My article Why a Judeo-Christian Worldview Is Essential to Good Fiction, received a lot of traffic and made several atheist forums, most notably THIS ONE, where it landed under the heading:
Writers: if you’re not Judeo-Christian, chances are you suck.
For the record, I never said any writer “sucked” in that post (which I AM saying in this post by way of counter jab). However I did say, “the Judeo-Christian worldview is more viable for authors than, say, a relativistic worldview, not just because it is more intellectually compelling, but because it jibes with reality” — a statement I still whole-heartedly stand behind. Anyway, the commenters over there took the opportunity to call me all manner of names and reconstruct my argument into so many straw men you’d think you were in an Iowa cornfield.
Like this from Doubting Thomas:
“…to say that you have to have a religious worldview to be a successful author is just plain stupid.”
Um.
And this from Reverend Jeremiah:
“…apparently, his argument is that if you dont have a ‘messiah’ character who is battling evil and good, where good is ultimately victorious, then he PERSONALLY thinks you suck as a writer.”
Uh.
Finally, via Faith No More:
I was wondering why my stories always sucked. Now I know it’s not because I don’t have any talent.
*sigh*
After reading through the comments on my original post and perusing the misstatements and smears, er, civil discussion at the atheist forum, I’ve reached this conclusion: The volatility of that post was the result of either
- Lack of clarity on my part, or
- Rejection of my thesis.
For the record, I think it had to do with the rejection of my thesis more than confusion about it. Which is why the participants in that discussion said things like this, from padraic:
The article is just another lame attempt to argue morality comes from the Judeo-Christian religions.
Bingo, pedro!
In this post, I won’t be speaking to #2 as much as trying to clarify what I’m thinking. What that should accomplish is more rejection of my thesis. Which I’m fine with. I prefer clarity to agreement, and when that clarity leads to disagreement it helps us know where we stand relationally and philosophically.
The closest anyone over there came to really grappling with my point was Rev. Rye who said:
“…if I’m reading the article right, Mike Duran (the author) seems to consider it impossible that one can frame stories in a religious context without embracing the ‘Judeo-Christian worldview'”
The good Rev is on the right track. However, my point has less to do with framing our stories in a “religious context” as it does with recognizing that any appeal to Good and Evil, Right and Wrong — a universe where absolutes exist — is intrinsically tethered to a Judeo Christian worldview. And without this worldview and a context of Moral Absolutes, stories can’t be logical or compelling. Let me lay it out this way:
- Most stories employ (and appeal to) a belief about “real” Right and Wrong, Good and Evil.
- Placing our stories in a world of “real” Right and Wrong, Good and Evil enforces the concept of Moral Absolutes.
- Moral Absolutism is tethered specifically to a Judeo-Christian worldview.
- Therefore, Good stories require an appeal to a Judeo-Christian worldview.
Okay. I anticipate two prongs of rebuttal.
- Objection #1: Relativistic fiction can be compelling. You don’t need Moral Absolutes for a story to be interesting.
- Objection #2: A belief in Good and Evil can exist apart from Judeo-Christianity.
Let’s take those one at a time.
First — Yes, relativistic fiction can be compelling… but only if you don’t think it through. So your protag survives. Big deal. If the Moral framework of her universe is negotiable, what does her survival matter? Other than to her. The survival of the zombies or thieves or flesh eating bacteria might be just as morally sustainable. And if that Moral framework is relative, then her survival really doesn’t matter. I mean, why is it “better” that she and her child survive? On what grounds? And in the end, if there are no Moral Absolutes, your protag and all her great deeds will simply fade into the dust of history like so many other valiant, yet futile, warriors. (Note: Readers hated that The Hunger Games trilogy ended on such a bleak note. However, if there is no Hope or Virtue, then why not end it there?)
Relativism simply does NOT provide a viable reason to live, much less frame your stories. Which is why most stories appeal to a sense of Nobility, Virtue, Goodness and Hope.
Humans instinctively crave Nobility, Virtue, Goodness and Hope. Why?
As to Objection #2 — A belief in Good and Evil can exist apart from Judeo-Christianity — I’d ask, in which worldview? Not the relativistic worldview, for Good and Evil are subjectively defined. They are not “real” except to the individual who believes them to be.
In a relativistic universe, why should the Third Reich be defeated? Because they’re killing innocent people? According to them they’re eliminating an inferior race. Because they threaten human existence? According to them, they are advancing the species. See? You can’t fight evil unless you actually believe in Evil.
Which implies the existence of Good.
