eternal consequences.
I really do not care how Evangelical Christians view themselves. I just do not want them imposing their beliefs on me by political means.
I really do not care how Evangelical Christians view themselves. I just do not want them imposing their beliefs on me by political means.
7
The Earth will be a marvelous place once we have left religion behind. The inability to use reason to arrive at beliefs is a problem I encounter very day with my science students. There are many, however, like me, who are sick of being caught in the middle between various religious factions warring over who has the true God. We don't have to invoke an omniscient dictator to live spiritual lives.
11
Any philosophy that influenced large numbers of people is worth studying, if only to understand the reasons why it had such influence. An unstudied history exacts its due in other ways.
We profit from examining the maps of early explorers, no matter how useless and misleading they might be for modern navigation.
We profit from examining the maps of early explorers, no matter how useless and misleading they might be for modern navigation.
1
We Lutherans reject Calvin and predestination as nothing more than superstition. His arguments required a belief in the unknowable. To say we can believe or not because of free will is to say we have the free will to believe that walking under a ladder will prevent bad luck.
The Lutheran doctrine of free will is grounded in real life. We believe that we have free will regarding all things earthly. Like how will we love and serve the poor, who will we marry, what will be our vocation. And so on. We believe we have no free will regarding things heavenly. Like salvation or who gets to go to heaven.
In fact we go so far as to say that we cannot believe.
This gets us to real live. Morality is ambiguous. There is no rule book. It is impossible to look over shoulder to see if God is smiling at us when we make our daily earthly decisions.
Ask a Lutheran to define a Christian and we will say a Christian is someone who is like a little Christ to our neighbor.
Since we believe we can't believe you won't find us claiming belief in the unknowable.
The Lutheran doctrine of free will is grounded in real life. We believe that we have free will regarding all things earthly. Like how will we love and serve the poor, who will we marry, what will be our vocation. And so on. We believe we have no free will regarding things heavenly. Like salvation or who gets to go to heaven.
In fact we go so far as to say that we cannot believe.
This gets us to real live. Morality is ambiguous. There is no rule book. It is impossible to look over shoulder to see if God is smiling at us when we make our daily earthly decisions.
Ask a Lutheran to define a Christian and we will say a Christian is someone who is like a little Christ to our neighbor.
Since we believe we can't believe you won't find us claiming belief in the unknowable.
3
If the Reformation had finished with Luther, the world would be a much better place.
1
Capitalism is secular rationalism. It is ironic that, as Sheehan points out, the the modern liberal economy and science as well might owe their birth to Calvinism. But not so surprising. The intellectual pride in Calvin’s brilliant arguments is palpable. As far as salvation is concerned, the certainty of uncertainty is the only persuasion modern mankind needs to take practical matters into its own hands.
1
Raised as a Calvinist during the Sixties and Seventies, I too found the doctrine of predestination reprehensible. Yet look at where we now are in the secular world: from The Atlantic - There's no such thing as free will
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing...
Many secularists are now accepting determinism (not fatalism, however) as one's reaction in the present is deemed to be predetermined by one's nature and nurture. We are controlled by our brains, we don't control them, if you will. When my students and I cover this topic in class, they too rail against this kind of determinism - but now they are railing against 'science', not theology.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing...
Many secularists are now accepting determinism (not fatalism, however) as one's reaction in the present is deemed to be predetermined by one's nature and nurture. We are controlled by our brains, we don't control them, if you will. When my students and I cover this topic in class, they too rail against this kind of determinism - but now they are railing against 'science', not theology.
3
As a teenager these questions interested me, especially purpose and meaning of life. I decided then that if one had seen a child fall and scrape his or her knee, and if one had picked that child up and comforted him or her, then one had a reason for being, that one's life had meaning. Simple I know, but forty-five years later this is still my answer as to why we are here. I do not need complicated, philosophical arguments. I simply need to answer in the affirmative when asked if I have eased anyone else's pain, made anyone else's life easier to bear. Fate, destiny these were questions that were fun to argue while getting high, but action was always my answer to the really important question.
123
No reason for it to be either or, pondering or action. It could be both. No reason at all for thinking to prevent action.
In both her fiction and essays, Marilynne Robinson does salutary work in making various aspects of John Calvin’s thought come alive in all its roundedness. This piece, with its focus on the terrible outlandishness of predestination, not so much...
The argument seems to boil down to Calvin’s doctrine being outrageous, even if sound within its internal structure. Tightly argued, provocative perhaps, but alas, from this corner, still revolting and ridiculous. So the author’s students get the hair up on the back of their necks and are inspired to pipe up. Lively discussion ensues. Bully for that. But it still doesn’t make predestination any more palatable nor applicable to what ails us in this age. And it persists in giving religion a bad name, as evidenced by many of the rightfully indignant comments here by non-believers who simply roll their eyes at this latest iteration of literalist superstition.
The argument seems to boil down to Calvin’s doctrine being outrageous, even if sound within its internal structure. Tightly argued, provocative perhaps, but alas, from this corner, still revolting and ridiculous. So the author’s students get the hair up on the back of their necks and are inspired to pipe up. Lively discussion ensues. Bully for that. But it still doesn’t make predestination any more palatable nor applicable to what ails us in this age. And it persists in giving religion a bad name, as evidenced by many of the rightfully indignant comments here by non-believers who simply roll their eyes at this latest iteration of literalist superstition.
3
I think Mr. Sheehan overlooks something basic to the question posed by Calvin and election. Reasoning about God's will is always dubious. The transcendent is incomprehensible to the finite mind.
