The problem with Calvinism is that it does not allow for improvement. We are (Calvin and Calvinists say) utterly depraved, and powerless to do anything to raise ourselves up from the abyss of sin by so much as the thickness of a hair. We can never be less wrong. Only by the external bestowal of divine grace can we be saved, grace which we are utterly undeserving of and are powerless to earn by any effort of our own. And this divine grace is not bestowed on all, only upon some, the elect, predetermined from the very beginning of Creation.
Calvinism resembles abusive parenting more than any sort of ethical principle.
Each year on Yom Kippur, an Orthodox Jew recites a litany which begins Ashamnu, bagadnu, gazalnu, dibarnu dofi, and goes on through the entire Hebrew alphabet: We have acted shamefully, we have betrayed, we have stolen, we have slandered . . .
As you pronounce each word, you strike yourself over the heart in penitence. There’s no exemption whereby, if you manage to go without stealing all year long, you can skip the word gazalnu and strike yourself one less time. That would violate the community spirit of Yom Kippur, which is about confessing sins—not avoiding sins so that you have less to confess.
By the same token, the Ashamnu does not end, “But that was this year, and next year I will do better.”
The Ashamnu bears a remarkable resemblance to the notion that the way of rationality is to beat your fist against your heart and say, “We are all biased, we are all irrational, we are not fully informed, we are overconfident, we are poorly calibrated . . .”
Fine. Now tell me how you plan to become less biased, less irrational, more informed, lessoverconfident, better calibrated.
When all are damned from the very beginning, when “everything is problematic”, then who in fact gets condemned, what gets problematised, and who are the elect, are determined by political struggle for the seat of judgement. At least in Calvinism, that seat was reserved to God, who does not exist (or as Calvinists would say, whose divine will is unknowable), leaving people to deal with each others’ flaws on a level standing.
Seems to me that many advices or points of view can be helpful when used in a certain way, and harmful when used in a different way. The idea “I am already infinitely bad” is helpful when it removes the need to protect one’s ego, but it can also make a person stop trying to improve.
The effect is similar with the idea of “heroic responsibility”; it can help you overcome some learned helplessness, or it can make you feel guilty for all the evils in the world you are not fixing right now. Also, it can be abused by other people as an excuse for their behavior (“what do you mean by saying I hurt you by doing this and that? take some heroic responsibility for your own well-being, and stop making excuses!”).
Less directly related: Knowing About Biases Can Hurt People (how good advice about avoiding biases can be used to actually defend them), plus there is a quote I can’t find now about how “doubting you math skills and checking your homework twice” can be helpful, but “doubting your math skills so much that you won’t even attempt to do your homework” is harmful.
Orthodox Judaism specifically claims that if enough people behave righteously enough and follow the law well enough at the same time, this will usher in a Messianic era, in which much of the liturgy and ritual obligations and customs (such as the *Ashamnu*) will be abolished. Collective responsibility, and a keen sense that we are very, very far from reliably correct behavior, is not the same as a total lack of hope.
I’ve heard of a similar superstition in Christendom, that if for a single day, no-one sinned, that would bring about the Second Coming. The difference between either of these and a total lack of hope is rounding error.
The alternative is just this: there is work to be done — do it. When the work can be done better — do it better. When you can help others work better — help them to work better.
Forget about a hypothetical absolute pinnacle of good, and berating yourself and everyone else for any failure to reach it. It is like complaining, after the first step of a journey of 10,000 miles, that you aren’t there yet.
I quoted Spurgeon as a striking example of pure, stark Calvinism. But to me his writings are lunatic ravings. In fairness, some of the quotes on the spurgeon quotes site are more humane. But Calvinism, secular or religious, is an obvious failure mode. DO NOT DO OBVIOUS FAILURE MODES.
Calvinists definitely believe ethical improvement is possible (see John Calvin on free will). Rather, the claim is that there is a certain standard of goodness that no one reaches.
When all are damned from the very beginning, when “everything is problematic”, then who in fact gets condemned, what gets problematised, and who are the elect, are determined by political struggle for the seat of judgement.
