Giving Up on God: An Analysis and Critique of "The Grapes of Wrath"
Abstract: Fiction embodies religion and philosophy just as much as any other human creation. Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath is no exception. Detailed analysis of the beliefs of ex-preacher Jim Casy shows that Steinbeck creates the character of Casy to serve as an advocate for his (Steinbeck's) philosophical persuasions; namely, atheistic humanism. The atheistic humanist worldview is critiqued and found wanting.
Written: May 2015
“A popular heresy,” writes Frederic Carpenter, “is that a novelist should not discuss ideas” (315). Apparently John Steinbeck failed to get the message. His work, The Grapes of Wrath, is chock-full of philosophical views, arguments, and ideas. Whatever one might think about the proper role of novels in philosophy, it is undeniable that The Grapes of Wrath is not a disinterested account of the plights of migrant farmers during the Dust Bowl, nor a quaint story of the Joad family. It is an account of migrant farmers and the Joad family, to be sure. But it is so much more.
The book is a treatise on humanism, a view that sees humans as intrinsically morally valuable. But humanism as such is not the only philosophical viewpoint espoused by Steinbeck. There is also a marked denial of God and organized religion. Humans, while endowed with moral value, are the final definitive ground of that value. God, traditionally thought to be the ultimate Good, does not enter the picture. Steinbeck’s views are therefore better classed as atheistic humanism.[1] Of course, a rose by any other name is just as sweet. What matters is the content of Steinbeck’s views.[2]
In Section II, I argue that Steinbeck’s views come to fruition in Jim Casy, the preacher-turned-atheist. In Section III, I contend that lust was the ultimate reason Casy adopted his newfound philosophy. Finally, in Section IV, I argue that the main tenants of the preacher’s views are false, because (a) God exists, and (b) morality cannot exist if God does not.
One’s worldview is the way he or she answers life’s most fundamental questions.[3] Jim Casy’s worldview may be distilled into four basic theses.
First, Casy believes the Holy Spirit is simply “all men an' all women we love…—the human sperit—the whole shebang.” (Steinbeck 24). That is to say, God does not exist. The Christian manifestation of God, the Holy Spirit, is not some being external to the world. At best, the Holy Spirit is a metaphor for love and community. This stands in contrast to the Christian affirmation of the concrete reality of the Holy Spirit as the second person of the Trinity, a Person that functions in the world to bring about God’s purposes.
Second, Casy contends that “all men got one big soul ever'body's a part of” (Steinbeck 24). One must be very careful, however, when interpreting this passage. Some commentators see Casy’s words as affirming the “Emersonian oversoul” (Frederic 317), a real soul that permeates the universe and of which all things are a part. But this is pushing Casy’s remarks too far. Just as his belief in the Holy Spirit is metaphorical, so too his commitment to a common soul of humanity should be taken metaphorically. Indeed, his statement is a metaphor for the truth that Tom Joad comes to realize by the story’s end, that “a fella ain’t no good alone” (Steinbeck 418). Humanity is, at the end of the day, one family and one community.
Significantly, the theme of The Grapes of Wrath is very likely thesis two. Granted, the message of a particular character is not always the message of the novel. Nevertheless, independent arguments suggest that Jim Casy captures the theme of this novel. For instance, Steinbeck writes that one advantage of being with other people is that two people together “are not as lonely and perplexed as one” (151). Moreover, the bank owners, those who oppress the growing community of migrant farmers, are “[cut] off…forever from the ‘we’” (152) of community. Furthermore, the only reason the Joads are able to survive the trials of traveling to California and the trials they find when they get there is Ma’s insistence that they stick together. Given these considerations, it is likely the overall message of the book is the value and necessity of community. But this message just is thesis two! In this way, Steinbeck uses Casy “to interpret and to embody the philosophy of the novel” (Carpenter 316).
