Right Action without Right Belief?

Had one of those squirmy, uncomfortable, should-I-say-something-or-should-I-just-keep-quiet? moments last week. As is becoming more and more common an occurrence amongst my facebook contacts, a sweet friend who is both a devoted wife & dedicated educator posted a telling comment on her facebook page:

From a study published recently by the Public Religion Research Institute,
"Nearly 8-in-10 (79 percent) religious progressives say that being a religious person is mostly about doing the right thing, compared to 16 percent who say it is about holding the right beliefs." We're getting there!

What immediately struck me about this and started (what I hope was) a lively and honest exchange of ideas between my friend and I, is the assumption her comment makes that we can separate doing the right thing from thinking rightly.  If that were true, our moral actions would be independent of our own internal thought process and moral belief system.  I don't see how that's possible.

Now, don't misunderstand me, I see what my friend is trying to say. I see her love of diversity and her willingness to consider multiple points of view.  Her openness to new ideas and ways of thinking is one of the things I admire most about her--she's always looking to find the best in people. But I also think there's a fundamental disconnect in suggesting it's possible (and preferable) to do the right thing without believing rightly. This implies a basic lack of understanding of where right action comes from.

The actual findings of the article in question draw a very different social conclusion. In reality, less than 20% of all the people surveyed by the Public Religion Research Institute fall into the category they refer to as 'Religious Progressives' (they never clearly define what the term means). The 79% statistic actually refers just to the percentage of those labeled 'Religious Progressive' who expressed the right action vs. right belief opinion, a much smaller segment of the total survey population than the comment suggests.

So, back to the basic question: is it possible to act rightly without believing rightly? I don't think so. Here's why: I replied to my friend's comment with a question. I asked her, if acting rightly is more important than holding the right set of beliefs, then how does she determine which action is the right one? What makes it right to do one thing and wrong to do something else? She didn't have an answer for me. 

What I know about my friend (and about myself) is her perception of right and wrong is based on her own internal set of judgments about what behavior is acceptable and what isn't. Whether she recognizes it or not, every judgment she makes involves weighing an action against that internal moral standard. It has to. We couldn't make a judgment if we didn't already have an ideal to compare it to.

Okay, so we all already have a set of moral beliefs (most likely instilled in us from childhood) to operate by. But what if my beliefs conflict with yours? Who gets to decide which ones make up the standard of right and wrong? Can we have multiple standards? How do we know which one is right?  Does that standard change over time?

This is where the 'Religious Progressive' view stops meeting the need it proposes to fill. This point-of-view suggests we just 'do the right thing'--that what we believe isn't as important as what we do. But if what we do comes directly out of what we believe every single time, then we begin to see the RP perspective is impossible to live out. (Unless we're willing to surrender our own judgment and allow the current culture to do our thinking for us.)

Currently, our culture values certain lifestyles and behaviors. Many of these were not morally-acceptable even a generation ago. (Before you accuse me of draconian thinking, just hear me out.) If our definition of acceptable behavior changes with every generation and each new cultural influence, are any of our beliefs really true?  If everything is changeable and up for constant reinterpretation, what can we humans (who dislike change so much in our own lives) believe in, no matter what?

Don't we, deep down, long to know definitively where we stand? Aren't we all seeking what really matters on some level? (As a follower of Christ, I recognize this longing as something placed in me by God--designed to compel me to seek fulfillment in relationship with Him.) This search for meaning is at the heart of every moral decision we make.  What we do reflects absolutely what we believe. It's impossible to separate the two.

I would love to tell you that the facebook dialogue with my friend was a smooth, well-ordered exchange of ideas that strengthened our friendship. Alas. As with all human interaction, there was some misunderstanding. Though, I think we both eventually got across what we wanted to say. The dialogue ended awkwardly, but with each of us asserting our respect and affection for the other. 

A risky business, this posting of our viewpoint on facebook. But if we never take a chance and speak the truth of what we see, the moment passes quietly and we surrender without challenging our own assumptions.   

“How shall a man judge what to do in such times?'
'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear...It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien

Quote courtesy of goodreads.com.