In thinking of God we must be guided by emotion and intuition, constrained by reason but not born of it. Thus Calvin was on treacherous ground in reasoning himself to the doctrine of predestination. The idea need not be taken seriously unless one so desires or is oriented. But as Mr. Sheehan says it is good grist for the mill of theological speculation and thought.
In thinking of God we must be guided by emotion and intuition, constrained by reason but not born of it. Thus Calvin was on treacherous ground in reasoning himself to the doctrine of predestination. The idea need not be taken seriously unless one so desires or is oriented. But as Mr. Sheehan says it is good grist for the mill of theological speculation and thought.
1
A decision (because essentially that's what it is) to not believe in an omniscient, omnipotent holy God is based primarialy on how one chooses to live. The data "against" the existence of God is fairly thin and usually biased by those who don't want God to exist. Ask the agnostic/atheist/spiritualist on the street the question that if God truly did exist, would they want Him to be involved in their life in an intimate way and I would bet the answer would be no in a significant majority. People want to live their lives unhindered and a fundamental requirement for that lifestyle is that there be no Supreme Being messing in their stuff except to keep them from being run over by a bus, heal their sick aunt, or allow them to make tons of money. If hell was the desire to be completely free of God's interference in one's life, most would be both happy and relieved to go there. Calvin is simply saying that without the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, all of us are on the path to a dismal eternity, but the fact of the matter is that no one really wants to be bothered by Him.
4
The same problem the author discusses is has been debated by philosophers for centuries as the problem of evil.
Calvin's proposed solution was anticipated by a couple thousand years by the authors of the Book of Job: God's ways are unknowable.
Augustine's emphasis on the role of human free will as the source of evil, however, is the solution that probably satisfies most believers in an omnipotent and wholly benevolent God.
In the 18th Century, Rousseau posed the problem in a modern secular form: If human beings are good (or at least not bad) from the start, why is there so much wrong in the world, and why does this occur in systematic forms such as economic inequality. Rousseau's critique foreshadows many other kinds of social criticism.
Rousseau's proposed solutions are in two books. The "Social Contract" proposes a demanding theory of the just society, and "Emile" proposes a theory of how the right kind of education can inoculate at least some individuals from serving evil.
Calvin's proposed solution was anticipated by a couple thousand years by the authors of the Book of Job: God's ways are unknowable.
Augustine's emphasis on the role of human free will as the source of evil, however, is the solution that probably satisfies most believers in an omnipotent and wholly benevolent God.
In the 18th Century, Rousseau posed the problem in a modern secular form: If human beings are good (or at least not bad) from the start, why is there so much wrong in the world, and why does this occur in systematic forms such as economic inequality. Rousseau's critique foreshadows many other kinds of social criticism.
Rousseau's proposed solutions are in two books. The "Social Contract" proposes a demanding theory of the just society, and "Emile" proposes a theory of how the right kind of education can inoculate at least some individuals from serving evil.
1
Religion is an Escher staircase, where one climbs and climbs only to find oneself in the same place. When idle speculation is codified, one must abandon reason or face repercussions.
That being said, no better example of the hubristic humility of the pious cleric can be found than the writings of John Calvin. True, Luther claimed that in his universe faith, not works, was vital to salvation. Calvin raised him all in by claiming that not even faith could save someone whom his god would damn. This was competitive theocracy, and like Trump's ravings I imagine it appealed to those who felt hard used by this life.
As for religious history, how can one teach history and leave out the pervasive influence of religious gangs, their adventures at the Crusades, their massacre of blameless Jews on the way to those Crusades, the blood in Northern Ireland, or to hark back to Calvin's progeny, the Huguenots against the Catholics in France. Without understanding how annoying these doctrinaire scolds were, one might be confused as to why the Puritans were less than welcome in England.
The cafeteria religious, those for whom giving up childhood beliefs might provoke hard feelings at family gatherings, would prefer not to be confronted with the lunatic ravings of those such as Joseph Smith or Calvin that buoyed the spirits of people who yearned gravely for the world of their senses to be less than real, or if real less than important.
Please teach history, and don't leave the zealots out.
That being said, no better example of the hubristic humility of the pious cleric can be found than the writings of John Calvin. True, Luther claimed that in his universe faith, not works, was vital to salvation. Calvin raised him all in by claiming that not even faith could save someone whom his god would damn. This was competitive theocracy, and like Trump's ravings I imagine it appealed to those who felt hard used by this life.
As for religious history, how can one teach history and leave out the pervasive influence of religious gangs, their adventures at the Crusades, their massacre of blameless Jews on the way to those Crusades, the blood in Northern Ireland, or to hark back to Calvin's progeny, the Huguenots against the Catholics in France. Without understanding how annoying these doctrinaire scolds were, one might be confused as to why the Puritans were less than welcome in England.
The cafeteria religious, those for whom giving up childhood beliefs might provoke hard feelings at family gatherings, would prefer not to be confronted with the lunatic ravings of those such as Joseph Smith or Calvin that buoyed the spirits of people who yearned gravely for the world of their senses to be less than real, or if real less than important.
Please teach history, and don't leave the zealots out.
12
It seems to me that paying to study Calvinism in college is akin to getting credit hours for arguing about the extent of Superman's powers here on Earth. One must first accept the silly premise that Superman even exists at all. This course reminds me of the Big Bang episode in which the fellows are discussing, quite seriously, the physics of Superman's super powers. The professor is entirely correct in that it forces one to think logically and critically, two virtues surely missing in today's political discourse. But let's not forget the basis of all logic; one must first accept the premise. Logic arguments premised on the Bible are in no small measure different from logic arguments premised on Superman 1, issue 1.