Third, Casy affirms the unity of all things. Once, when he had gone out into the woods to pray, Casy came to the realization that “[t]here was the hills, an’ there was me, an’ we wasn’t separate no more. We was one thing” (Steinbeck 81). The land and the person are united together into one universe, one world, one thing. But just as with Casy’s views on the universal soul of the world, it is difficult to know how literally to take his belief in the unity of nature. Does he believe, as certain sects of Hinduism and Buddhism teach, that all of reality is, on the fundamental level, one and the same thing? Probably not. It is fairer to say that Casy is merely extending his thesis on the community of humanity to the entire natural order; all of it is one community that ought to exist in harmony.
Fourth, Casy believes in the holiness of humankind. More precisely, humanity is holy “when it [is] one thing” (Steinbeck 81). That is to say, when people function together in harmony towards one goal and purpose, “when they’re all workin’ together” (Steinbeck 81), then they are holy.
The trouble is, Jim Casy holds contradictory views on holiness and morality. After explaining why he abandoned preaching, he relates how he came to the understanding that “[t]here ain’t no sin and there ain’t no virtue. There’s just stuff people do” (Steinbeck 24). Moral virtues (Love, Kindness, and Respect) and moral vices (Hate, Envy, and Lust) do not exist; there is only amoral human behavior. But this immediately implies that humanity cannot truly be holy. To be holy means, in part, to be extraordinarily virtuous. So if virtue does not exist, humanity cannot be holy. A fundamental contradiction therefore arises in Casy's worldview. Interestingly, he himself probably recognizes this, as his remarks about not “even know[ing] what [he] mean[s] by holy” (Steinbeck 81) suggest. Nevertheless, Casy’s self-sacrifice makes very clear his firm belief in morality, for he was willing to give up his life so that Tom Joad and his family might be kept safe (Steinbeck 265-266).
In sum, Casy’s worldview affirms the nonexistence of God, the universal community of humankind, the unity of the world, and the holiness of humanity. But what motivates Casy to so radically change his orthodox Christian views to his own stylized philosophy? In a word, lust.
Jim Casy knew that a preacher ought to be a representative of Christ on earth, living His moral ethic and condemning sin whenever it comes into his purview. However, Casy could not live up to that standard. Whenever he got “people jumpin’ an’ talkin’ in tongues” (Steinbeck 21) from his powerful oration, he would “take one of them girls out in the grass, an’…lay with her” (Steinbeck 22). There was no way he could consistently preach of repentance and living a holy life in Christ, while simultaneously having sex with the women he was supposed to treat as “holy vessels” (Steinbeck 22). To his credit, Casy recognizes that he “was a damned hypocrite” (Steinbeck 22). He therefore stopped being a preacher, and abandoned the entire Christian religion. This episode in his life reveals Casy’s unfailing moral integrity, even if it also reveals his lust. Perhaps this should caution those who might label others as bad because they committed sin X, Y, or Z. Such condemnations are overly simplistic and fail to understand the complexity of people and the circumstances and events that led them to act as they did. Truly, only God can judge.
In short, Casy abandoned preaching, not because he reflected upon the truth claims of Christianity and found them wanting, but because he could not control his lust. His process of apostasy is therefore irrational, being based upon emotion and feeling rather than intellect and argument. He could not stop having sex with women, so he created a philosophy that would allow him to continue doing so guilt free. If one denies that virtue and vice exist, there can be no such thing as sin. Perhaps he modeled his approach on the actions of King Henry VIII, who created the Church of England because the Catholic Church would not allow him to divorce his wife.
Some will find the analysis here far too critical or unfair. But consider two things. First, if the above analysis is mistaken, arguments must demonstrate that conclusion. Let it be shown where Casy gives evidence that his views are grounded in anything other than lust. Otherwise, the above analysis must be accepted. Second, The Grapes of Wrath is profoundly true to life. It is therefore significant that many renunciations of Christianity are due to moral failings in one’s life, rather than intellectual doubts. Indeed, it is possible the majority of the time, the deep guilt from some sin (alcoholism, drug addiction, lust, etc.) and a belief in the inability of stopping combine to turn even the most devout Christian away from his faith. Accordingly, it is not implausible that Jim Casy would leave his faith for the same reason.
With a clear understanding of what Jim Casy believes, it may now be asked whether or not his beliefs are true. But many will wonder why an assessment of a fictional character’s religious viewpoint is worth undertaking. First, no author engages in the construction of a novel without imparting some of himself to that novel. The actions, words, and beliefs therein stem ultimately from the convictions of the author. It is therefore just as worth engaging a fictional character’s belief system as it is a flesh and blood person’s. Second, people are frequently influenced by the beliefs underlying novels and movies. Media is one of the central avenues through which laymen are influenced, and if these people are not to be misled, criticisms of the philosophical positions presented in fictional works must be given.
With these considerations in mind, turn to a critical assessment of Jim Casy’s worldview. Ignoring metaphorical statements of the soul of mankind and the unity of all things, his philosophy reduces to the claims that (1) God does not exist, and (2) an objective moral order can exist even though God does not.[4] Both of these theses will be examined in turn.
(1) God does not exist - One wonders why Casy concludes there is no God, aside from his inability to live up to His moral standards. His claim that the Holy Spirit is nothing more than the spirit of mankind at most implies that a Trinitarian God does not exist.[5] But that does nothing to disprove the existence of God. Perhaps a Unitarian God exists, like the God of the Muslims, or the God of the Jews. Moreover, Casy gives no reason to accept even his claim that the Holy Spirit is identical to humanity’s spirit. While this view is logically possible, possibilities come cheap; anything is possible. What is important is what is probable.
On the contrary, it seems God’s existence is rendered probable on the basis of current evidence. To give but one example, God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. Scientific evidence today indicates the universe began to exist at some point in the past. The Standard Big Bang model predicts an absolute beginning to the universe, and all other models that might restore an eternal universe are either (1) mathematically inconsistent, (2) contradicted by empirical evidence, or (3) found to imply the very beginning of universe they sought to avoid (Craig and Sinclair).
Indeed, cosmologists Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin have demonstrated that any model of the universe (whether the Standard model or otherwise) that features the universe as expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). This is extraordinarily significant, because all models that do not meet the one condition of average explanation fail on independent grounds.
For example, an emergent universe model represents the cosmos as resting dormant for infinite past time, only to transition 13.7 billion years ago into its present expanding state (Vilenkin 2). The universe is like a cosmic egg that rests quietly for infinite time, and then "hatches" at the Big Bang.
In sum, the BGV theorem shows that any model of the universe that meets the condition of average expansion cannot be past-eternal, and all other models are rendered non-viable on independent grounds. Therefore, the universe probably began to exist.
But if the universe began to exist, the question must be asked: why? Because something cannot come from nothing, the universe must have a cause. One is not left with this rather under determinative conclusion, however.
(2) Moral values can exist without God - The claim here is that moral values (Love, Justice, Holiness, etc.) can exist even if God does not. Traditionally, however, moral values were thought to be grounded in the nature of God. It is good to be just, for example, because God is just. Or again, Love is a virtue because God is loving. In general, the character of God serves as the standard or paradigm of moral goodness. Most philosophers will agree that God is a sound foundation of moral value, but many will think there are other possible foundations for morality. This seems to be Jim Casy’s position. If he is an atheistic humanist, he will ground moral value in human beings. He seems to do just that when he constantly reinforces the holiness of humanity. We are intrinsically morally valuable, and anything that contributes to our flourishing is good, and anything that detracts from it is bad, and that is the end of it; there is no further explanation for moral value.
But this proposal is unacceptably arbitrary. Imagine a society of self-conscious agents that arose in some other galaxy, but through their particular evolutionary history developed the belief that it is morally permissible to rape and kill others. But now a problem arises. In the words of philosopher William Lane Craig, if these aliens “visit Earth, why should they respect the values that have evolved among Homo sapiens?” (Craig 179). Moreover, Craig points out that if our own evolutionary history had gone differently, we would probably have a very different set of moral values, that set no less valid that our current one. In essence, Homo sapiens are not special, or in any sense set apart, on the atheistic worldview. It is therefore arbitrary to pick their understanding of moral value as objectively valid and deny the same status to aliens’ understanding, or to an understanding Homo sapiens would have had had their evolutionary history been rerun.
