Can a theist practice an ethic that is universal, but that does not understand the postulation of the infinite as a necessary condition? The postulation of the infinite as a necessary condition creates obvious tensions within the bounds of praxis since to act in accordance with infinite terms requires delimitation of it. This delimitation is often an arbitrary and contingent act that is then arbitrarily made infinite and necessary! Thus, my ethic is better than yours and so forth. This was a problem that Kant himself created in his Second Critique. But, in principle there is the possibility of a universal ethic circumscribed within the bounds of reason alone in terms of rational action where the postulation of the infinite is completely unnecessary in terms of praxis. This does not resolve the problem of violence towards another completely, but it does remove a cause of it in terms of the arbitrary postulation of the infinite. Jürgen Habermas gives us an alternative in terms of communicative reason where action and theory are one in the same where individuals and communities negotiate with one another's necessary boundaries on rational grounds.
Perhaps once theists can recognize that the postulation of the infinite as a necessary condition for ethical reasoning is in practice not necessary even if in theory they would assume that it is, it will make great strides to resolve these arbitrary tensions. I do also think that this must occur from the inside out since the anti-theist argument simply clarifies the boundary rather than blur it and therefore complicate it. This is evidential in the history of how dogma has developed in Christianity. Heresy moves the clarification of doctrinal boundaries that form these arbitrary necessary conditions ascribed to the infinite and the atheist positions therefore are viewed by the dogmatist as so many of these heretical positions hence the opposite reaction incurs with an even more rigid clarification of arbitrary boundaries that become more acutely associated with the infinite itself! Unfortunately, the history of religion has always had its interior critics – the prophets and judges in the Bible for instance – but these critics tend to be ignored or their ideas acknowledged, but never practiced. The Reformers were different because their arguments against the church had political weight to push the agenda and make it successful. The corollary today are those arguing for the full inclusion of homosexuals in Christian life including the ministry. Here there is quite a lot of political weight behind these decisions and will further political change as well as doctrinal change. This will happen at the expense of already dwindling church membership and attendance rolls in mainline Protestant churches.
In the arena of Western religious tolerance and the relativism of multi-culturalism the notion of necessary reform is difficult since ethical reasoning without the infinite itself is viewed too much as one way of thinking no more valuable to civilization than another. It is also, ironically, viewed as less valuable since it does argue for an ethics without the infinite which itself is not a rational conclusion!
Perhaps this apatheistic perspective is the only way to practice the very love of neighbor that a Christian ought to practice in the world arena as it is. With this perspective one can assume the infinite, but one does not have to assume a specific circumscription of the infinite in order to practice in a way that full and complete love of neighbor is also circumscribed in arbitrary boundaries that are made absolute and necessary. Otherwise love of neighbor simply becomes a disguise for the propagation of human selfishness and the necessary exclusion of one’s neighbor.
Related posts:
