|
26 October 2010 By Kourosh Ziabari
Prof. John E. Hare is the Noah Porter Professor of
Philosophical Theology at the Yale University's
Divinity School. A British classicist, philosopher and
ethicist, he is the author of several well-known and
best-selling books in religion and morality including
"God and Morality: A Philosophical History", "The
Moral Gap", "Ethics and International Affairs", "Why
Bother Being Good" and "Plato's Euthyphro".
John Hare has in his background the experience of
teaching philosophy at the University of Lehigh from
1975 to 1989. In his "God's Call" book, Hare discusses
the divine command theory of morality, analyzing texts
in Duns Scotus, Kant and contemporary moral theory.
John joined me in an exclusive interview and answered
my questions on the necessity of establishing a
universal inter-faith dialogue between the followers
of Abrahamic religions, the impacts of materialism on
the decline of ethical and moral values and the role
of religion in solving the problems of contemporary
man. He also answered my special question on the
objectionable incidence of Quran burning in the United
States on the anniversary of 9/11 attacks.
Kourosh Ziabari: on the anniversary of 9/11
attacks, we witnessed the unprecedented incidence of
Quran burning in the United States. Several copies of
the holy book of Muslims were set ablaze in different
cities of the U.S. Some politicians justified the act
as permissible under the U.S. constitution and
defended it as lawful according to the First
Amendment. What's your take on that? Is it compatible
with the teachings of Christianity to insult the holy
books and sacraments of different groups of people
blasphemously?
John Hare: I think that burning the sacred book of
another religion is a loathsome act. I think the same
is true of destroying the sacred sculptures of another
religion. It is not compatible with the teaching of
Christianity, as I understand it, that we should
behave in these ways. This is especially true when we
recognize, as we should within the Abrahamic faiths,
that we worship the same God. I am pleased that the
pastor in Gainesville, Florida, who was threatening to
burn the Quran on 9/11/2010 was in fact persuaded not
to do this, and no Quran was burnt by him or by his
very small congregation. We should do everything we
can within the law to prevent this kind of action.
However, we should not think that we can violate the
law. The law in the United States preserves free
expression. This is a hard law to interpret, and it
does not allow the freedom to incite violence against
any group or any individual. But it does sometimes
allow even loathsome acts, on the theory that the
country in which freedom of expression and freedom of
religion is curtailed does not fully respect the
God-given dignity of each human being. I recognize
that there are two values in conflict here, what we
might call the virtue of the citizen body and its
freedom, and we have to try to work out the right
balance between them.
KZ: we're witness to a growing wave of Islamophobia
in the Western countries. Muslims are being deprived
of their social and political rights. Mosques and
Islamic centers are being destructed in various
European states. Pagan artists and cartoonists who
ridicule the prophet of Islam receive honorary awards
from the European governments. It seems that these
provocations apparently add to religious intolerance
and widen the gap between the followers of divine
religions who are supposed to be united with together.
What's your viewpoint in this regard?
JH: I agree that there has been a rise of Islamophobia
in Western countries, and I agree that this makes the
gap between the religions wider and harder to
overcome. On the other hand, there has at the same
time been a great increase in the attention paid to
Islam both within Western academic institutions and by
Western governments. Where I work, at Yale, there is
now a Center for Reconciliation, with active
participation by Christian and Muslim scholars, and
there are many similar examples. Another one that
springs to mind is the Tony Blair Foundation. I think
your being willing to contact me on these issues, and
my being willing to reply, is a sign of this change.
I predict that this sort of dialogue is going to
increase. I hope, however, that it will be based on
the intrinsic value of the increased understanding
that will come from the dialogue, not on fear or any
kind of desire for control on either side. The
exchange will be most fruitful if it comes from the
heart of each community, and does not try, as some
liberals have proposed, to abstract from our
differences before we begin. We should not pretend
that we agree when we do not. But I think that if we
engage each other from within the theological
resources of our own traditions, we will discover many
more points of fruitful contact than we imagined at
the beginning.
KZ: Many religious scholars and intellectuals are
adamantly following the path of alienating the
followers of divine religions and setting them against
each other. They disregard the commonalities of
monotheistic religions and advocate the separation of
Islam, Christianity and Judaism. How is it possible to
benefit the international community by bringing the
Muslims, Christians and Jews together and reuniting
them?
JH: I agree that some scholars and intellectuals are
trying to increase the discord between the religions,
setting them against one another. On the other hand,
as I said in response to the previous question, there
are also many scholars and intellectuals in the West
trying to decrease the discord. I think the most
important single doctrine that will bring Muslins,
Christians and Jews together is the recognition that
we worship the same God. It is also important to
recognize that we have a shared history of reflection
on Greek philosophy, particularly Plato and
Aristotle. Our knowledge in the West of this
philosophy came to us through the Muslim commentators,
and they have been very influential in our history. I
want to give one example from my own work of what this
means. I write books about the relation between God
and morality. Within Christianity there have been two
main views about this relation, namely natural law
theory which holds that the moral law can be deduced
from human nature, and divine command theory which
denies this, and holds that what makes something
morally wrong is that God forbids it. I have been
reading Muslim scholars on this same question, and I
find a very similar dispute between the Ash'arite and
Mu'tazilite schools, though I do not claim to be an
expert in this. I think we can learn a great deal
from each other on this question. There are important
distinctions made by the Muslim scholars that will
help Christian scholars with their work, and I dare to
think the reverse might be true as well. I hope that
the future will bring a chance for us to pursue this
further.