3
In the last sentence I meant to say the same by no small measure, not different. Lesson learned. Don't rush to post.
I assume that Professor Sheehan puts all of the Christian thinkers and theologians in the proper historical context as being critical to elements of certain aspects of Western European culture as well as our own. This is a good thing because one cannot really understand colonial history, especially among New England’s Puritans and their view of the landscape, Indians, and their system of government without having some appreciation of Calvin’s views. On the other hand, understanding the ideas of Calvin, Luther, or Erasmus is very different from actually believing in these ideas, and that appears to be Professor Sheehan’s point. Every society is a associated with some kind of Ideology; ideologies that are not only powerful cohesive forces, but that can be manipulated into authoritarian and coercive systems. Understanding the past really is critical to understanding the present and helping to predict the future.
14
There’s a huge difference between theology and comparative religious studies.
Everyone school should teach world religions -- *especially* religions that differ from one’s parents’ or dominant culture. Understanding religious thought is important if one is to understand world affairs, culture, history, and literature. And I say that as someone who staunchly opposes the truth claims made by organized religion. You can learn about the religious philosophy of the Aztecs, ancient Egyptians, Aborigines, Jainism or Islam in a way that is objective, secular and intellectually rich.
Theology, however, is something else entirely. Theology is taught as if the truth claims made by religious ideology are fact. Theology is the antithesis of pluralism and liberalism. It is a form of ignorance because it dismisses other religions/philosophies or outright denigrates them. Theology teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
Secular liberal democracies grow stronger when its citizens are eager to learn more about different religion; it grows weaker when its citizens are eager to learn more theology.
Everyone school should teach world religions -- *especially* religions that differ from one’s parents’ or dominant culture. Understanding religious thought is important if one is to understand world affairs, culture, history, and literature. And I say that as someone who staunchly opposes the truth claims made by organized religion. You can learn about the religious philosophy of the Aztecs, ancient Egyptians, Aborigines, Jainism or Islam in a way that is objective, secular and intellectually rich.
Theology, however, is something else entirely. Theology is taught as if the truth claims made by religious ideology are fact. Theology is the antithesis of pluralism and liberalism. It is a form of ignorance because it dismisses other religions/philosophies or outright denigrates them. Theology teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
Secular liberal democracies grow stronger when its citizens are eager to learn more about different religion; it grows weaker when its citizens are eager to learn more theology.
8
As a recent 64-year old graduate of an Episcopal Seminary, I heartily congratulate Prof. Sheehan for exploring Calvin's theology with his undergraduates. After 40 years of practicing telecommunications law, I found studying theology to be one of the most intellectually liberating excursions of my entire academic and religious life. I was freed from the strictures of religious doctrine and belief by poring over the varying doctrinal permutations and combinations espoused by the great theologians of of the past 2,000+ years. I am free to choose, believe, or not. Somewhat sheepishly one day, I preceded a statement in class with an apology for what would surely be regarded as heretical. My Systematics Professor stopped me mid-sentence with a most stern admonition, "You must never concern yourself with heresy in a Seminary!" This is the gift of freedom that Prof. Sheehan bestows upon his students -- the elect of the University.
8
I've never read Calvin and, following this introduction, am unlikely to do so. Those who do study his arguments must find a more persuasive rationale than can be conveyed in this brief treatment, because this is logically rather flimsy. The crux of his preposition turns on the statement: "If he is free in his choices, how can it be otherwise than that God himself determines our fates, right to the edges of hell?" Yet it is Calvin who makes that decision for God.
Humans have always had a deplorable habit of not just speaking for their deity, but even of defining Him, Her, It or Them in their entirety. One thing I do believe is that we have at best only a vague notion of God's objectives for the process of creation. But I also firmly believe that creation HAS a purpose - otherwise it has no point whatsoever. What would be the purpose of Calvin's hypothesized creation? An entire reality created that would have no more utility than wall decor in the celestial abode. Why not simply create souls immediately placed in paradise or perdition?
I admit that I don't have anything other than guesses as to God's objectives for creation and what that implies for each individual's purpose in life. I heartily reject Calvin's arrogance in which he elects to determine God's thought process and role in creation.
Humans have always had a deplorable habit of not just speaking for their deity, but even of defining Him, Her, It or Them in their entirety. One thing I do believe is that we have at best only a vague notion of God's objectives for the process of creation. But I also firmly believe that creation HAS a purpose - otherwise it has no point whatsoever. What would be the purpose of Calvin's hypothesized creation? An entire reality created that would have no more utility than wall decor in the celestial abode. Why not simply create souls immediately placed in paradise or perdition?
I admit that I don't have anything other than guesses as to God's objectives for creation and what that implies for each individual's purpose in life. I heartily reject Calvin's arrogance in which he elects to determine God's thought process and role in creation.
4
This was interesting article, my own graduate work is in theology. I think the thing that is missing here is the political and economic consequences of Calvin's thought. Calvin taught that people were basically, at their core, spiritually dead until redeemed (the non-elect and the elect). In this life the non-believers are "not able not to sin" while all believers are in this life achieve is "able not to sin" (it is only in heaven when believers reach the state of "not being able to sin"). Arminianism (Calvin's opposite) teaches that people are basically good and only spiritually "sick" (not dead as Calvin taught). Politically and economically, the Arminian view generally leads to socialism or communism (people will work for the common good and are altruistic). Calvinism generally leads to capitalism (people are best motivated by self-interest). Calvinism, opposed to monarchies and dictators, are also not friends of democracy; left to their own devices they rule by oligarchy of "elders" or some other close-knit system. For instance, Calvin's Geneva, or Puritan America where only church members in good standing had the franchise.
