Registered user login:

Keep the faith

Sholto Byrnes

Published 31 January 2008

For most Europeans, a belief in God may have given way to a belief in democracy, law and human rights. But the Almighty remains the source of our secular freedoms

In the early stages of the First World War, observed the poet C J Squire, there was no escaping God:

God heard the embattled nations sing and shout:

"Gott strafe England" - "God Save the King" -,

"God this" - "God that" - and "God the

other thing".

"My God," said God, "I've got my work

cut out."

By the 1990s the liberal, secular nations of the continent that fought that war no longer felt any need to call on God. There was a settled assumption that our civilisation had reached a plane higher than one constructed on the crude certainties of religion. Once communism had been defeated in Eastern Europe, the whole pantheon - Marx, Lenin and Stalin as well as the Judaeo-Christian deity - seemed no more than ghosts of the past, ever decreasing in influence until they would be remembered, like the Greek gods, only in legends and friezes.

In Britain, churches faced drastically declining numbers: an estimated one million people gave up regular attendance in the 1990s. The pronouncements of Cardinal Hume continued to be taken seriously, although that owed as much to the former abbot's evident gravitas as his official role. The same could not be said of his counterpart at Lambeth Palace, George Carey, whose orotund estuary English seemed to indicate a diminishment of his office sadly not matched by his waistline (the novelist A N Wilson used to refer to him cruelly, but not inaccurately, as "Mr Blobby"). When Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man proclaimed the ultimate triumph of liberal democracy in 1992, that victory appeared to be over religion as well as political ideology.

Since then, the challenges to liberal secularism in Europe have been obvious. They are a resurgent Islam; and the effects on the EU of an eastern expansion that took in more overtly religious populations. There were rows over whether a reference to God should be included in the now-abandoned EU constitution or the 2007 celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome.

God is back. And this time He isn't the woolly deity of the dear old C of E, so gentlemanly an old cove that He didn't appear to object when hardly anyone turned up on Sundays, or if one of His bishops cast doubts on His miracles or His existence. This time He has the whiff of brimstone about Him. But the truth is that we'd never got rid of God in the first place.

"Without God," wrote Dostoevsky, "everything is permitted." Proponents of secular liberal democracy would vehemently disagree, pointing to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights or the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. We're very fond of talking about rights, and we are highly attached to them. But even when we are not using the term sloppily - unless it's enshrined in law, for instance, you no more have the "right" not to breathe in my second-hand smoke on the street than I have the "right" to your last Rolo - we are all too hazy about where they come from.

Thomas Jefferson wasn't. Men's "certain unalienable Rights", he wrote in the American Declaration of Independence, were "endowed by their Creator". When God is in the picture it may well be "self-evident" where natural rights, or the human rights we talk of today, originate. When He isn't, these rights have their very foundations removed. If they don't come from God, they must come from man; and that puts them on a very different footing.

This isn't a problem for everyone. Some are happy to think of rights as no more than human constructs, the scaffolding of law we build around implicit social contracts. Rights become meaningful only when they are legally recognised as such, and are therefore mutable and subjective. You may have the right not to be hanged for a sheep today, but you wouldn't have done several centuries ago and, if parliament so votes, you might not do tomorrow. Under this interpretation, you have to accept that other societies may decide upon other types of rights, even ones that you might consider barbaric.

Yet this is far too thin a gruel to sustain most of us. The powerful appeal of the UN Declaration rests not solely on the fact that the General Assembly voted to adopt it in 1948. Groups of men and women have, after all, cast their ballots in all sorts of ways since ancient times; on its own, the act is not sufficient to bear lasting moral weight. We invest such declarations and conventions with a far profounder authority than that provided by a momentary human agreement. At a more basic level, this authority informs our attitude towards the law. The punishment for stealing, for instance, is not just the jail sentence; it's also societal disapproval, the sense that the thief has done something deeply wrong.