Two of the major world religions — Judeo-Christianity and Islam — see morals as rooted in God (even though their conceptions of God differ). In Hinduism, the third great world religion, God is in everything, both good and evil. As a result, there is no absolute morality. Through the law of karma, the soul (Atman) simply migrates back to God (Brahman).
So I ask again, which other worldview appeals to Moral Absolutes? Not an
- agnostic worldview
- atheistic worldview
- humanistic worldview
- pantheistic worldview
- polytheistic worldview
Any belief system that appeals to a Moral Law evokes a Judeo-Christian worldview. How? Because a Moral Law implies a Moral Lawgiver.
Dennis Prager, Jewish speaker and radio talk show host, in his article entitled Moral Absolutes put it simply:
In the Judeo-Christian value system, God is the source of moral values and therefore what is moral and immoral transcends personal or societal opinion. Without God, each society or individual makes up its or his/her moral standards. But once individuals or societies become the source of right and wrong, right and wrong, good and evil, are merely adjectives describing one’s preferences. This is known as moral relativism, and it is the dominant attitude toward morality in modern secular society. (emphasis mine)
There are only two options here, folks. We either live in a world where
- Morals are grounded outside us (in God / the Universe), or
- Morals are grounded inside us (in individuals / society).
Either Morals are static or elastic, unchanging or always changing, real or illusory.
Which brings me to my point: Without a context of Moral Absolutes, stories can’t be logical or compelling. Think about it:
Even books that frame a godless, impersonal universe of moral relativity appeal to Absolutes to make their point.
Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy is a good example. Pullman is an avowed atheist whose series has been described as “a secular humanist narrative.” The author flatly said, “My books are about killing God.” He’s famously quoted as saying, that the Chronicles of Narnia “is one of the most ugly and poisonous things I’ve ever read,” and is also “blatantly racist”, “monumentally disparaging of women”, “immoral”, and “evil”
But even in Phillip Pullman’s universe there had to be an Enemy, Something Worth Fighting For, some Good to accomplish.
As Augustine said, Either there is REAL evil to fear or the fact that we fear what is not really evil, is EVIL. Take your pick. In like manner, either there is Real Evil to fight in Pullman’s worldview or the fact that he feels he must fight something is Really Evil. If Pullman’s book is about “killing God,” the question I ask is “Why should God die?” If it’s because He is evil, then you presuppose Good. If it’s because the existence of God is a lie, then you imply objective Truth.
Defeating God, the Church, or Christian belief becomes pointless unless defeating them is The Right Thing to Do. Which presupposes absolute Right and Wrong. Which appeals to a Judeo-Christian worldview.
So, yeah, without Moral Absolutes, your story sucks!
Excellent observations Mike, further strengthening a conviction of mine that every piece of fiction has a worldview.
A like example to yours are the works of Asimov. My top 10 list of influential books (beyond the Bible) includes Asimov’s Foundation and Empire and Jonathan Edward’s Freedom of the Will. Authors with totally different world views shared one thing in common; they both believed in moral absolutes. For Edwards the basis of those absolutes was a sovereign and perfect God. For Asimov it was a sovereign and ever perfecting humanity.
Though I disagree with Asimov’s world view, the absolutes (and breaking of those absolutes) make the series the classic of a genre that it is.
Just because morals are culturally conditioned does not invalidate them. They may not be universal or absolute but they are binding to those within said culture.
Says who? Each particular culture? Or the consensus of the individuals within each culture? And if the members of one culture (like the Third Reich) believe they are morally justified to snuff out your culture, who’s to say they’re wrong? Besides, if morals are culturally conditioned then even the belief that morals are culturally conditioned is… culturally conditioned. It’s self-defeating.
“[Atheist Phillip Pullman is] famously quoted as saying that the Chronicles of Narnia ‘is one of the most ugly and poisonous things I’ve ever read,’ and is also ‘blatantly racist,’ ‘monumentally disparaging of women,’ ‘immoral,’ and ‘evil.'”
I laughed. Well played, Mike.
I’m not a huge Narnia fan, but that’s a lot of absolutist bogeymen right there…says who? Cultural conditioning?
I tried to read some of Mercedes Lackey’s Valdemar series, and gave up in disgust. She intentionally wrote that series with no moral absolutes. What you’re left with is that line from Harry Potter–“There is no good and evil. There is only power, and those too weak to seek it.” I had no reason to root for the heroes any more than the villain, because they were all just seeking their own ends and nobody’s was better than anybody else’s.