This article is important in several ways, mainly that the study of theology is what it was called in the Reformation era, "The Queen of the Sciences." Ignoring it under the guise of "separation of church and state" is a dangerous and delusional approach to liberal education; it is vital understanding how some of our basic societal systems work.
This article is important in several ways, mainly that the study of theology is what it was called in the Reformation era, "The Queen of the Sciences." Ignoring it under the guise of "separation of church and state" is a dangerous and delusional approach to liberal education; it is vital understanding how some of our basic societal systems work.
4
We are born creators because our Creator created us so. Now we dream of creation in a world of our own imagining - a world of death and judgment. All that is Real, which is Love, lies beyond our three-dimensional "reality." Believing we are only bodies, we can see nothing else except what the body sees. If God is All That Is, then it is a logical impossibility that anything could be outside of God. Calvin got that right. What he didn't see was that all separation is illusion. Hell is here on this earth until we understand we are all joined in spirit. That single change in perception will alter all of creation.
5
Nothing supernatural has ever happened. Ever.
30
Nope. All logical stuff. But if you think you can see outside the box your mind is in, you've got some great stuff coming your way. Rock On Jerry!
Now Jerry....that is as dogmatic and skewed a view as I have ever read - you sound like someone whose mindset might fit within the ISIS framework if you were only a Muslim with a very primitive view of the world. It is one thing to question the reality and intrusion of the supernatural in the world of ours, but to declare that it is non-existent - that no one has ever experienced it in any sort of sane and realistic way? Closed-minded at its worst.
3
Problem is, a whole lot of folks think otherwise, and among them are people who burn witches, crosses, and Jews. Calvinism energizes all these activities, and needs to be recognized. Professor Sheehan is attempting to make the world a safer place.
3
Surely there must have been some devout Calvinists in the class? I was brought up in a Calvinistic Anabaptist tradition, but I soundly rejected it (and the idea of a god) when I was 13, just a few months before I was due to be baptized. I can't believe that everyone followed my example, there must be some true believers in Calvin somewhere in the Berkeley student population....they need to be in this class to provide balance.
5
I believed and taught Calvinism from the pulpit for many years.....it is a thoroughly logical system of thought. Then I began to pay attention to what it does to human beings - not so pretty.
5
While I thoroughly enjoyed Professor Sheehan's provocative piece, it was nothing more than an arcane, irrelevant, intellectual indulgence, that has absolutely no consequence or import to 99.9% of American society. That being said, sincere congratulations to Sheehan and his students for being able to carve out an anomalous niche, where the humane process of intellectual discourse and rational thought are the "means"to a rewarding and stimulating "end", and "Calvin" isn't a shorthand for a trendy pair of jeans.
4
I disagree. A study of Calvinism is crucial to all Americans, since the Republican party bases much of their policy on Calvinist thought.
Ted Cruz and George W Bush are two examples.
Manifest destiny and the belief that we are a nation founded solely on Christian principles, and that there should be room for no others are examples of the philosophy that inspires their politics.
Our historical treatment of Native Americans demonstrates the effects of these policies, as do our many conquests in the Middle East.
In other words, Calvin's teachings are at the core of American life and I applaud Sheehan for teaching them in his class.
Ted Cruz and George W Bush are two examples.
Manifest destiny and the belief that we are a nation founded solely on Christian principles, and that there should be room for no others are examples of the philosophy that inspires their politics.
Our historical treatment of Native Americans demonstrates the effects of these policies, as do our many conquests in the Middle East.
In other words, Calvin's teachings are at the core of American life and I applaud Sheehan for teaching them in his class.
93
We are a nation founded, without saying so, on genicide and slavery. But we are not as bad as we once were.
4
Nils, yes, these ideas should be widely taught. However it must be understood that virtually all of America's limited democracy, democrat or republican, continues to be largely based on Calvinism.
2
Thank you for this piece. I am excited to think students are debating these thoughtful questions. I think it would be instructive to note that Michael Servetus, who wrote the On the Errors of the Trinity and the Restitution of Christianity, both opposing Calvin's view, was burned at the stake by John Calvin on October 27, 1553. Only three copies of the Errors of the Trinity survived. Servetus is one of the founders of Unitarianism in Transylvania. What would your students make of that?
Jan
Jan
56
A little-known (or at least little-admitted) fact. The last "witch" ordered burned at the stake by the Catholic Inquisition was in 1850.
Disclaimer: Many more have died since because of the constant wars between people whose theologies differ (a lot, or even a little), and even more will continue to be killed, but just not under sanction of the Inquisition.
Disclaimer: Many more have died since because of the constant wars between people whose theologies differ (a lot, or even a little), and even more will continue to be killed, but just not under sanction of the Inquisition.
3
There is a Presbyterian Church nearby that I have considered regularly attending, but something has always held me back. I believe it is my knowledge of its founder. I knew that Calvin was stern and unforgiving, but I just never knew . . .
2
Given that most Times readers (and one would guess, many of Professor Sheehan's students_ subscribe to the physicalist notion that our lives are wholly determined by purely physical causes (genes, the physical environment, our sensory responses to surrounding culture which are ultimately encoded in our brain, Libet's alleged "discovery" that free will is an illusion), their objection to Calvin is, well, interesting, to say the least.