The prospects for atheistic humanism are therefore rather dim. If God does not exist, objective moral values cannot exist.[7] Not only is God a sufficient condition for moral value; He is a necessary condition as well. Jim Casy wants to have his cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he affirms the values of the Christian religion: love, holiness, and altruism. On the other hand, he denies the only possible foundation for those values: God.
Four aspects of Jim Casy’s worldview were presented, an examination of the motivation for Casy’s views was undertaken with the conclusion reached that lust is the sole cause of Casy’s shift in religious understanding. His worldview was boiled down even further into two main claims: (1) God does not exist, and (2) morality can exist without God. The first claim was called into question on the basis of (i) Casy’s failure to present arguments for it, and (ii) evidence from contemporary cosmology. Claim two was seen to be unacceptably arbitrary. In short, Jim Casy’s worldview is not philosophically well-supported, and probably false.
While most will accept the validity of interpreting a religious or philosophical viewpoint, they will draw the line when it comes to critiquing such a viewpoint. Inquiring into the truth or falsity of a belief system is off-limits.
Written: May 2015
I. Introduction
“A popular heresy,” writes Frederic Carpenter, “is that a novelist should not discuss ideas” (315). Apparently John Steinbeck failed to get the message. His work, The Grapes of Wrath, is chock-full of philosophical views, arguments, and ideas. Whatever one might think about the proper role of novels in philosophy, it is undeniable that The Grapes of Wrath is not a disinterested account of the plights of migrant farmers during the Dust Bowl, nor a quaint story of the Joad family. It is an account of migrant farmers and the Joad family, to be sure. But it is so much more.
The book is a treatise on humanism, a view that sees humans as intrinsically morally valuable. But humanism as such is not the only philosophical viewpoint espoused by Steinbeck. There is also a marked denial of God and organized religion. Humans, while endowed with moral value, are the final definitive ground of that value. God, traditionally thought to be the ultimate Good, does not enter the picture. Steinbeck’s views are therefore better classed as atheistic humanism.[1] Of course, a rose by any other name is just as sweet. What matters is the content of Steinbeck’s views.[2]
In Section II, I argue that Steinbeck’s views come to fruition in Jim Casy, the preacher-turned-atheist. In Section III, I contend that lust was the ultimate reason Casy adopted his newfound philosophy. Finally, in Section IV, I argue that the main tenants of the preacher’s views are false, because (a) God exists, and (b) morality cannot exist if God does not.
II. Jim Casy’s Worldview: An Analysis
One’s worldview is the way he or she answers life’s most fundamental questions.[3] Jim Casy’s worldview may be distilled into four basic theses.
First, Casy believes the Holy Spirit is simply “all men an' all women we love…—the human sperit—the whole shebang.” (Steinbeck 24). That is to say, God does not exist. The Christian manifestation of God, the Holy Spirit, is not some being external to the world. At best, the Holy Spirit is a metaphor for love and community. This stands in contrast to the Christian affirmation of the concrete reality of the Holy Spirit as the second person of the Trinity, a Person that functions in the world to bring about God’s purposes.
Second, Casy contends that “all men got one big soul ever'body's a part of” (Steinbeck 24). One must be very careful, however, when interpreting this passage. Some commentators see Casy’s words as affirming the “Emersonian oversoul” (Frederic 317), a real soul that permeates the universe and of which all things are a part. But this is pushing Casy’s remarks too far. Just as his belief in the Holy Spirit is metaphorical, so too his commitment to a common soul of humanity should be taken metaphorically. Indeed, his statement is a metaphor for the truth that Tom Joad comes to realize by the story’s end, that “a fella ain’t no good alone” (Steinbeck 418). Humanity is, at the end of the day, one family and one community.
Significantly, the theme of The Grapes of Wrath is very likely thesis two. Granted, the message of a particular character is not always the message of the novel. Nevertheless, independent arguments suggest that Jim Casy captures the theme of this novel. For instance, Steinbeck writes that one advantage of being with other people is that two people together “are not as lonely and perplexed as one” (151). Moreover, the bank owners, those who oppress the growing community of migrant farmers, are “[cut] off…forever from the ‘we’” (152) of community. Furthermore, the only reason the Joads are able to survive the trials of traveling to California and the trials they find when they get there is Ma’s insistence that they stick together. Given these considerations, it is likely the overall message of the book is the value and necessity of community. But this message just is thesis two! In this way, Steinbeck uses Casy “to interpret and to embody the philosophy of the novel” (Carpenter 316).
