And now the BIG ONE! Excuse me if this post is rather long, but a lot of ideas rolling around in my mind finally found articulation at around the same time, coalescing into one argument finally. They are a response to posts made a while back on this thread.

Mrzzzy: "Do you believe that a leader should consult their personal supernatural force or being when making decisions involving your actual life?"

You're probably referring to his Dubya-ship here? Well, I agree with you most of the way. I too have a problem with such a leader consulting a supernatural force when making decisions, etc., Not because I believe it is wrong to ask God for guidance, but because 'by their fruits you shall know them'. I don't recognise the supernatural force Dubya seems to be in commune with, I'm not sure it is the God I worship, though perhaps he thinks so. If he is a Christian and is praying to the God recognised by Christians (as he claims) then surely he's heard of 'Thou shalt not kill'? He is trying to follow this commandment when it comes to abortion, which I am glad of, but bizarrely seems to abandon it completely when it comes to Iraqis, Iranians and anyone else outside the US who gets in the way of his ambitions. Maybe he believes God's laws apply only to American citizens, especially better-off white ones. That's unfortunate (especially for those on the receiving end of the 5.56 mm bullets, tank shells etc.,) and seems to be a particular problem in the US. Such 'Christians' in my opinion are trying to be the masters rather than servants of God. They want to harness God for their own ends. They believe what's good for them is good for God. Bob Dylan has already summed this up in 'With God on Their Side".Such hubris is not the sole preserve of the US political scene of course, we only need think of God-fearing ulster unionists ("For God and Ulster!"). Actually come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the republican party is composed largely of the descendents of emigrants from that persuasion…..!

But beyond that, let's look at that proposition a little more closely. First of all, we can discount George Bush's claim to be divinely inspired. Peter Singer has outlined in detail the contradictions in Bush's public pronouncements ("The President of Good and Evil" CIP 13579 10 8642). He makes a convincing case that what Bush is actually doing is astutely identifying the qualities that make a president attractive to a large number of voters. Bush uses the language of Christianity to make a connection with a sector of the US population. I don't like generalistaions, but we could typify that sector as being Christian in name, church-going, gun-toting and confusing nationalistic patriotism with religious belief ("For God and Ulster" / "With God on Our Side").

But we don't need a whole book to prove conclusively that whatever Bush says about being in commune with God, he either isn't listening to God or is in commune with something else. From what we know of God, God does not use either lies or murder to achieve His objectives. Bush and his cabinet rely heavily on both: lies – the WMD claims and a host of other farcical 'facts' about terrorism used to justify his murderous policies. Murder: all the Iraqi and Middle-eastern blood on his hands. Venezualan blood too, except the coup was nipped in the bud. None of this can possibly come from the Christian God. This is what Jesus had to say about such matters – He spoke of Satan falling from heaven, and described him as a 'murderer and a liar from the beginning'. I find the juxtaposition fascinating. Murder and lies seem to need each other. Bush must know this if he has studied the Bible like he claims.

So, those of you who are fearful of people who make policy because they are in commune with the God can relax. "By their fruit you will know them". Policies like those being formulated by neo-cons do not come from God, but from the neo-cons. Their abuse of Christian beliefs is exactly that – an abuse. Don't make the mistake of rejecting God because of the dishonest actions of these people. Rejecting God because you don't believe He exists is a different matter – it's more understandable and is a personal quest. All I'm saying is don't be confused and put off by the actions of these so-called Christians. Instead you could up-end them and surprise them badly by becoming proficient in Christian theology and attending the next questions & answers session where Bush goes……!! It would probably not be the best reason to become a proficient Christian, but at least they wouldn't have it all their own way, muddying the name of God.

So, may I propose Axiom No.1? –

"The evil actions of people who misuse Christianity for their own ends is not proof that Christianity is a bad or evil religion. It does demonstrate how people can take anything, however good, and misuse it"


What then of atheistic secularism? Can it provide a better model? Should we be worried when people vote out of their atheistic secular beliefs?