Ask anyone where all this comes from with-out God, and there is no satisfying answer. Talk about human nature or "inherent" rights may seem to make passable sense, but on examination fails to rise above assertion, or "nonsense upon stilts", as Bentham called the idea of natural rights; neither does it explain how some societies could have such different notions of property that our concept of theft made no sense in theirs, or why others found headhunting and cannibalism perfectly acceptable pursuits.

We have forgotten that there are tablets of stone on which we in Europe can find the ob jective morality we now prize so dearly. These tablets aren't hovering in thin air or somehow sewn into the fabric of the universe. They belong to the millennia of Judaeo-Christian tradition of which our societies are the product.

Filling a God-shaped hole

We have forgotten, too, that this objective morality did not exist separately from God; He was its source. No act was wrong in itself, it was wrong because God said so. Buried within the mulch of generations of practice, assumption, agnosticism and unchallenged belief are the real roots of our deep-seated notions of right and wrong, of freedom, liberty and natural rights.

Fukuyama acknowledged the link when he wrote, soon after September 11, that "the universalism of democratic rights can be seen as a secular form of Christian universalism". We may think we have removed the projectionist, but the projection - and the strength of our faith in it - remains even if, without a firm guiding hand on the machine, the images have become blurred.

How else to explain the new religions that we have created for ourselves? A religion of science, whose priests make proclamations imbued with a certainty that their empirical branch of learning cannot justify; a religion of rights which, however much we may instinctively agree with it, has no more coherent proof than that it is "self-evident"; and now, perhaps, a religion of ecology whose ministers thunder as self-righteously as any 17th-century Puritan preacher.

This search for certainty is entirely akin to religious belief. Both are types of faith, and if only the latter actually acknowledges God, the former does Him the compliment of seeking to fill a God-shaped hole. And that, for many people who acknowledge that there is an ultimately unknowable mystery at the heart of our very existence, is exactly what God is. I'd say that, nearly a century on, He's still got His work cut out.

God and me

Tod Wodicka, novelist

What does "God" mean? We perceive such a minuscule sliver of existence, and always will, that it is easier to say what "God" isn't. I'd bet that He isn't a patriarchal desert lord demanding worship and dietary/sexual peculiarities. But that's just a hunch.

Has God ever spoken to you? Insofar as I open my eyes each morning, yes. Beyond that, not a peep.

Where would we be without God? If "God" is reality or existence in its many and multiple guises, I'd say we'd be nowhere.

Jonathan Dimbleby, broadcaster

What does "God" mean? God is an idea that has captured the minds of humanity.

Has God ever spoken to you? Not once, and I don't expect to receive that metaphysical thrill.

Where would we be without God? We would be no better and no worse. We would be where we are, but we would use a different language to explain that. The idea of God has been an inspiration and the source of wonder. It has also been the cause of miseries.

Ann Widdecombe, Conservative MP

What does "God" mean? He is the supreme ruler of the universe and the one who will judge us at the end of our lives.

Has God ever spoken to you? God speaks to us all in different ways - it's up to us whether we hear Him.

Where would we be without God? We wouldn't.

Peter Tatchell, human rights activist (below)

What does "God" mean? The idea is synonymous with irrationality, superstition, ignorance, and usually dogmatism, insecurity, authoritarianism, intolerance, self-loathing and injustice.

Has God ever spoken to you? No, and neither has Father Christmas nor the Tooth Fairy.

Where would we be without God? Much better off, with a more enlightened, just and humane world. Although some religious leaders, such as Martin Luther King and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, have been liberators of humanity, religion has been mostly an instrument of war, bigotry and oppression.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

26 comments from readers

Mazda
31 January 2008 at 21:13

What is God? How do you define God? If God is what you can't touch, smell, taste and see then God isn't anything or anything could be God. That's why I like a religion like Matrixism that doesn't try to define God: the undefineable.