If you object to Calvin's "predestination", you might take some time to reflect on why you believe in physicalist ideas (which support a much more superficial notion of predestination and physical determinism), particularly since the science which you believe supports physicalism does no such thing.
It may take some time to understand that nothing in the neuroscientific research literature actually supports physicalist beliefs. Physicalism (or naturalism or materialism, if you like) is a purely faith based belief system - come to think of it, not all that different from Calvinism.
you might even say that physicalism is the bastard-child of incoherent religious ideologies like Calvinism. The fact that Asian philosophies have not given birth to such doctrinaire, fundamaterialist ideologies suggest there may be a radically different approach to science, and in fact, to the whole understanding of what "free will" means.
If you object to Calvin's "predestination", you might take some time to reflect on why you believe in physicalist ideas (which support a much more superficial notion of predestination and physical determinism), particularly since the science which you believe supports physicalism does no such thing.
It may take some time to understand that nothing in the neuroscientific research literature actually supports physicalist beliefs. Physicalism (or naturalism or materialism, if you like) is a purely faith based belief system - come to think of it, not all that different from Calvinism.
you might even say that physicalism is the bastard-child of incoherent religious ideologies like Calvinism. The fact that Asian philosophies have not given birth to such doctrinaire, fundamaterialist ideologies suggest there may be a radically different approach to science, and in fact, to the whole understanding of what "free will" means.
14
red herring
3
So Sheehan is proud of himself for having provoked his students with Old testament mumbo-jumbo. Cute. So what's next? Voo-doo, Mohamidism, shaminism? How about, 'The contrasting epistemologies of fascism in Spain, Germany, and Italy, circa 1930'?
9
Right, because the last thing we need is to make any effort to understand people who think differently from us. Certainly not those weird practitioners of "Mohamidism" - I mean, it's not as if *they* have any influence on the world today. And of course, it's not as if "old testament mumbo-jumbo" has any relevance to contemporary geopolitics. Sheehan is just like those fools back in 1930 who wasted their time trying to understand the "contrasting epistemologies of fascism in Spain, Germany, and Italy." Thank god we didn't pay any attention to them!
5
John Calvin went far beyond the "thought experiment" described in this article.
And the cruelty of his world view is matched only by the Spanish Inquisition with which he cooperated.
Look up Michael Servetus, burned at the stake by Calvinists in Geneva in 1553.
And the cruelty of his world view is matched only by the Spanish Inquisition with which he cooperated.
Look up Michael Servetus, burned at the stake by Calvinists in Geneva in 1553.
57
I agree with the author that the study of religious texts offers important insights into the making of the modern world - including attitudes that persist to this day. Take, for instance, conservative evangelicals attitudes towards poverty.
The Catholic Church of the pre-Reformation era was more than a network of faith. It was also the predominant charitable organization of the era, responsible for distributing alms to the poor of that era.
However, after the looting of the monasteries by Henry VIII, Cromwell, and other pseudo-reformers, this charitable network vanished in Protestant countries, and was not replaced. And hence arose the need for a rationale for blaming the poor - for an ethos of predestination.
Predestination doesn't begin with Calvin, but he takes the abominable idea to its revolting conclusion. And this abominable perspective continues to influence American evangelicalism to this day - in, for instance, the attitude that the wealthy are somehow among the elect of God, while poverty reflects a defect of character.
Poverty may indeed reflect a defect in character - but if so, then it is surely the character of the elite who hoard as much as possible for themselves, rather that allow others to also share in the fruits of this earth, who are exposed.
To Calvin's predestination, I offer this alternative from the Vedic tradition: "As the blazing fire reduces wood to ashes, similarly, the fire of self-knowledge reduces all karma to ashes."
The Catholic Church of the pre-Reformation era was more than a network of faith. It was also the predominant charitable organization of the era, responsible for distributing alms to the poor of that era.
However, after the looting of the monasteries by Henry VIII, Cromwell, and other pseudo-reformers, this charitable network vanished in Protestant countries, and was not replaced. And hence arose the need for a rationale for blaming the poor - for an ethos of predestination.
Predestination doesn't begin with Calvin, but he takes the abominable idea to its revolting conclusion. And this abominable perspective continues to influence American evangelicalism to this day - in, for instance, the attitude that the wealthy are somehow among the elect of God, while poverty reflects a defect of character.
Poverty may indeed reflect a defect in character - but if so, then it is surely the character of the elite who hoard as much as possible for themselves, rather that allow others to also share in the fruits of this earth, who are exposed.
To Calvin's predestination, I offer this alternative from the Vedic tradition: "As the blazing fire reduces wood to ashes, similarly, the fire of self-knowledge reduces all karma to ashes."
138
Thank you, Matthew, for that beautiful quote from the Bhagavad Gita. Many of the commenters, who seem to take pride in coming up with the snarkiest anti-philosophic comments, might take a different view - of the world, themselves, of science, art, ethics, everything - if they spent a bit more time with the Gita, or Lojong, or Shantideva - all of which are powerful anti-T***p antidotes.
1
We just have to make it clear that it is the study of religious texts, not the advocacy of their "teachings" that is where the line should be drawn. And, for perspective, if you are going to study religious texts to learn their historical influence on today's world, you should include a wide range of religions for proper perspective.
3
If reading Calvin teaches us that ignorance, fear and sanctimony can masquerade as wisdom, then by all means teach it. If it shows that self-loathing can be elevated into a philosophy of living, let's shout it from the rooftops. It will surely help explain what's going on in the world today, when mindless superstition can cause people to blow themselves up in crowded marketplaces.