By contrast, in Robin Hobb’s books, the heroes try to do the right thing and sometimes do the wrong thing, because they’re human. The antagonists are trying to do what they believe to be the right thing, even if it’s the wrong thing, and sometimes achieve good results while they pursue their (always selfish) ends. There’s an unspoken moral standard that the characters try to measure up to and fail, like loyalty, bravery, hope and decency. There’s no God or religion, but the standard is still there.
Very interesting post, Mike. I especially liked how you used His Dark Materials to show how good books always have a moral absolute, even when they don’t mean to. I read the first book of that series and thought it was terrific, but the second book offended me so deeply I couldn’t keep reading. It was pretty clear what Pullman’s agenda was. You’re right, as a culture we like to pretend we’re good with everyone’s individual beliefs and accepting of everyone and everything … but obviously when you take that to an extreme, it just doesn’t work. Society crumbles.
Thanks for the thought-provoking post.
LOL! This post made my head spin, but in a very awesome way.
I may agree with you that good and evil are part of the created universe and exist to one degree or another in all cultures, albeit that some have twisted notions of morality (for example, it’s twisted to believe that women should be modest and wear grass skirts because, if they don’t, a demon will fly up their ass). However, you’re applying a hard and fast reality to art that doesn’t necessarily apply. Art is a combination of craftsmanship (even Jack the Dripper had an element of craft) and universal ideas. Great art incorporates a unique vision of the universal with a mastery of craft. What is universal? That is a more difficult concept to define, but it certainly isn’t confined to moral absolutes. And for the record, as soon as you begin to speak of moral absolutes, I wonder what you mean. Murder is wrong, but is killing in self-defense wrong? You might logically answer this question from your perspective as an American male evangelical. But other Christians will argue with you–even other American male evangelicals. So is there a baseline of absolutes? If so, where can I find it? And what is it exactly? Please provide the absolutes.
Another for-the-record: a Judeo-Christian worldview seems to equate, in your argument, to a monotheistic worldview. Is this correct? Will you please elaborate further on this?
JILL: So is there a baseline of absolutes? If so, where can I find it? And what is it exactly? Please provide the absolutes.
MIKE: You said, “Murder is wrong.” I agree. Most people agree. But WHY do we agree? Who told us murder is wrong? Yes, God did. But even cultures who don’t believe in the biblical God believe murder is wrong. Why? Where does that knowledge come from? One of the Lewis’ primary arguments in Mere Christianity is the Argument from Underlying Moral Consensus. There is huge agreement across cultures and time that certain things are Right and Wrong. This intuitive Moral sense is evidence of a Universal law. So my simplistic answer to your question, Where can you find “a baseline of absolutes?”: 1.) Conscience, 2.) Scripture, 3.) Christ.
JILL: “a Judeo-Christian worldview seems to equate, in your argument, to a monotheistic worldview. Is this correct? Will you please elaborate further on this?”
MIKE: Absolutely. The Jews were distinctly monotheistic. They believed in Jehovah. To be clear, Muslims are monotheistic, but Allah is quite different from the Jewish / Christian God. I include Muslims under the Judeo-Christian banner in this sense: (1) They are monotheists and (2) They claim to believe, however crudely, in the gist of the Old and New Testament. Does that help?
I think my problem with your argument is this: stories as works of art don’t need to have moral absolutes, as much as they need universal absolutes. Each tale that an author weaves has a multitude of possible endings–there is no one right way for the protags and antags to conclude the story. I’m going to use On Chesil Beach as an example of what I mean. This is one of my favorite books, despite its lack of clear moral absolutes. A couple gets married. The book begins on their wedding night, and moves backward and forward through their relationship. In the end, the wife decides she can’t have sexual intercourse with her new husband; the marriage is annulled, and the two move on with their lives. They aren’t necessarily happier because of their decision to not be patient with and understanding of each other, but they are successful enough as human beings. There are many universals in this story: a need for autonomy and personal space, the feeling of wounded pride, the way life moves on regardless of problems, and success that may be achieved with or without romantic love or attachment. But I’m having difficulty pinpointing the moral absolutes. The story could have ended in a number of ways, and those ways would not have given the story any more or less of a moral outcome. Maybe I’m completely missing your point–maybe the very fact that human beings exist and are capable of higher function is a moral absolute in and of itself. Human beings were created in the image of God; therefore, if humans occupy stories, or even if humans are the authors of stories, then the absolute nature of morality is present in the story regardless of the author’s religion or lack thereof. My problem with the argument presented in this way is its circularity. God exists and has stamped his design on man, and we know this because God exists. Because of God, we have design–always a pre-assumed God. However, an atheist might argue that murder is wrong on a purely biological level–we protect our own species. This is also why self-defense isn’t considered murder (and the same argument might be used for capital punishment, or not depending on who you talk to). I don’t know, Mike. I’m not an atheist. I do see God’s design in the universe, but I also see that there are multiple answers to moral questions.