Third, Casy affirms the unity of all things. Once, when he had gone out into the woods to pray, Casy came to the realization that “[t]here was the hills, an’ there was me, an’ we wasn’t separate no more. We was one thing” (Steinbeck 81). The land and the person are united together into one universe, one world, one thing. But just as with Casy’s views on the universal soul of the world, it is difficult to know how literally to take his belief in the unity of nature. Does he believe, as certain sects of Hinduism and Buddhism teach, that all of reality is, on the fundamental level, one and the same thing? Probably not. It is fairer to say that Casy is merely extending his thesis on the community of humanity to the entire natural order; all of it is one community that ought to exist in harmony.
Fourth, Casy believes in the holiness of humankind. More precisely, humanity is holy “when it [is] one thing” (Steinbeck 81). That is to say, when people function together in harmony towards one goal and purpose, “when they’re all workin’ together” (Steinbeck 81), then they are holy.
The trouble is, Jim Casy holds contradictory views on holiness and morality. After explaining why he abandoned preaching, he relates how he came to the understanding that “[t]here ain’t no sin and there ain’t no virtue. There’s just stuff people do” (Steinbeck 24). Moral virtues (Love, Kindness, and Respect) and moral vices (Hate, Envy, and Lust) do not exist; there is only amoral human behavior. But this immediately implies that humanity cannot truly be holy. To be holy means, in part, to be extraordinarily virtuous. So if virtue does not exist, humanity cannot be holy. A fundamental contradiction therefore arises in Casy's worldview. Interestingly, he himself probably recognizes this, as his remarks about not “even know[ing] what [he] mean[s] by holy” (Steinbeck 81) suggest. Nevertheless, Casy’s self-sacrifice makes very clear his firm belief in morality, for he was willing to give up his life so that Tom Joad and his family might be kept safe (Steinbeck 265-266).
In sum, Casy’s worldview affirms the nonexistence of God, the universal community of humankind, the unity of the world, and the holiness of humanity. But what motivates Casy to so radically change his orthodox Christian views to his own stylized philosophy? In a word, lust.
III. Jim Casy: A Man of Sin, a Man of Integrity
Jim Casy knew that a preacher ought to be a representative of Christ on earth, living His moral ethic and condemning sin whenever it comes into his purview. However, Casy could not live up to that standard. Whenever he got “people jumpin’ an’ talkin’ in tongues” (Steinbeck 21) from his powerful oration, he would “take one of them girls out in the grass, an’…lay with her” (Steinbeck 22). There was no way he could consistently preach of repentance and living a holy life in Christ, while simultaneously having sex with the women he was supposed to treat as “holy vessels” (Steinbeck 22). To his credit, Casy recognizes that he “was a damned hypocrite” (Steinbeck 22). He therefore stopped being a preacher, and abandoned the entire Christian religion. This episode in his life reveals Casy’s unfailing moral integrity, even if it also reveals his lust. Perhaps this should caution those who might label others as bad because they committed sin X, Y, or Z. Such condemnations are overly simplistic and fail to understand the complexity of people and the circumstances and events that led them to act as they did. Truly, only God can judge.
In short, Casy abandoned preaching, not because he reflected upon the truth claims of Christianity and found them wanting, but because he could not control his lust. His process of apostasy is therefore irrational, being based upon emotion and feeling rather than intellect and argument. He could not stop having sex with women, so he created a philosophy that would allow him to continue doing so guilt free. If one denies that virtue and vice exist, there can be no such thing as sin. Perhaps he modeled his approach on the actions of King Henry VIII, who created the Church of England because the Catholic Church would not allow him to divorce his wife.