Personally, I'm certain that death is simply oblivion, and for the next 15 billion years I'll be no more conscious of my fate than I was for the first 15 billion. I can't understand the hubris of people like Calvin who think that a divine creator gives a fig about him. On the contrary, it's God who should be afraid. All trace of God vanishes when we die, and our three pounds of neural goo dissolves. When humanity is no more, then neither is God.
It seems we'll have the last laugh.
Personally, I'm certain that death is simply oblivion, and for the next 15 billion years I'll be no more conscious of my fate than I was for the first 15 billion. I can't understand the hubris of people like Calvin who think that a divine creator gives a fig about him. On the contrary, it's God who should be afraid. All trace of God vanishes when we die, and our three pounds of neural goo dissolves. When humanity is no more, then neither is God.
It seems we'll have the last laugh.
164
Ironically, gemli, you unwittingly subscribe to a dogmatic religious faith masquerading as philosophic doctrine - fundamaterialism - which, as I wrote in an earlier comment, is the bastard-child of Calvinism.
Do you have free will, in your faith? No. You are completely an irrevocably the result of your biological inheritance and environmental influences. Neuroscience teaches us this, according to your faith. It may not be "pre" destination, but it is as complete a nihilistic determinism as any religion or philosophy ever taught.
But I give it too much credit to call it a "philosophy." According to this faith, the blue sky, the vast distances of interstellar space, the green grass, all of it is constructed by our brains. It only becomes "blue" or "green" because we observe it. But consciousness, Father Daniel Dennett tells us, doesn't exist (well, may as well not exist, to be precise, as he has explained it away). Therefore there is really nothing in the universe, not even a brain. Nothing could possibly even exists in a truly, wholly physicalist universe.
The old Dadaists and absurdist existentialists had nothing on these folks. Calvinism, as bad as it may be, is a pillar of logic and coherence compared to the nihilistic, incoherence and irrationality of fundamaterialism.
Do you have free will, in your faith? No. You are completely an irrevocably the result of your biological inheritance and environmental influences. Neuroscience teaches us this, according to your faith. It may not be "pre" destination, but it is as complete a nihilistic determinism as any religion or philosophy ever taught.
But I give it too much credit to call it a "philosophy." According to this faith, the blue sky, the vast distances of interstellar space, the green grass, all of it is constructed by our brains. It only becomes "blue" or "green" because we observe it. But consciousness, Father Daniel Dennett tells us, doesn't exist (well, may as well not exist, to be precise, as he has explained it away). Therefore there is really nothing in the universe, not even a brain. Nothing could possibly even exists in a truly, wholly physicalist universe.
The old Dadaists and absurdist existentialists had nothing on these folks. Calvinism, as bad as it may be, is a pillar of logic and coherence compared to the nihilistic, incoherence and irrationality of fundamaterialism.
20
It has been said that religion began when the first conman met the first sucker. In the days when hunter-gatherers were forming into agricultural communities, the jack-of-all-trades hunter gave way to the specialization needed to create an entire community. Some were hunters, some were gatherers, some tended the fires and cooked the meals, some crafted tools and weapons, some took care of the children. Each person contributed his or her labor to the welfare of the community and shared in its communal bounty. Except, that is, for the shaman, who discovered that he could be fed, clothed, and housed like everybody else without the need to live a life of hard physical labor. All he had to do was adorn himself with paint and feathers, shake his rattles, cast his bones, chant a bit and dance a little, and his comfort was assured. And thus it remains.
13
@Don Salmon,
If you think an invisible man in the sky has designed the universe with you in mind, then it would be pointless to argue. But I’m a little suspicious of people who stake out the Great Unknown as their territory and then claim to know all about it.
Our brains are physical, self-evolving biological machines that provide their owners with a workable model of the world. They’re flawed and imprecise, and are more likely to see demons in the bushes than they are the beauty of physics. We’re half a chromosome removed from chimpanzees, and given the state of the world, and the Republican presidential nominee, I’d say that’s a generous assessment.
Rational thought may be fundamental to understanding the universe, but it’s not fundamentalism by any means. The scientific “faith” doesn’t rely on unassailable authorities or dogmatic assertions. Science changes its mind when the facts change. For centuries religious understandings have been replaced by rational scientific ones. It never goes in the other direction.
Revering the ancient ignorance of iron-age tribal collectives is not considered a virtue, nor is the nihilistic murder and brutality that is written on every bloody page of the holy books that masquerade as the word of God.
But praise the Lord if you must. If you follow the rules, the God that created Ebola and who gives children bone cancer will recognize your worth and grant you a tedious eternity of praising Him from morning ‘till night.
If you think an invisible man in the sky has designed the universe with you in mind, then it would be pointless to argue. But I’m a little suspicious of people who stake out the Great Unknown as their territory and then claim to know all about it.
Our brains are physical, self-evolving biological machines that provide their owners with a workable model of the world. They’re flawed and imprecise, and are more likely to see demons in the bushes than they are the beauty of physics. We’re half a chromosome removed from chimpanzees, and given the state of the world, and the Republican presidential nominee, I’d say that’s a generous assessment.
Rational thought may be fundamental to understanding the universe, but it’s not fundamentalism by any means. The scientific “faith” doesn’t rely on unassailable authorities or dogmatic assertions. Science changes its mind when the facts change. For centuries religious understandings have been replaced by rational scientific ones. It never goes in the other direction.