This is true. Most of the world is under a scapegoating system, where punishment is generally unjust (see: Moral Mazes), and unethical behavior is pervasive. In such a circumstance, punishing all unethical behavior would be catastrophic, so such punishment would itself be unethical.
It would be desirable to establish justice, by designing social systems where the norms are clear, it’s not hard to follow them, and people have a realistic path to improvement when they break them. But, the systems of today are generally unjust.
Calvinists definitely believe ethical improvement is possible
I’m a stranger to theology so maybe I’m misunderstanding, but it sounds like Calvin thought people had free will, but other “Calvinists” thought one’s moral status was predestined by God, prohibiting ethical improvement. (I assume John Calvin isn’t going to exercise a Dennett/Conway Perspective Flip Get-Out-Clause, because if he does, the universe is trolling me).
(Aside: I sometimes think atheists with Judeo-Christian heritage risk losing the grace and keeping the damnation)
Yes, it’s complicated. According to Calvinism, God has already decided who is elect. However, this doctrine is compatible with motivations for ethical behavior, in the case of the Protestant work ethic. Quoting Wikipedia:
Since it was impossible to know who was predestined, the notion developed that it might be possible to discern that a person was elect (predestined) by observing their way of life. Hard work and frugality were thought to be two important consequences of being one of the elect. Protestants were thus attracted to these qualities and supposed to strive for reaching them.
This seems like some pretty wonky decision theory (striving for reaching ethical qualities because they’re signs of already being elect). Similar to the smoking lesion problem. Perhaps Calvinists are evidential decision theorists :)
Perhaps evidential non-decision theorists. Fallen man is unable to choose between good and evil, for in his fallen state he will always and inevitably choose evil.
There is no greater mockery than to call a sinner a free man. Show me a convict toiling in the chain gang, and call him a free man if you will; point out to me the galley slave chained to the oar, and smarting under the taskmaster’s lash whenever he pauses to draw breath, and call him a free man if you will; but never call a sinner a free man, even in his will, so long as he is the slave of his own corruptions.
Man is totally depraved:
The fact is, that man is a reeking mass of corruption. His whole soul is by nature so debased and so depraved, that no description which can be given of him even by inspired tongues can fully tell how base and vile a thing he is.
Man is incapable of the slightest urge to do good, unless the Lord extend his divine grace; and then, such good as he may do is done not by him but by the Lord working in him. And then, such outer works may be seen as evidence of inward grace.
Quotes are from the 19th century Calvinist C.M. Spurgeon, here and here. He wrote thousands of sermons, and they’re all like this.
Calvinism resembles abusive parenting more than any sort of ethical principle.
I think this might be an important distinction:
“We are all flawed/evil and have to somehow make the best of it” (Calvinism, interpreted charitably)
vs
“YOU are evil/worthless” said to a child by a parent who believes it (abusive parenting, interpreted uncharitably, painted orange and with a bulls eye painted on it)
The problem with Calvinism is that it does not allow for improvement. We are (Calvin and Calvinists say) utterly depraved, and powerless to do anything to raise ourselves up from the abyss of sin by so much as the thickness of a hair. We can never be less wrong. Only by the external bestowal of divine grace can we be saved, grace which we are utterly undeserving of and are powerless to earn by any effort of our own. And this divine grace is not bestowed on all, only upon some, the elect, predetermined from the very beginning of Creation.
Calvinism resembles abusive parenting more than any sort of ethical principle.
Eliezer has written of a similar concept in Judaism:
When all are damned from the very beginning, when “everything is problematic”, then who in fact gets condemned, what gets problematised, and who are the elect, are determined by political struggle for the seat of judgement. At least in Calvinism, that seat was reserved to God, who does not exist (or as Calvinists would say, whose divine will is unknowable), leaving people to deal with each others’ flaws on a level standing.
Seems to me that many advices or points of view can be helpful when used in a certain way, and harmful when used in a different way. The idea “I am already infinitely bad” is helpful when it removes the need to protect one’s ego, but it can also make a person stop trying to improve.