JILL: “works of art don’t need to have moral absolutes.”
MIKE: “But even abstract paintings require a canvas and color. Even abstract architecture requires a traditional foundation.”
JILL: “The story [On Chesil Beach] could have ended in a number of ways, and those ways would not have given the story any more or less of a moral outcome.”
MIKE: “So if the husband kills the wife and cannabilizses her remains, the book is sufficiently satisfying?”
JILL: “My problem with the argument presented in this way is its circularity. God exists and has stamped his design on man, and we know this because God exists.
MIKE: “No. Man exists with certain Stamps. By this we deduce that God exists.”
Okay, seriously, now I’m laughing. If the character in the book were a cannibal, then, yes, that would be a satisfying ending. But since he’s not, it would be ridiculously out of character.
I realize it’s an extreme example, but I only use it to illustrate that the book really could NOT have ended in any number of ways. There really is Moral demarcation acknowledged by the writer and reader. And for the record, cannibalism is the far lesser of the evil. Murdering his wife it where the husband crosses the Line, both his and ours. Thanks for the discussion, Jill!
Yes, but a cannibal consuming his bride that wouldn’t be is actually poetic. What’s wrong with a story ending that way?
I’m wondering where stories that have more subtle contrasts between hero and villian fit into all this. We don’t all write adventure, action, thriller, etc. where the two are so clearly defined.
What about Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, for instance, written by an atheist nevertheless a compelling and quite popular story. I enjoy it as a Christian, and even though I don’t believe the meaning of life is 42, it still gives me a chuckle, because I can relate to the notion that life sometimes seems random, or meaningless, or a sick joke on humans.
That’s not to say Adams was a relativist…I don’t know about that, after all he absolutely believed there is no God. But, it just goes to show that writers of other worldviews can write compelling stories that speak to Christians.
By trying to “disprove” God, writers can wind up in a catch-22, unintentionally writing fiction that represents and/or illuminates His truths despite their efforts to the contrary. I think this might be your ultimate point. We can’t escape God/moral absolutes in our stories, no matter how hard we might try. Without God, from whom all meaning comes from, there would be no stories at all because there wouldn’t be anything worth telling.
And there’s no winning this discussion in an atheists forum. In their bickering they are fulfilling passages of the Bible. Fact is, they can’t extricate themselves from its truth. They are acting as God tells us those who rationalize Him out of their lives will act. But don’t tell them that. It won’t go over well.
I especially like your fourth paragraph, Jessica. “We can’t escape God/moral absolutes in our stories, no matter how hard we might try.” Yes, that’s a good summation of where I’m going. I’m definitely NOT saying — as I think many opponents of my last post felt — that writers of other worldviews cannot write compelling stories. That’s just absurd. My point is that they have to appeal to a Moral framework — at least to the reading public’s sense of one — in order to make their story compelling.
One of the reasons you said you liked Hitchhiker’s Guide, was that you “can relate to the notion that life sometimes seems random, or meaningless, or a sick joke on humans.” Even in this, a Moral Standard is in play. For instance, we can only measure randomness against Order, meaninglessness against Meaning. Life couldn’t be a “sick joke” unless we had a sense of Health or Wholeness. If we didn’t have the intuitive wish for Justice, we wouldn’t get upset by the injustice of it all.
Here’s the point I’m getting from you, because as is already the case above, someone is saying what are the absolutes. They are automatically approaching this as if there is a set of rules that everyone abides by.
Rather what I see you saying here isn’t that “Thou shalt not murder” is an absolute in the sense there is no circumstantial defining of it, but a common agreement that murder is evil. And that is true even if in self-defense (though that doesn’t quite fit the definition of murder which is intentional). That if there was not some absolute values outside ourselves that form the bases of how we define value within ourselves, then those values we hold within ourselves are only meaningful to *me* and not very many others unless they happen to agree.
But all murder is evil. I don’t care why it happens. Killing and death is a result of the fall, and is always based on evil, even if the person doing the killing can’t avoid it.
But one of the first rules we learn in storytelling is that you have to have conflict. And if you have conflict, that means the reader is expected to root for someone to “win” whatever that might mean for the particular story. And if we want someone to win, that means we attach a certain moral value to that person winning. And even in those worldviews who hold no moral absolutes, for the reader, they apply a more moral absolute values to the story because for the book to hold any sense of value for them, it needs to be confirming truths that are beyond themselves. The “right” side needs to prevail.