RobinEdgar
31 January 2008 at 22:07

For a second there I thought you said, 'That's why I like a religion like Marxism. . .' ;-)

God does indeed speak to us all in different ways.

Here is some celestial 'Sign Language' from God for those of us who have eyes to see. . .

http://media.skyandtelescope.com/images/Totality_Carlos_Kern...

ted harvey
01 February 2008 at 14:09

This article is utter goblygook and arrant nonsense! By the way, only in secular countries is there the liberalism that allows frre discussionsuch deluded ramblings that are downright offensive to capable and rational thought. You can guess the king of things that would happen in so-called 'devout' societies when agnostics or athiests try to express equivelant opinions

One of several plainly stupid statements typical of arrogant and intolerant religionists is:

"Ask anyone where all this comes from with-out God, and there is no satisfying answer".

Laying aside the unjustified, presumptionist, 'Ask anyone'... to invent a mythical diety or supreme-being-in-the-sky is no satisfying answer to almost anything. A little less self-importance on the part of this writer on the place of humankind in existance would help... Maybe the writer should not assume there must be an answer for us humans. Maybe we are just not capable yet of having worked out the answer, but if that's the case, we should not take it upon ourselves to create a fiction as the answer.

ted harvey
01 February 2008 at 14:11

Sorry for the typos in the previous posting, it should read as:

This article is utter goblygook and arrant nonsense! By the way, only in secular countries is there the liberalism that allows free discussion of such deluded ramblings that are downright offensive to capable and rational thought. You can guess the kind of things that would happen in so-called 'devout' societies when agnostics or athiests try to express equivelant opinions

One of several plainly stupid statements typical of arrogant and intolerant religionists is:

"Ask anyone where all this comes from with-out God, and there is no satisfying answer".

Laying aside the unjustified, presumptionist, 'Ask anyone'... to invent a mythical diety or supreme-being-in-the-sky is no satisfying answer to almost anything. A little less self-importance on the part of this writer on the place of humankind in existance would help... Maybe the writer should not assume there must be an answer for us humans. Maybe we are just not capable yet of having worked out the answer, but if that's the case, we should not take it upon ourselves to create a fiction as the answer.

Recusant
01 February 2008 at 16:31

Ted

I'd say the typos were a visual demonstration of the chaos, intemperance and intellectual paucity of your 'argument'.

Just because you dislike the obvious truth of something doesn't make it wrong. You know, if you would but allow yourself to do so, that, in that Marxist atheist philosopher Jurgen Habermas's words:

"Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity as more than a mere precursor or a catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights, and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in the light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk."

You may not like it, but it's true.

RobinEdgar
01 February 2008 at 19:17

I dare say that Ted Harvey's comments are quite typical of arrogant and intolerant atheists. . . No doubt he is a disciple of Dawkins. Utter goblygook indeed. ;-)

zeno
01 February 2008 at 23:49

That's it, Recusant - there's nothing like an ad hominem attack to divert attention...

Ted is absolutely correct, but it would take more space than is here to answer the fallacious assertions and poor argumentation of Byrnes.

Just one comment, however. Byrnes says: "If they don't come from God, they must come from man; and that puts them on a very different footing."

Thank god for that different footing! - it is a far more stable foundation than the dubious ethics of religion, based - as religionists claim - on the utterings of a vengeful, egotistical, hateful and capricious god.

ted harvey
02 February 2008 at 14:29

Zero I like your take on pompous Recusant as ‘there's nothing like an ad hominem attack to divert attention... ‘ All that verbiage, some of it cribbed from a Marxist (Marxism being something that as a secularist I for one detest); and he has the nerve to refer to my ‘intellectual paucity’ (and on ‘an argument’ that I never put)

Mind you, his pretentious pseudo science is an interesting insight on how religionists ironically cannot resist seeking to construct rationalist explanations for their superstitious mythologies. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Robin Edgar you could have just about maybe have got away with your mild, but pointless, witticism you started with… but then you fell back into a silly little ‘No doubt he is a disciple of Dawkins’. Well I prefer to leave the notion of ‘disciples to you religionists – after all it’s one of those terms you are fond of in using to disparage other religionists who have a different set of religious superstitions.