The effect is similar with the idea of “heroic responsibility”; it can help you overcome some learned helplessness, or it can make you feel guilty for all the evils in the world you are not fixing right now. Also, it can be abused by other people as an excuse for their behavior (“what do you mean by saying I hurt you by doing this and that? take some heroic responsibility for your own well-being, and stop making excuses!”).
Less directly related: Knowing About Biases Can Hurt People (how good advice about avoiding biases can be used to actually defend them), plus there is a quote I can’t find now about how “doubting you math skills and checking your homework twice” can be helpful, but “doubting your math skills so much that you won’t even attempt to do your homework” is harmful.
Orthodox Judaism specifically claims that if enough people behave righteously enough and follow the law well enough at the same time, this will usher in a Messianic era, in which much of the liturgy and ritual obligations and customs (such as the *Ashamnu*) will be abolished. Collective responsibility, and a keen sense that we are very, very far from reliably correct behavior, is not the same as a total lack of hope.
I’ve heard of a similar superstition in Christendom, that if for a single day, no-one sinned, that would bring about the Second Coming. The difference between either of these and a total lack of hope is rounding error.
What’s the alternative? A state in which collective culpability is zero … while people continue to do wrong?
The alternative is just this: there is work to be done — do it. When the work can be done better — do it better. When you can help others work better — help them to work better.
Forget about a hypothetical absolute pinnacle of good, and berating yourself and everyone else for any failure to reach it. It is like complaining, after the first step of a journey of 10,000 miles, that you aren’t there yet.
I quoted Spurgeon as a striking example of pure, stark Calvinism. But to me his writings are lunatic ravings. In fairness, some of the quotes on the spurgeon quotes site are more humane. But Calvinism, secular or religious, is an obvious failure mode. DO NOT DO OBVIOUS FAILURE MODES.
Calvinists definitely believe ethical improvement is possible (see John Calvin on free will). Rather, the claim is that there is a certain standard of goodness that no one reaches.
This is true. Most of the world is under a scapegoating system, where punishment is generally unjust (see: Moral Mazes), and unethical behavior is pervasive. In such a circumstance, punishing all unethical behavior would be catastrophic, so such punishment would itself be unethical.
It would be desirable to establish justice, by designing social systems where the norms are clear, it’s not hard to follow them, and people have a realistic path to improvement when they break them. But, the systems of today are generally unjust.
I’m a stranger to theology so maybe I’m misunderstanding, but it sounds like Calvin thought people had free will, but other “Calvinists” thought one’s moral status was predestined by God, prohibiting ethical improvement. (I assume John Calvin isn’t going to exercise a Dennett/Conway Perspective Flip Get-Out-Clause, because if he does, the universe is trolling me).
(Aside: I sometimes think atheists with Judeo-Christian heritage risk losing the grace and keeping the damnation)
Yes, it’s complicated. According to Calvinism, God has already decided who is elect. However, this doctrine is compatible with motivations for ethical behavior, in the case of the Protestant work ethic. Quoting Wikipedia:
This seems like some pretty wonky decision theory (striving for reaching ethical qualities because they’re signs of already being elect). Similar to the smoking lesion problem. Perhaps Calvinists are evidential decision theorists :)
Perhaps evidential non-decision theorists. Fallen man is unable to choose between good and evil, for in his fallen state he will always and inevitably choose evil.
Man is totally depraved:
Man is incapable of the slightest urge to do good, unless the Lord extend his divine grace; and then, such good as he may do is done not by him but by the Lord working in him. And then, such outer works may be seen as evidence of inward grace.
Quotes are from the 19th century Calvinist C.M. Spurgeon, here and here. He wrote thousands of sermons, and they’re all like this.
I think this might be an important distinction:
“We are all flawed/evil and have to somehow make the best of it” (Calvinism, interpreted charitably)
vs
“YOU are evil/worthless” said to a child by a parent who believes it (abusive parenting, interpreted uncharitably, painted orange and with a bulls eye painted on it)