What's bugging Ross Douthat?
Secularism, faith, and the growing impatience of the Christian Right
Two weeks ago, I shared an exchange between Ezra Klein and Ross Douthat that focused on a timely and timeless question: Can we salvage Biblical ethics while jettisoning Biblical metaphysics?
Put another way: Can Biblical values (e.g., each person is created in the image of G*d; love the stranger, for you were strangers in Egypt) still animate our lives if we reject the metaphysical worldview that gave birth to those values?
Douthat, a political conservative and a devout Roman Catholic, effectively says: No. Ethics and metaphysics are a package deal.
Klein, a liberal, secular Jew who would like Christian Republicans to behave in a more Christian way (e.g., caring for the poor, welcoming the immigrant), seems to believe: Yes, we can let the Biblical tree wither and die, yet continue to harvest its fruits because we’re rational children of the Enlightenment who don’t need any transcendent metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to determine who is Just and what is Good.
Listening to their conversation, you can tell that Ross got a little frustrated with Ezra:
RD: You’ve jettisoned the portrait of the universe, the metaphysical structure that gives them meaning…. You’re essentially saying: I’ve stripped away the conceptual framework that makes your moral ideas make sense. But now I’m going to complain that you’re not living up to your moral ideas.
I just think that’s a really weak argument.
Those damn liberals! They’re everywhere!
More recently, Douthat engaged in a similar argument with Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who has been a vocal critic of the MAGA movement and the Trump administration.
But this time around, Douthat isn’t simply frustrated. He gets rather strident. He loses his cool. Maybe even gets a little angry. Just listen to the tone of his voice in the following clip, especially from 1:50 to 2:42. (Douthat’s voice comes first.)
Again, it’s the tone of his voice that I hope you’ll notice.
Of course, Douthat’s words are also disturbing:
Douthat: In your case, you would be uncomfortable standing up in front of a crowd and saying: Brothers and sisters, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — who is real, and who will judge you after you die — commands you to love your neighbor in a way that means you should support Medicaid. It sounds like you would be uncomfortable with that spiel.
Murphy: Sure, I don’t know that I’d say it the way you just said it, but I don’t think that —
Douthat: Right, but the way I would say it is the way I think that — if Democrats were serious about making the religious arguments you want them to make, they wouldn’t just say, “In the story of Jesus, we’re taught to care for the needy.” They would frame it as a divine imperative, and you need some belief to do that. I’m just trying to get at what I think is a limit that Democrats hit in these kinds of debates.
Just try to imagine an American politician uttering those words on the campaign trail: Brothers and sisters, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — who is real, and who will judge you after you die — commands you to love your neighbor in a way that means you should support Medicaid.
I’m no expert in U.S. history or political philosophy, but I’ve long assumed that the American experiment was and still is an audacious attempt to guarantee religious freedom without leveraging the power of the state to impose any particular religious claim or creed.
I share all this because Ross Douthat’s irritation and exasperation are another data point — this one from a respected New York Times columnist — on a line leading us toward an aggressive, unapologetic, and dangerous Christian nationalism.
In the end, though, I must admit…
… I agree with Ross Douthat on one point: It’s not possible to separate your ethics from your metaphysics. They are a package deal (I think).
That said, I still don’t want Senator Chris Murphy or any other public official to be my guide to ethics or metaphysics. People who preach about the G*d “who will judge you after you die” belong on a pulpit, on a street corner, or in a theological seminary. They don’t belong in American politics.
You write, "It’s not possible to separate your ethics from your metaphysics."
Doing good feels good. No further explanation is really required other than enlightened self interest.
Feeling good is a real world experience. Metaphysics is an explanation. Explanations are abstractions, second hand experience. Explanations are religion at a safe distance.
Oh, and to your question, I would prefer the firing squad to a hanging. Thanks for asking. No, I'll pass on the final cigarette, but appreciate the offer. :-)
You ask, "Can we salvage Biblical ethics while jettisoning Biblical metaphysics?"
As another option, how about keeping the ethics and heart of the metaphysics, and jettisoning the Biblical part?
That's much of what interests me about near death experience reports. The ethics and heart of Judeo-Christian metaphysics are preserved, and the mountain of baggage piled on the Biblical vehicle over many centuries is left behind.