Some will find the analysis here far too critical or unfair. But consider two things. First, if the above analysis is mistaken, arguments must demonstrate that conclusion. Let it be shown where Casy gives evidence that his views are grounded in anything other than lust. Otherwise, the above analysis must be accepted. Second, The Grapes of Wrath is profoundly true to life. It is therefore significant that many renunciations of Christianity are due to moral failings in one’s life, rather than intellectual doubts. Indeed, it is possible the majority of the time, the deep guilt from some sin (alcoholism, drug addiction, lust, etc.) and a belief in the inability of stopping combine to turn even the most devout Christian away from his faith. Accordingly, it is not implausible that Jim Casy would leave his faith for the same reason.
IV. Jim Casy’s Worldview: A Critique
With a clear understanding of what Jim Casy believes, it may now be asked whether or not his beliefs are true. But many will wonder why an assessment of a fictional character’s religious viewpoint is worth undertaking. First, no author engages in the construction of a novel without imparting some of himself to that novel. The actions, words, and beliefs therein stem ultimately from the convictions of the author. It is therefore just as worth engaging a fictional character’s belief system as it is a flesh and blood person’s. Second, people are frequently influenced by the beliefs underlying novels and movies. Media is one of the central avenues through which laymen are influenced, and if these people are not to be misled, criticisms of the philosophical positions presented in fictional works must be given.
With these considerations in mind, turn to a critical assessment of Jim Casy’s worldview. Ignoring metaphorical statements of the soul of mankind and the unity of all things, his philosophy reduces to the claims that (1) God does not exist, and (2) an objective moral order can exist even though God does not.[4] Both of these theses will be examined in turn.
(1) God does not exist - One wonders why Casy concludes there is no God, aside from his inability to live up to His moral standards. His claim that the Holy Spirit is nothing more than the spirit of mankind at most implies that a Trinitarian God does not exist.[5] But that does nothing to disprove the existence of God. Perhaps a Unitarian God exists, like the God of the Muslims, or the God of the Jews. Moreover, Casy gives no reason to accept even his claim that the Holy Spirit is identical to humanity’s spirit. While this view is logically possible, possibilities come cheap; anything is possible. What is important is what is probable.
On the contrary, it seems God’s existence is rendered probable on the basis of current evidence. To give but one example, God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. Scientific evidence today indicates the universe began to exist at some point in the past. The Standard Big Bang model predicts an absolute beginning to the universe, and all other models that might restore an eternal universe are either (1) mathematically inconsistent, (2) contradicted by empirical evidence, or (3) found to imply the very beginning of universe they sought to avoid (Craig and Sinclair).
Indeed, cosmologists Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin have demonstrated that any model of the universe (whether the Standard model or otherwise) that features the universe as expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). This is extraordinarily significant, because all models that do not meet the one condition of average explanation fail on independent grounds.
For example, an emergent universe model represents the cosmos as resting dormant for infinite past time, only to transition 13.7 billion years ago into its present expanding state (Vilenkin 2). The universe is like a cosmic egg that rests quietly for infinite time, and then "hatches" at the Big Bang.
 |
| The universe endures in stasis from - infinity, then transitions to expansion. |
Even if the universe is currently in a state of expansion, that expansion, when averaged out with an infinite time of stasis, reduces to zero.[6] The BGV theorem therefore does not apply to emergent models. Nevertheless, the universe in its dormant state is subject to quantum fluctuations, and is therefore radically unstable. Given any finite amount of time, the universe in stasis will collapse (Vilenkin 5). A static universe therefore cannot endure for infinite past time. In short, emergent universe models are not viable. All other eternal universe models meet similar fates.
In sum, the BGV theorem shows that any model of the universe that meets the condition of average expansion cannot be past-eternal, and all other models are rendered non-viable on independent grounds. Therefore, the universe probably began to exist.
But if the universe began to exist, the question must be asked: why? Because something cannot come from nothing, the universe must have a cause. One is not left with this rather under determinative conclusion, however.
- General Analysis – (a) The cause of the universe must be spaceless and timeless, for it created time and space. (b) Spacelessness entails immateriality, and timelessness entails changelessness. (c) The cause must be eternal (i.e., without a beginning) due to its timelessness. (d) Because the cause is eternal, it must also be uncaused (for only things that have a beginning can have a cause).
