I grew up in the Catholic tradition, but after obtaining several university degrees — including one in religion — it became clear to me that Jesus wasn’t divine and that the cobbling together of the Bible in the fourth century was a consummate work of spin-doctoring. I have about 20 arguments in defense of this, not the least of which is Christ’s inefficacy. After 2,000 years, his followers have split into thousands of sects, many of whom have shot and killed members of rival sects. Think of Northern Ireland, World War II. It doesn’t seem to me the way an omnipotent deity should operate.
But boy, oh, boy, do I love the artistic output of Christianity. Bach’s B-minor Mass, the Fauré Requiem, St. Paul’s Cathedral — all these lift my spirit. I love a beautiful Christian service.(Where else do you hear an organ like that?) Actors talk about ‘‘working from the outside in,’’ in which a physical position unlocks inner emotions. For me, kneeling does this. I don’t pray, but the act creates humility and gratitude. It does me good. Then there’s the lovely sense of community in a congregation.
I’ll never be converted. So I guess I’m lying when I turn up at a service and recite the Creed and sing the hymns as lustily as anyone else. Am I hurting anyone by doing this? Is it, for want of a better word, a sin? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
A church represents a confluence of practices, beliefs and community, and its congregants will be drawn for all sorts of reasons. No doubt you’re participating in these services in a different frame of mind from many others who are there, but Catholics have long been aware of the aesthetic appeal of their tradition’s art, music, architecture and liturgy — an aspect of the via pulchritudinis, or way of beauty, that Pope Francis has invoked. As for reciting the Nicene Creed: You might inquire what exactly your neighbors on the pew think it means to be of one substance, or consubstantial, with the Father.
Of course, you could always visit churches, like those of the Unitarian Universalists, that explicitly reject creeds and that expect some members of the congregation to be atheists. They have hymns, too. But if the way of beauty leads you to the Catholic services of your upbringing, you shouldn’t feel as if you don’t belong, however deep your doubts. There’s no saying what a service means to any one of its participants. So your presence and participation can hardly be taken as a declaration of any particular creedal commitments. If the issue of faith comes up, you can freely tell your fellow congregants, ‘‘I’m not really a believer, but I love these services.’’ They’re unlikely to object to your being there. Some might be in your situation; some might hope that your attendance could, contrary to your expectations, change your mind. Many clerics advocate ‘‘meeting people where they are.’’ They may think that you’re appreciating God’s work in your own faltering way.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from a reader with a question about cycling safety. He wrote: “I recently started using my bike as my main mode of transportation, and there are many intersections near my house that feature a pedestrian scramble (a.k.a. an exclusive pedestrian interval). When there are no pedestrians in the walkway but the signal remains on for them, I’m unsure whether I should go. On one hand, it would make my commute more efficient and probably safer (the risk of getting hit by a car is much lower). On the other hand, there’s a vanishingly small chance I hit a pedestrian and a much higher chance I undermine pedestrians’ confidence in their safety — if they see bikes crossing during the designated pedestrian time, they’ll feel less safe in the area in the future. Plus it’s technically illegal. What do you think?”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “I have no doubt that you’d be a careful crosser; your evenhanded summary of the situation suggests that you’re able to look in both directions and size things up. But one rationale for these scrambles is to enhance pedestrian safety by completely separating vehicles from pedestrians. Cyclists who play it by ear, or eye, are defeating the point of the system. And norms get settled by decisions that people like you make. Stay put when your light is red, and you serve as a role model for other cyclists. Predictability and social trust are strengthened when people follow the rules even when they don’t see any benefit in doing so.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
In Amsterdam, traffic lights have has three signals — for cars, pedestrians and bikes. At least at major intersections, this kind of system would make sense for the United States to implement in the future. In the meantime, The Ethicist’s response is sensible. — Frank
⬥
If it’s illegal, don’t do it. Your inner Ethicist knows this. Consider dismounting and walking your bike across the street like a pedestrian. — Martha
⬥
I disagree with the Ethicist, since while most people at least give lip service to pedestrian-friendly transportation and road policies, many people are hostile to cyclists by default. This, despite the fact that in New York City, injuries to pedestrians from bicycles are vanishingly rare, while grievous injuries to both pedestrians and cyclists from cars are common. Most importantly, some jurisdictions, including our own New York City, explicitly allow bicycles to cross with the pedestrian signal. As noted by the city Transportation Department, “Unless there is a bike signal or sign, cross the intersection when the pedestrian signal shows ‘the walk,’” and still yield to pedestrians. A careful biker crossing with pedestrians makes the road safer for themselves and fellow cyclists. It is already a travesty that bicycles are forced to eke out meager space on a road designed for cars. — Jonathan
⬥
I concur with the Ethicist’s point that “predictability and social trust are strengthened when people follow the rules even when they don’t see any benefit in doing so.” You would assume that pedestrians would agree as well, even though most don’t follow traffic rules and cross intersections against red lights even when vehicles with green lights are waiting. What happens, however, when a rule that fosters predictability and social trust is no longer the rule? Jaywalking is now legal in New York City after the New York City Council passed a bill in October 2024 decriminalizing jaywalking, allowing pedestrians to cross the street without following traffic signals or crosswalks. For drivers in New York City, this law merely exacerbates an already difficult situation, resulting in even more dangerous interactions between pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. As a bicyclist in New York City, I stick to the bicycle paths whenever possible. — Brian
⬥
The Ethicist’s advice is correct — in an idealized world. However, current motorized-vehicle traffic regulations as they relate to cycling do not take into account the realities of bicycle transportation. Back in 1982, the state of Idaho recognized that treating cyclists and powered vehicles similarly did not always make sense, and instituted the “Idaho Stop,” whereby cyclists (in most situations) are permitted to treat a stop sign or red light as a yield sign, i.e., slow down but proceed if traffic is clear. This recognizes that, because of the effects of inertia, considerable (unnecessary) effort must be expended by cyclists to get back up to speed after coming to a complete stop at an intersection with no traffic. Several other states have adopted versions of the “Idaho Stop.” Something to consider. — Buster
⬥
As a transportation planner who focuses on both pedestrian and bicyclist safety, I disagreed with the clear-cut assumption of bicyclist etiquette at intersections. Bicyclists should check their local laws and transportation departments for guidance; in some places, like New York City, bicyclists are legally permitted to cross on the Leading Pedestrian Interval (L.P.I.). Bicyclists must still consider their role in a safe roadway environment for other road users, and yield to pedestrians when using an L.P.I., but check with your municipal laws — and not your ethics columnist — regarding the rules of the road. — Mary
⬥
I agree with the Ethicist’s thoughtful response. As a pedestrian, motorist and former cyclist till ill health caught up with me, it’s important to remember that courtesy for others should rule our actions on the road, and that cyclists (at least in my state) have the same responsibilities and rules required of motorists. The most vulnerable people on the road are on foot, something that is forgotten by many of us cyclists, who get caught up in righteous indignation about how many motorists act. — Joe
⬥
As a retired professional bicycle coach, I know that drivers often resent the presence of cyclists. Riding through stop signs and red lights are frequently cited as examples of why cyclists don’t belong on the roads. By riding through a red light, the writer would do the cycling community a disservice by reinforcing these unfortunate cycling stereotypes. Also, pedestrians and cyclists rarely mix well. Often, pedestrians don’t hear or see the cyclist approaching and step into the cyclist’s path, causing a collision. The letter writer is better off waiting for a green light. — Rebecca
The post Can I Go to Church When I Don’t Believe? appeared first on New York Times.