Revering the ancient ignorance of iron-age tribal collectives is not considered a virtue, nor is the nihilistic murder and brutality that is written on every bloody page of the holy books that masquerade as the word of God.
But praise the Lord if you must. If you follow the rules, the God that created Ebola and who gives children bone cancer will recognize your worth and grant you a tedious eternity of praising Him from morning ‘till night.
20
This article is yet another which reinforces my conviction that religion is the worst disease ever to have infected mankind.
146
Historically speaking, I don't think the concept of election seriously challenged any significant audience except the popes. Calvinism doesn't appear to have inspired fundamentalist excess any more than any other religion.
It isn't necessary to study the nature of divinity in order to understand the striking political cleavage between Catholic western monarchies and Reformed western nation states.
It isn't necessary to study the nature of divinity in order to understand the striking political cleavage between Catholic western monarchies and Reformed western nation states.
3
Dear Professor Sheehan,
Your students are fortunate indeed. "Monstrous indeed is the madness of men, who desire to subject the immeasurable to the puny measure of their own reason." This is precisely what almost every last one of us attempt to do almost every moment of every day, and it is when we pause in that effort that we begin to glimpse the glimmerings of philosophy, and then, miraculously, wisdom begins.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
Your students are fortunate indeed. "Monstrous indeed is the madness of men, who desire to subject the immeasurable to the puny measure of their own reason." This is precisely what almost every last one of us attempt to do almost every moment of every day, and it is when we pause in that effort that we begin to glimpse the glimmerings of philosophy, and then, miraculously, wisdom begins.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
30
This article makes me glad I spent my college years studying science, math, and history.
87
There is no heaven There is no hell. Problem solved.
84
And most importantly, there's no god, or allah, or whatever you prefer to call it. So relax.
3
Yes! No more needs to be said!!
One of the points of the article is that this does not, in fact, solve the problem: "Do we think that the world has a purpose and an order? . . . If it doesn’t, what does a meaningful life look like?"
You can go through life without pondering these things, but if you do ponder them, you'll be richer for having considered other thinkers' viewpoints and how they reached them - even if you believe they are completely mistaken.
You can go through life without pondering these things, but if you do ponder them, you'll be richer for having considered other thinkers' viewpoints and how they reached them - even if you believe they are completely mistaken.
34
I will save this fine essay. It demonstrates what intellectual virtues really are, and what education means to living.
17
Thought provoking, and definitely a good defense for the idea that theology should be part of an elective course in the humanities.
The questions that go unanswered for me, but are assumed to be self-evident are "what does a meaningful life look like?" and "do we believe that the world has a purpose and order?" These postulates, presumably Calvin's are where I, were I in the classroom, would revel in the argument which would ensue.
The questions that go unanswered for me, but are assumed to be self-evident are "what does a meaningful life look like?" and "do we believe that the world has a purpose and order?" These postulates, presumably Calvin's are where I, were I in the classroom, would revel in the argument which would ensue.
15
Value of Calvin's doctrine of predestination, that "God has determined each human destiny before the creation of the world and that the elect are bound for heaven and the reprobate to hell and there is nothing to be done about it, ever" today?
Probably no theological view is more valuable, sensible, in a secular, increasingly atheistic world than this doctrine of Calvin. It actually makes more sense from an atheist perspective than a religious perspective. When we turn to religion, God, we are far more likely, and from the atheist perspective certainly, to do so because we expect salvation--we do not expect to hear that God has already chosen the elect and those to be doomed.
But from the atheist perspective, the nonexistence of God, we begin with the view of there being no salvation, which is to say we are in a sense, all of us, already doomed, and if there is a God in atheism it is that of society attempting to uplift us all, give us an elect life at least until our deaths.
Now why Calvin is so essential for the atheist is that the atheist must realize that certainly today for all society's accomplishments, many people are evidently of the elect--educated, healthy, with good prospects--but many also are apparently doomed from the start, living a quite sad underclass life.
It is evident society--at least today--cannot give everybody a good life: We simply lack the means to have each person healthy, intelligent, educated, disciplined, successful, happy in life.
Probably no theological view is more valuable, sensible, in a secular, increasingly atheistic world than this doctrine of Calvin. It actually makes more sense from an atheist perspective than a religious perspective. When we turn to religion, God, we are far more likely, and from the atheist perspective certainly, to do so because we expect salvation--we do not expect to hear that God has already chosen the elect and those to be doomed.
But from the atheist perspective, the nonexistence of God, we begin with the view of there being no salvation, which is to say we are in a sense, all of us, already doomed, and if there is a God in atheism it is that of society attempting to uplift us all, give us an elect life at least until our deaths.
Now why Calvin is so essential for the atheist is that the atheist must realize that certainly today for all society's accomplishments, many people are evidently of the elect--educated, healthy, with good prospects--but many also are apparently doomed from the start, living a quite sad underclass life.
It is evident society--at least today--cannot give everybody a good life: We simply lack the means to have each person healthy, intelligent, educated, disciplined, successful, happy in life.
43
Your comment is a brilliant demonstration of the evil of Calvinism, both in its intrinsic nature and in its consequences. It is the justification and foundation of virtually all the evils that have beset this country since its origins: slavery, witch-burning, nativism, segregation, every form of religious discrimination, and the illusion of equal opportunity. It stands in total opposition to the enlightenment and decent aims, all be they imperfect, of the founders and the Constitution. While the Nazis were even more evil, at least they did not clothe their evil in pietism.
I am glad that this is being taught. It deserves a hearing not just in Berkley but everywhere. Calvinism is pervasive in our society, though mostly overt. Our pursuit of a more perfect union requires that we be aware of evil in our midst.