KZ: Enchanted with the representations of modernity
and materialism, our world is moving toward immorality
and corruption. Religious values are fading away and
people tend to disregard them neglectfully. The
foundation of traditional family has become shaky and
individualism has extended its roots deep in the
global culture. How should we employ religion to get
rid of this predicament and return to our moral
values?
JH: It is true that the world is tending towards the
loss of some important values, both moral and
religious. My own view, and Heidegger's, is that when
we see some new value, for example the equal dignity
of women and men, we tend to lose sight of an old
value, for example the solidarity of the family. The
new tends to hide or obscure the old. I think religion
has great potential to help us hold onto what is good
in the old, without losing the good that is in the
new. This is because God, who is the author of
revelation, is not confined within our cultural
history. If we are faithful, God will remind us of the
virtues of our ancestors in the faith as well as
challenge us not to confuse mere human history with
God's own word.
KZ: Religion has been historically considered as a
moderator. It moderates the sentiments and desires of
the man so as to prevent him from crossing the borders
of morality and modesty. Given the numerous benefits
of religion, why do some people reject it as
unconvincing and insufficient in responding to their
questions?
JH: Our faith in God does indeed give us discipline,
so that we are not the slaves of our desires and
passions. In my books I have defended the view that
morality is rationally unstable without belief in God.
This is because God's command is the final
justification for our attempts to lead a morally good
life, and gratitude for God's work is the motivation
for our obedience. If belief in God declines,
commitment to morality will tend to decline, as
Nietzsche already foresaw in the nineteenth century.
So why do some people reject this faith? This is a
mystery that I am not able to explain. Both some parts
of Islam, in as far as I understand it, and some parts
of Christianity hold that God makes the final
determination of whom God will save. This is another
area in which Christian and Muslim scholars can learn
from each other, because there is a rich history of
debate within each religion, which makes use of many
of the same considerations and arguments.
KZ: In line with naturalistic scientists, some
people tend to believe that the Earth and the Universe
has come into existence artlessly and as a result of
Evolution. How is it possible to persuade these people
to believe that there's an intelligent designer behind
the Universe who determines the destiny of the World
and is aware of what we think and do? To put it more
precisely, how can we bring up a convincing argument
for the existence of God?
JH: I myself believe that there is an Intelligent
Designer behind the universe. I distinguish this
belief, however, from what in the United States we
call the 'Intelligent Design Movement.' The
Intelligent Design Movement holds that there is no
macro-evolution. I believe, in contrast, that God can
use any means, including evolution, to bring about
God's purposes. I am not myself a biologist or a
cosmologist. I am a philosophical theologian. So I do
not try to pass judgment on the scientific merits of
my colleagues who are professionals in these fields.
However, I do pass negative judgment on scientists
like Richard Dawkins or 'new atheists' like
Christopher Hitchens who try to draw metaphysical
conclusions from scientific premises. From the premise
that there is an evolution of biological species
nothing follows metaphysically about whether there is
or is not a God who is running the universe. To say
that atheism follows from biological science is to
make a category mistake. I think, by contrast, that
there are many good arguments from our experience of
the world to the existence of God. My own favorite is
the moral argument that I have already mentioned,
namely that we are under the moral law and that it is
rationally unstable to try to combine this obedience
with disbelief in God. But there is also the
fine-tuning argument, that the conditions for the
development of intelligent life are overwhelmingly
unlikely in the absence of a Designer and in the
absence of an infinite number of parallel universes.
Another strong argument is the Kalam argument that you
will know from Muslim scholars. Here is a third area
where Christian and Muslim scholars can learn from
each other. Christians have recently been giving
scientific sophistication to this argument, but we got
it from Islam and we can learn from its original
formulations.
KZ: For the final question, I would like to ask you
to share with us an insight of Christianity which can
help the mankind, independently of his religious
belongingness, to live in peace, stability and
tranquility. How does Christianity help us live a
decent, fruitful and productive life?
JH: What insight does Christianity offer to
humankind? I will choose just one that seems to me
most significant. It is the doctrine of God's
forgiveness. If we set the demand of righteousness as
high as we should, there is going to be a gap between
what we ought to do, how we ought to live, and what we
in fact do, the way we in fact live. If we deny this,
we are deceiving ourselves. Christianity offers the
doctrine that Christ died so that God could forgive us
when we fail and restore fellowship with us without
compromising the divine justice. Thank you again for
the opportunity to do this interview.
|
Add Comments