The first obvious thing is to look for existing models or precedents. Soviet Russia is the pre-eminent example. One of Marxism's axioms is that 'religion is the opium of the people'. The form of communism there was both highly secular AND atheistic. God was driven from public life. All mention of Him was made either illegal or censored. Churches were closed, priests murdered or sent to gulags (Soviet concentration camps). Christians were heavily persecuted in 100 petty and serious ways. If religion is the root of all evil in society, that should have made Soviet society a model for the world. Instead we all know how it served as one of the premier examples of 20th century totalitarianism. People tried to flee its stifling oppression, over 20 million people died under Stalin alone – the biggest genocide of the 20th century, even outstripping Hitler's holocaust. People were forced to recognise the state as the supreme social entity as it took on an almost totemic significance.

Soviet Russia collapsed, at least in part because the human being was not made to live such an unnatural life. But the experiment was tried elsewhere – China, Cambodia etc., all around the world we find places where there were attempts to introduce secular atheistic societies that left nothing but human misery in their wake. So the secular atheistic model doesn't seem to be able to deliver Utopia either – indeed it seems even more intolerable to those living under it than the theocracies so often derided in western media; such as Saudi Arabia. While I wouldn't like to live in such a society, the Saudis have not had genocide in contrast to the Chinese or Russian or Cambodian examples.

"Sure", you say. "But you could apply the same argument that I applied above to Bush – that this is not representative of the real thing. That's not real secular atheism, but various corruptions of it. There's no rationality in it. Now, if we had rationality…."

This is an old 18th century enlightenment idea. Various philosophers, engaged in rational thought themselves, began to extrapolate from their own enlightened minds onto the the human race and think that everyone was basically rational like themselves, and if all just used our reason we could do away with religion, superstition, perhaps even government (anarchists eat your heart out!) and just use our pure reason to govern ourselves for the common good!

Sounds like a wonderful idea, a Utopia based on reason…. But they overlooked human nature. They didn't factor in greed, egotism, dishonesty, avarice and so on, all of the inconvenient things that help to block reason, or that can appear very reasonable to someone interested only in short-term gain for themselves. Plus not everyone agrees on what is 'reasonable' How do we decide who is the most reasonable and therefore whose viewpoint should be taken as the model on which to base laws etc.,?

We can't really use the majority rule model. As several people on this site have pointed out, the majority isn't always right. The minority may have the better point of view. But in a democracy, people get the society they want. If that is so, and the people want a religious society, then that is what they should get. If they want a secular one, then that is what they should get.

It can be difficult to decide what is right or wrong since even rationalisations can be subjective. I gave the example of Grenouile (from 'Perfume') in an earlier thread to show what can happen when someone works off a different set of rationalisations to the majority. His actions – killing the girls but preserving their scent – were perfectly rational to him, however gross they might appear to the majority. The result is that such a person is termed mad and locked up. But once again we find ourselves back at the 'majority rules' model. And what happens (as in Nazi Germany for example) that a particular course of action is commonly thought reasonable and for the benefit of society?

Even in the Middle Ages – so stereotyped as being THE era of superstition, their behaviour was in fact, perfectly rational. If you believe in heaven and hell, it makes perfect sense to pray, go on pilgrimage etc., The difference is that today, because of the sucesses of empirical science in describing the physical world and its inability to decide on metaphysical questions, there are people who believe we are at the apex of social evolution (despite having to explain away two of the worst and most widespread wars in history which killed more people than all previous wars combined – wars that had nothing to do with religion and were based on cold logic) and that our behaviour is therefore superior and somehow more rational than the behaviour of all societies in the past.

So what of the secular atheists who believe in the power of empiricism and reason to provide a better society?

In a previous thread we discussed the contentious issue of abortion. A summary view of the debate shows it can be characterised as falling into two camps. On one side the 'religionists' are generally opposed to abortion, firstly on the grounds that all human life is a unique gift from God to be preserved until He calls it back to Him. On the other side you will find most 'rational secular atheists' are in favour of abortion to varying degrees. Some see it as a simple matter of choice, abortion-on-demand; others see it as an option in some cases. None view the life within the womb as an unborn human being up to a certain point – though they cannot all agree on what that point should be. Some say 24 weeks, others say when there's a nervous system, others say when you can see the humanoid form.