I am glad that this is being taught. It deserves a hearing not just in Berkley but everywhere. Calvinism is pervasive in our society, though mostly overt. Our pursuit of a more perfect union requires that we be aware of evil in our midst.
8
We have the means, just not the will.
3
Doesn't mean we shouldn't try! Do we really lack the means, or just the desire?
3
Excellent article. I wish you well in teaching your students to think through not only their presuppostions but the consequences of their foundational beliefs. Seems to me, no matter how obvious the logic, most folk cling to various contradictory assumptions as witnessed in the current US election cycle. One observation, it´s true if one cannot figure out if one is elect, life is a fear-filled uphill slog. But it seems to me the genius of Calvinism is that by claiming God´s sure promise of acceptance in Christ, one´s life is transformed into one of assurance (sometimes obnoxiously certainty). Calvin´s worldview (ie his theology) can impart a quality that enables one to leave home, clear the wilderness build and sustain a civilization. It´s a quality wanting in most current systems of life in our secular world.
7
I am now once more convinced that my choice to be an atheist was a good one.
113
Good! Blind faith in one's orthodoxy has never ended badly
1
Ken, I'm with you.
4
I'd have the class follow Calvin with a healthy dollop of J. B. Phillips - "Your God is Too Small" - so the students had a fighting chance of making sense of all of this. And then pose the question as to why Christianity has had such a focus on personal salvation when the originator seemed to place an emphasis on caring for others as the antidote to the inherent limitations of self-interest.
74
The greatest defect of the Reformation is that it encouraged believers to have a God as small as themselves.
4
"I like your Jesus. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Jesus."
- Mahatma Ghandi
Throughout the Christian era, the denominations that have proliferated have NOT been about listening to the teachings of Jesus as they believe were laid down in one version or other of their holy book. Instead, they have been about how to find personal salvation through prayer and ritual, worshiping their "savior." There is a vast difference between emulating and worshiping and it has been lost completely over 2 millennia of Christianity. If the definition of a Christian is one who has accepted Jesus as his/her savior, then Jesus - who surely would not have been so egotistical as to accept himself as his personal savior - was never a Christian. Just another Jewish rabbi preaching one of the hundreds of different interpretations and variations of Judaism that have arisen through the millennia.
"One day a man was asked if there were any true atheists. Do you think, he replied, there are any true Christians?"
- Denis Diderot, Pensées philosophiques, 1746
- Mahatma Ghandi
Throughout the Christian era, the denominations that have proliferated have NOT been about listening to the teachings of Jesus as they believe were laid down in one version or other of their holy book. Instead, they have been about how to find personal salvation through prayer and ritual, worshiping their "savior." There is a vast difference between emulating and worshiping and it has been lost completely over 2 millennia of Christianity. If the definition of a Christian is one who has accepted Jesus as his/her savior, then Jesus - who surely would not have been so egotistical as to accept himself as his personal savior - was never a Christian. Just another Jewish rabbi preaching one of the hundreds of different interpretations and variations of Judaism that have arisen through the millennia.
"One day a man was asked if there were any true atheists. Do you think, he replied, there are any true Christians?"
- Denis Diderot, Pensées philosophiques, 1746
5
My God doesn't need to know how it ends. She has the sense of humor and the curiosity to let us solve our own problems, or blow ourselves up, as we see fit.
Christians have forgotten the words of Jesus, "Do you know all know that you are all Gods?"
Christians have forgotten the words of Jesus, "Do you know all know that you are all Gods?"
It was nice of the Times to provide the mental calisthenics that your writing generates as a Monday morning wake-up. As an atheist, I might normally pass it by based upon the headline. I applaud the Times for realizing what seems to be furthest from contemporary news might be the information we need to evaluate the way we perceive our current values, especially important this brutal election season.
89
Speaking truth to power!!!!
A fine example of humanities... Which are supposed to make us more human. Moreover, the theologians that influence me the most, in retrospect, are those whose arguments I have concluded are wrong, despite their power: Calvin, Barth, Whitehead, etc.
10
What god?
Zeus, Wotan, Shiva? Ah, Shiva, "I am become death, destroyer of worlds."
Zeus, Wotan, Shiva? Ah, Shiva, "I am become death, destroyer of worlds."
23
Atheist braggadocio. Never get tired of it.
1
It is Kṛṣṇa, not Śiva, who makes this proclamation in the Bhagavad Gītā. Of course, there are some who would say they are ultimately the same.
5
I like the bumper sticker which says, "What would Kali do?" A nice contrast to Calvin, right?
5
News Flash: A professor at the Berkely Center for the Study of Religion finds that teaching theology should be considered necessary for all secular curriculum.
43
Nice piece. Seems like a nice case study on the value of humanities: study something influential and unknown. The "otherness " of unknown material avoids contemporary battle lines clouding or even blocking fresh, genuine engagement.
25
The best visual description of life that I have encountered is the sands in the hourglass. Life is the journey that we take over the time we are given to live. As the individual grain of sand falls through the hourglass it touches other grains of sand along it's journey. The notion that it can touch every other grain of sand on its journey is obviously wrong. The same with the notion that any 2 grains of sand can touch only the exact same other grains of sand is obviously wrong as well. If we are to accept that we are not born into predestination, that we are changed by what we encounter on our journey through time, then it is reasonable to accept that there is a randomness to life that we have no control over. How can we judge others from what we have learned on our own journey without being able to know what they have learned on theirs?
24