And it is when authors prohibit that interpretation from their stories that you get meaningless stories where there is no real conflict or contradicts the morality universally held, and those type of movies generally don’t last or are liked.
One such story I saw in a movie back in the 70s was the good guy, intentionally portrayed as such, at the end of the movie, lost a duel with the evil guy. Evil won. The good guy died. It was an attempt to run counter to expectations, to have the bad guy win. While it may seem more realistic in that sometimes that happens in real life, I left the movie feeling it was all wrong and hating the movie.
Excellent post Mike!
Why are people still reading subjective/relativisitc titles though? Do they think that perhaps “what will be will be”? Has the world gone so wrong, that what should be right and joyous and celebratory one no longer has anything to hope for? What is the objective yardstick?
I’m speaking as a Christian and writer. My hope for my characters is to to keep things real while achieving that absolute good or that absolute truth.
Thanks!
Nice clarification, Mike. I blogged about cultural relativism a couple of years ago when I was back in school and made the same basic point. My concluding paragraph was:
Now some cultural relativists hold to ethical relativism as well. That is, having no absolute standard by which we should judge, we are disqualified from criticizing any (including our own) society’s beliefs or practices. This is ludicrous on the face of it. While this is an extreme position (well, maybe not, I am in a university setting now and they believe some crazy stuff on campuses), it merely proves that those who hold to this view are in fact making judgments based on their own absolute standard.
So it turns out that cultural relativism really isn’t.
http://blogginoutloud.blogspot.com/2009/10/cultural-relativism-isnt.html
This is certainly a thought-provoking post. I agree with your point about the His Dark Materials trilogy. I read all three and my ultimate response was along the lines of “what the what?” I also agree with Kessie’s point about Mercedes Lackey. I have read many of her books and determined to begin writing a fantasy series where there are moral absolutes and one real God because of my frustration with her stories and characters. In addition I would point out Christopher Paolini’s Eragon books, in which the main character struggles with ideas of right and wrong, the existence of God/gods, as well as the purpose for his existence, and never really comes to a solid conclusion. The story ultimately falls flat for many reasons, but I think that lack of moral absolutes is the main one. I don’t really think that a writer must embrace a Judeo-Christian worldview in order to write good stories, but I do believe that all good stories somehow reflect God’s story: where good ultimately triumphs over evil. And of course, as you point out, if good and evil do exist, then Someone must determine what is good and what is evil. That Someone is God, but not everyone is willing to see and admit the truth.
Thanks, Allison!
Not to migrate away from the point, but could you have picked ANY other series besides The Hunger Games to describe the ending?! I’m trying to enjoy the series without any surprises!
Wait a minute…I meant without *spoilers.* I want to be surprised by whatever comes along!
Spoiler: They get hungry.
Hi Mike. I’m over here because today on my blog Seekerville, I’m talking about Dr. Stanley Williams book The Moral Premise and someone stopped in over there and said I should read what you’re writing over here.
I like it. I’m going to go read the earlier blog too.
I haven’t read The Hunger Games but I know in reading Harry Potter, at the end, there was so much speculation that JK Rowlings might let Harry die to save the world. I doubted it but on a really deep level that book was such a battle of good versus evil that it was possible. Unthinkable and yet possible because Rowling had sacrified so many people fighting for good that for Harry to die killing voldemort would have made it a huge, spectacular explosing, powerful ending.
Still and all, I’m glad she didn’t do it. 🙂
We’re trying to define what exactly The Moral Premise is on Seekerville. If you’ve got any ideas, I’m open to them.
http://www.seekerville.blogspot.com
Harry did die. He also rose again. In every book of HP he dies literally or figuratively and comes back from the dead.
You didn’t mention the fourth major religion-humanism-which basically involves taking what you want to believe and saying it’s right (you talked about it but didn’t name it). By taking the thick from the Christian belief they thin it out to make what comforts them, so they take the good/evil and call it what they want without recognizing where it comes from. CS Lewis said that there are bits of truth in every religion, but that Christianity was the only complete truth. Those who disagree with your thesis are those who don’t acknowledge where good/evil comes from because they have thinned the truth to the point that makes them comfortable in their own minds.
As before, you are dead on right.
Hopefully this doesn’t post twice (got an error the first time). The link speaks for itself.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/03/08/faith-based-films-made-more-money-in-2011-than-their-left-leaning-counterparts/?intcmp=features