Are Christians Good?

Are Christians good?

You might think the tricky word in this question is "good." After all, "good" is a topic of philosophical debate, and there can be no better indication that a word is tricky. But, in fact, the problem lies not with "good" but with "Christian." However challenging it is to define "good," most of us share a sufficiently common understanding of the word to agree in most of its applications. And, more importantly, it is not ambiguous. There are not two or more clear and distinctly different meanings of the word.

"Christian," however, is ambiguous. It can be used to refer to a person who holds certain beliefs, such as that God created the universe and that Jesus is His son (and also God Himself, if our Christian is a Trinitarian). If this is how "Christian" is understood, then the question "Are Christians good?" is an interesting one. They might be or they might not. To find the answer we will have to look for evidence, such as a lower than average proportion of Christians in prison or higher than average donations to charity or some other such fact.

There is another common use of "Christian," however, on which our question is not in the least interesting, namely, the sense in which "Christian" just means "good." This is employed when people describe immoral acts as "un-Christian," or when Father Ted's congregation responds to the revelation of his pederasty by declaring that he is not a "real Christian" after all. If someone qualifies as a Christian only if he is good, then of course Christians are good—it is true by definition. On this interpretation, it is an open question whether those who believe in the divinity of Jesus tend to be Christians.

This ambiguity is harmless, provided we keep clear about which meaning we are using. Trouble comes when we slip between the two meanings, despite the validity of our argument, requiring us to keep to just one meaning, that is, when we equivocate.

Suppose, for example, that Jack recommends Christianity to Jill on the ground that it is the path to virtue. Jill expresses some doubt about this, pointing out that most mafia assassins are Christians. Jack responds that Guido cannot be counted a Christian; no Christian would have whacked the Don's nephew.

Jack has equivocated. He uses "Christian" in its first, belief-based sense when he recommends Christianity as a path to virtue. Then he employs its other sense, on which it is definitionally true that Christians are good, to eliminate an irritating counter-example. Properly, to eliminate Guido as a counter-example, Jack would have to show that he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus—which is not entailed by the fact that he whacked the Don's nephew.

If Jill points this out, Jack is likely to protest that Christianity is more than mere belief in the divinity of Jesus. It also involves a moral code, the ten commandments and all that. Guido clearly broke the code, so it is no cheat to deny him the status of a Christian. Alas, Jack has again changed his definition of "Christian." Now it requires believing in the divinity of Jesus and being virtuous (assuming the Christian moral code is correct). And this makes Jack's advice worthless. On this interpretation of "Christian," telling someone who seeks a path to virtue that she should be a Christian is no better than telling someone who seeks a third leg that he should be a tripod.

Jack cannot have it both ways. Either he is making an interesting claim about a means to an end or he is simply defining that end. If the former, then he will have to deliver evidence for his claim. If the latter, then, though he may have eliminated the possibility of wicked Christians, he will have rendered Christianity a badge of honor for those who attain virtue, not a path to it. Either way, Jack must pick one interpretation of "Christian" and stick to it.

Full credit goes to Jamie Whyte for this. Keep up the good work.

*This post was taken from the book Crimes Against Logic. Highly recommended.