If we reject the religious objection to abortion - as secular atheists insist we do - can empirical science help us out here? Surprisingly it can. Empirical science has managed to prove beyond doubt that what is growing in the womb is in fact a unique human being, a new life. Powerful sceintific learning and equipment are able to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the only time this new life is 'a potential life' (as those in favour of choice / abortion like to say in its justification) is when the child 'is a twinkle in his father's eye' – in other words when the egg and sperm are still separate.
   Once they meet and conception takes place, we have a unqiue genetic code and a new human being. It may be 'only a collection of cells' but then so are we all, and we all return to dust in the end.

More detail here: (link)

What matters is that in this instance empirical science has come out in favour of the Christian religious verdict that pre-dated it: each human life is something that begins from conception. Anything else is simply a point along a continuum that only ends at death.

So what happens when secular atheists are given this empirical science, that they insist should be the bedrock of our modern social policy?

They ignore it. They refuse to believe it. At this point they have abandoned both empiricism and rationality and crossed over into the belief they condemn. For they now choose to believe that the new life begins at some time of their arbitrary choice after conception. To me, this is even worse than flirting with Christian beliefs without implementing them fully, as Bush does. Without even the reference to the higher moral authority of God we can convince ourselves of anything. From there, any premise is possible and many heinous acts can be justified on the grounds the person was 'not fully human' – ranging from abortion, through to partial-birth abortion, to euthanasia, to war, execution, genocide, slavery and many other evils the Christian religion has traditionally condemned (I am aware of St.Paul's advice to slaves to obey their masters, much abused by plantation owners of later years to justify their actions and totally taken out of context. More on that later when I get round to it).

Bee "How safe is it to have political leaders in the world's most powerful country who think the earth is 6000 years old and evolution doesn't/didn't happen? I could care less if Joe Cracker from Orlando believes that, but beliefs like that are in direct opposition to reality, no matter how many ways you say 'Goddidit'"

But then how safe is it to have atheistic secular leaders who believe that children before birth are not really human at all, and not entitled to the same right to life as everyone else automatically expects. Even when such beliefs are in direct opposition to reality? It's certainly not safe for generations of children as yet unborn; or ultimately for anyone as it creates a sliding scale of humanity on which we may all slip eventually.


Axiom No.2 : "Secularism, atheism, human rationality and empiricism alone are no guarantees against the perversion of human nature or for a better society"


What use is empiricism and reason if they are so lightly abandoned when they stand in the way of people's desires? Are they of any greater utility than religion? I would argue they are of even less use. Of the two, empiricism is the more useless. All it can do is to give us certain facts about the physical world. This is good and potentially useful, but that all depends on what we do about this information. Empiricism alone cannot guide us in making the correct moral choices. It can give us the information we need to build an atomic device but cannot tell us whether we should use it. We need something else to guide us in this question which empiricism cannot touch. Can 'reason' be of use? Unfortuantely, it too, has its weakness. People can create rationalisations for almost any act they wish to commit. For example, someone reasons 'why shouldn't I help myself to a few pads of office notepaper or pens? I put in enough unpaid overtime to deserve it" and the company pays you without knowing. The Christian perspective is that both parties are enagaged in theft. The company is stealing from the employee by getting him to work extra time unpaid. Jesus said in the Bible quite clearly that the 'workman deserves his wages'. On the other hand, even though a Christian might be compassionate towards him knowing the circumstances, the employee is quite clearly stealing too and should stop. In other words, it is not OK to do something bad just because someone else is – 'never benchmark yourself against badness'. Christian morality takes commandment no.8 here – thou shalt not steal.

We see a neat dovetailing of science, religion and reason in the abortion question.

Christianity has long held human life to a unique sacred gift from God. It could not back up this claim scientifically where life in the womb was concerned. Yet in recent centuries empirical science has been able to do this. We can now see life at an ever earlier stage and understand its mechanics far better than those who formulated church doctrine all those years ago. We realise that empirically they were right, too. Reason can come into play: there is clear logic. Sperm + egg = the full set of gametes to create a new DNA, a new identity. Prior to that, that identity is a 'potential identity' only. Logically it follows that what grows from that point on is a unique human being that goes through all stages on a continuum until it reaches the end of its life and dies. Once again, Christians see this as the act of God calling that life home in His own good time.

