Thoughts on The Righteous Mind and the God of history

I recently read the book The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt and it was an interesting read. He offers some interesting insight into how the political left mindset is built on a different set of what he calls moral 'pillars' than the political right, and I find much of what he has to say to be helpful for our understanding of each other across the political spectrum. Still, I also find his viewpoint to be limited in a very critical way in regard to the matter of religion.


First, some things that resonated with me. His acronym of WEIRD for Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic is a nice one! Those of us in that world are indeed statistical outliers in regard to seeing the world as a world of individuals rather than as a world of relationships. He points out that the WEIRD-er we are, the moral narrow the moral viewpoint becomes. He goes on to explain how the political left consistently expresses a morality that is built on fewer 'pillars' (notably 2; fairness and care/harm) than the political right that is more evenly concerned about all 6 'pillars' that he identifies, including those of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity that are notably absent on the left. One result of this is that the political left has a much harder time even understanding the political right than the other way around. Several matters of concern to those on the right are either almost entirely absent from the mindset of the left or considered downright immoral rather than a part of moral 'pillars'. Haidt does a good job of showing how this limited set of moral pillars on the left is often harmful even on purely non-religious and evolutionary grounds. I would go even further and say that he demonstrates well how the political left endorses a form of morality that is basically impoverished.


While I think he does demonstrate why the conservative view of morality has more merit than liberals would like to admit,  even in a world where only non-religious and evolutionary arguments are permissible, he does not even mention the issue of history as a basis for religion. As he discusses the rise of religion in the world, the various views of this which he discusses perhaps have some validity in regard to what the apostle Paul would call 'man made religion' (Col. 2:23). However, he does not allow the possibility of a God that injects Himself into history as a person and validates that action by doing unthinkable deeds like resurrection from the dead. He simply rejects historical Christianity out of hand and lumps it together with man-made religion. He seems to assume that all conceptions of God are based solely on an overactive sense of 'agency',  attributing an agent of cause (God) to things that are just natural. He accepts the mistaken notion that a God who is active in history is just myth.


So overall I think he offers some interesting and useful insight into the conflict between the political left and right, and offers some useful proposals by recognizing some good points on both sides of some key issues like health care and marriage. I think this is most helpful for understanding the mindset of the non-religious left and the non-Christian right; but he cannot understand the Christian viewpoint, both left and right, without understanding the God of history. As a result, his argument will only go so far. As he points out himself, many on the left hate all religions so completely that they cannot bring themselves to accept even the possibility that it has any merit.


I write this during the Christmas season when we celebrate God's invasion of human history to make Himself known. That coming into history culminated in His resurrection, an event that radically transformed those who witnessed it to the point of changing the world by their selfless love. It seems to me that there is a 7th pillar of morality that is greater than the rest: Christ Himself.