- Personhood – In addition to the above properties, the cause of the universe must be personal. As William Lane Craig and James Sinclair point out, there are only two entities philosophers have been able to come up with that can exist timelessly and spacelessly: (1) an abstract object (numbers, ideas, and propositions), and (2) an unembodied mind or soul. Unfortunately for abstract objects, though, they cannot cause anything, much less all of space and time. Their causal impotence is part of the very definition of abstract. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be an unembodied Mind (191-194).
(2) Moral values can exist without God - The claim here is that moral values (Love, Justice, Holiness, etc.) can exist even if God does not. Traditionally, however, moral values were thought to be grounded in the nature of God. It is good to be just, for example, because God is just. Or again, Love is a virtue because God is loving. In general, the character of God serves as the standard or paradigm of moral goodness. Most philosophers will agree that God is a sound foundation of moral value, but many will think there are other possible foundations for morality. This seems to be Jim Casy’s position. If he is an atheistic humanist, he will ground moral value in human beings. He seems to do just that when he constantly reinforces the holiness of humanity. We are intrinsically morally valuable, and anything that contributes to our flourishing is good, and anything that detracts from it is bad, and that is the end of it; there is no further explanation for moral value.
But this proposal is unacceptably arbitrary. Imagine a society of self-conscious agents that arose in some other galaxy, but through their particular evolutionary history developed the belief that it is morally permissible to rape and kill others. But now a problem arises. In the words of philosopher William Lane Craig, if these aliens “visit Earth, why should they respect the values that have evolved among Homo sapiens?” (Craig 179). Moreover, Craig points out that if our own evolutionary history had gone differently, we would probably have a very different set of moral values, that set no less valid that our current one. In essence, Homo sapiens are not special, or in any sense set apart, on the atheistic worldview. It is therefore arbitrary to pick their understanding of moral value as objectively valid and deny the same status to aliens’ understanding, or to an understanding Homo sapiens would have had had their evolutionary history been rerun.
The prospects for atheistic humanism are therefore rather dim. If God does not exist, objective moral values cannot exist.[7] Not only is God a sufficient condition for moral value; He is a necessary condition as well. Jim Casy wants to have his cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he affirms the values of the Christian religion: love, holiness, and altruism. On the other hand, he denies the only possible foundation for those values: God.
V. Conclusion
Four aspects of Jim Casy’s worldview were presented, an examination of the motivation for Casy’s views was undertaken with the conclusion reached that lust is the sole cause of Casy’s shift in religious understanding. His worldview was boiled down even further into two main claims: (1) God does not exist, and (2) morality can exist without God. The first claim was called into question on the basis of (i) Casy’s failure to present arguments for it, and (ii) evidence from contemporary cosmology. Claim two was seen to be unacceptably arbitrary. In short, Jim Casy’s worldview is not philosophically well-supported, and probably false.
While most will accept the validity of interpreting a religious or philosophical viewpoint, they will draw the line when it comes to critiquing such a viewpoint. Inquiring into the truth or falsity of a belief system is off-limits.
Or that is the common wisdom, at least. However well-intentioned it might be, the common wisdom is mistaken. First, what the objector is really looking for is tolerance of all viewpoints. But tolerance can exist side by side with inquiry into the truth or falsity of different philosophical perspectives. Second, world views are necessarily true or false. It is therefore perfectly valid to ask which ones correspond with reality, and which do not. Indeed, it is vitally important to have a belief system that matches up with the way the world actually is, because those who have world views disconnected from reality make a truly grievous error. When they die, they will have missed the truth about life, the universe, and every other meaningful reality. No one desires a fate like that. Third, as Socrates said, the unreflective life is not worth living. No matter the cultural stance or social consequences of calling some belief into question, question everything and subject everything to the withering light of day in the knowledge that that which is true will hold firm. “Test all things. Hold on to what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). That is the road to a meaningful, genuine, authentic life.
Carpenter, Frederic I. “The Philosophical Joads.” College English. Vol. 2, No. 4 (January 1941), 315-325
Craig, William Lane. “This Most Gruesome of Guests: a Response by William Lane Craig.” Is Goodness without God Good Enough?: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics. Ed. Robert K. Garcia and Nathan L. King. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2009. 167-188.