So, for me, empirical science, reason and my Christian religion can all go hand in hand. The first explains the physical workings of the world to my God-given curiosity (my ultimate curiosity is for God, but I take great pleasure in understanding the workings of physical creation too), logical reason and Christian belief togther form the basis for understanding the metaphysical questions of life, and dealing with the moral questions empiricism alone cannot cope with.


Just a few final observations. In "President of Good & Evil" Peter Singer repeats the question "We need to ask to what extent is it appropriate for the elected leaders of pluralist societies to invoke their religious faith on official occasions… and to use it as a basis for policy on issues that affect others in the community who do not share those beliefs" (p.91)

To this we can point ot the following observations -

1)        the emphasis on the fact of pluralism as a motive for secularising society has a counterpoint in the implication that societies which are not pluralistic are free to be theocratic. Therefore we should hold our condemnation of say, middle eastern societies based on Sharia rule.

2)        But what are Christian beliefs? The Credo ("I believe in God…") sums these up for Catholics, and many points would be shared by Orthodox and Protestant also – is mostly about belief to do with the afterlife and about our relationship with God. We cannot pass any legislation dealing with the afterlife, so non-believers are safe from that. No legislation has, or likely ever will be, passed to oblige anyone to go to mass, pray the rosary etc., Even prayer in schools – where it exists – is optional. One might feel excluded, but one is not obliged to worship. The contrary was often the case in the past in pagan societies where christians were ordered on pain of death to worship some idol or other.

3)        Other than that, the central pillar of Christian belief are the 10 Commandments. The first 2 deal specifically with God. If one does not believe in Him, one is free to not to. But what of the other 8? Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat on your wife or husband. Don't want what your neighbour has. Don't slander or gossip about them.

We have to ask ourselves, what sector of society is it that 'doesn't share those beliefs'? Who are the people that consider it acceptable on the contrary to lie, cheat on your partner, kill and so on. These 'values' are not social, they are scoiopathic. We have to ask ourselves if any society interested in its own survival – even a very pluralistic one – can tolerate such socially harmful values in its midst. The only answer is clearly it cannot.

Yes, you say, but these are not the 'beliefs' we are talking about. We are talking about the belief that there is a God, that His son Jesus voluntarily died on the Cross on our behalf. That is what we object to!

But hold on a minute. Atheists say there is no God. If He doesn't exist, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever if people pray to Him. It changes nothing in this world. As I already pointed out, no-one in our western society is obliged to pray or believe in God, even if the President claims to (and I have already commented on what I feel about his actions). There may be sectors of society or geographical areas where one feels isolated or fearful because one is an atheist in a community where the majority are believers. That's socially difficult, but in a pluralistic society we must allow the believers their freedom to practise. We could take away their free will and oblige them all to be atheists and make ourselves feel more at home. And we have already spoken of places and times where this happened – as in Soviet Russia. I'm surprised there wasn't a flood of secular atheists to Russia in the old days where they'd be guaranteed separation of church and state, religion being regarded as 'the biggest evil of all'.

I am reminded me of a CS Lewis book called "That Hideous Strength" (part of a trilogy) where a central character, Mark finds himself working for a kind of corporation / organistaion called NICE. As often with such acronyms, the name hides a more sinister reality. As he is inducted further up the ranks and into the workings of this corporation, Mark is asked to demonstrate his loyalty to the way of science, progress etc., by trampling and spitting on a crucifix. CS Lewis writes this as the forces of evil overplaying their hand. "Having instilled in him by their [NICE corp] techniques a sense of the meaninglessness of the world, and the irrelevance of all religion, he [Mark] questions why they should then be so insistent that he desecrate a crucifix. If a crucifix has no value or meaning what is the point of abusing it? It leads him to wonder if there are not deeper forces at work than he ever dreamed might exist" (Gareth Knight in "The Magical World of the Inklings").


And there are many other sectors of society where it is believers who feel isolated. They don't often pray or express their beliefs publicly for fear of the ridicule of non-belivers. They just learn to live with it and endure the slings and arrows.