Craig, William Lane, and Sinclair, James D. “The Kalam Cosmological Argument.” The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Ed. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing, 2009. 101-201.
Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath. New York: Penguin Group, 1939.
Vilenkin, Alexander. "Did the Universe Have a Beginning?" arXiv:1204.4658 [hep-th]. (2012) Accessed May 5th, 2015. < http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658>
Vilenkin, Alexander, et al. “Inflationary Spacetimes are Not Past-Complete.” Phys.Rev.Lett. 90 (2003) 151301. Accessed May 3rd, 2015. <http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012/>
[2] It is difficult to differentiate Steinbeck’s views from Casy’s. Some commentators argue for their identity (Carpenter 316), and this is plausible for the broad outline of Casy’s philosophy.
[3] Throughout the paper, world view, belief system, and philosophy are used interchangeably and are meant to refer to the same thing.
[4] Of course, if the above discussion is correct, Casy affirms both that moral values exist and that they do not. However, his self-sacrificial actions suggest that he does indeed believe in moral value and virtue. Truly, actions speak louder than words.
[5] If the Holy Spirit is not actually a divine Person, then the Trinity is a false understanding of God, because the former affirms the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
[6] If the universe exists in stasis for an infinite amount of time, and only expands for the past 13.7 billion years, its average state is one of stasis (that is, no expansion), because infinity outweighs any finite number.
[7] A moral value is objective just in case it is valid whether or not anyone believes it to be so. For example, to say that murder is objectively wrong is to say that it is wrong to murder someone, whether or not anyone actually thinks that it is; the wrongness of murder is independent of opinion. The claim is that if God does not exist, moral values cannot be objective in this sense.
Works Cited
Carpenter, Frederic I. “The Philosophical Joads.” College English. Vol. 2, No. 4 (January 1941), 315-325
Craig, William Lane. “This Most Gruesome of Guests: a Response by William Lane Craig.” Is Goodness without God Good Enough?: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics. Ed. Robert K. Garcia and Nathan L. King. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2009. 167-188.
Craig, William Lane, and Sinclair, James D. “The Kalam Cosmological Argument.” The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Ed. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing, 2009. 101-201.
Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath. New York: Penguin Group, 1939.
Vilenkin, Alexander. "Did the Universe Have a Beginning?" arXiv:1204.4658 [hep-th]. (2012) Accessed May 5th, 2015. < http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658>
Vilenkin, Alexander, et al. “Inflationary Spacetimes are Not Past-Complete.” Phys.Rev.Lett. 90 (2003) 151301. Accessed May 3rd, 2015. <http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012/>
Notes
[1] Today, humanism generally designates the same thing as atheistic humanism. But this equivalence is mistaken; one can be a theistic humanist, who sees humans as endowed with intrinsic moral worth, but nevertheless sees God as the ultimate foundation of that moral value. In this case, while humanity’s moral value is intrinsic, it is nevertheless derivative of God’s value. Cashing this out in a consistent way will involve making recourse to humans being made in the image of God. [2] It is difficult to differentiate Steinbeck’s views from Casy’s. Some commentators argue for their identity (Carpenter 316), and this is plausible for the broad outline of Casy’s philosophy.
[3] Throughout the paper, world view, belief system, and philosophy are used interchangeably and are meant to refer to the same thing.
[4] Of course, if the above discussion is correct, Casy affirms both that moral values exist and that they do not. However, his self-sacrificial actions suggest that he does indeed believe in moral value and virtue. Truly, actions speak louder than words.
[5] If the Holy Spirit is not actually a divine Person, then the Trinity is a false understanding of God, because the former affirms the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
[6] If the universe exists in stasis for an infinite amount of time, and only expands for the past 13.7 billion years, its average state is one of stasis (that is, no expansion), because infinity outweighs any finite number.
[7] A moral value is objective just in case it is valid whether or not anyone believes it to be so. For example, to say that murder is objectively wrong is to say that it is wrong to murder someone, whether or not anyone actually thinks that it is; the wrongness of murder is independent of opinion. The claim is that if God does not exist, moral values cannot be objective in this sense.
Comments
Post a Comment