It is of course so often the most secular states that have done most to protect divergent religious minorities against the moral and sometimes physical savagery of the religious majority.

zeno
02 February 2008 at 15:17

Ted said "It is of course so often the most secular states that have done most to protect divergent religious minorities against the moral and sometimes physical savagery of the religious majority."

Yes, and it is also true that it is the most religious states that not only do little to protect the rights of those that don't agree with their brand of religiosity, but actively seek to impose their views and morality on everyone - for their own good, of course!

Recusant
02 February 2008 at 17:38

Ted

Cribbed? I think you'll find I quoted. That's what those little things like this " imply.

As for ad hominem attacks. Many apologies, but I expect my attitude had been affected by your comments on Sholto Byrnes: "This article is utter goblygook and arrant nonsense!"

Recusant
02 February 2008 at 20:43

And why, Ted, do you make the assumption that I am a "religionist"?

Can you not accept that I am giving credit where credit is due? It is ridiculous to try and deny the obvious: our western conception of liberty, the rights of man and human rights find their building blocks on the backs of Christian theology. You don't have to belief in any metaphysical concepts to accept that.

Why do you put on your armour and mount your steed to fight religious demons where there are none to be fought, except in your aggressive imaginings?

RobinEdgar
02 February 2008 at 21:37

Actually Ted my witticism, which consisted mainly of feeding your own words right back to you, ws neither mild, nor pointless. There is nothing particularly "silly" about me suggesting that you are probably "a disciple of Dawkins".

Here are a few definitions of the word "disciple" -

A person who is a pupil or an adherent of the doctrines of another; follower: a disciple of Freud.

One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another.

An active adherent, as of a movement or philosophy.

someone who believes and helps to spread the doctrine of another

They would all seem to apply well to fundamentalist atheists who believe in, and help to spread, the "doctrine" of Richard Dawkins and other evangelical atheists.

:It is of course so often the most secular states that have done most to protect divergent religious minorities against the moral and sometimes physical savagery of the religious majority.

Such as? Can you name a few such secular states for us Ted? You might do well to leave some of the *most* secular states off the short list. . .

RobinEdgar
02 February 2008 at 21:43

While you are at it Ted. Can you please provide us all with a genuinely satisfying answer to where all this comes from while completely omitting the God hypothesis?

Agog
02 February 2008 at 22:17

I feel that there are two major flaws in the argument put forward in the article.

Firstly the assumption that in regard to human rights and morality "When He [God] isn't, these rights have their very foundations removed." It is impossible to argue that Judaeo-Christian philosophy has not contributed greatly to western ethics. However to claim that all notion of rights and morals in our society are based soley upon it is an untenable argument. Even the briefest look at the evidence argues against this. Specifically highly developed schools of ethics were present in the classical philosophies of Europe long preceding the adoption of Christianity. In fact much of this was absorbed and continued meaning that Western cultures were and continue to be a complex, evolving blend of philosophical ideologies. The fact that Europe had a Christian culture did not stop serfdom, feudalism and chattel slavery being norms in fervently Christian societies until comparatively recently argues against rights being inherent to Christian culture. And finally to point out that developed schools of morality and ethics have developed in non Judaeo-Christian cultures. All these arguments would imply that ethical thought and morality is something implicit in humans and that religion is but one expression of it as it evolves to fit the society of the time.

Secondly that there is a "religion of science". Whilst it is true that many individuals "search for certainty" science can only offer theories to explain what is observed. These can seek to answer the questions "What exists?" and "How do we know?". However the question that many people turn to religion for is "What should we do?". In this science does not offer solution and does not claim to. It can model possible outcomes where different alternative pathways are suggested. However that is often no more helpful at telling us what we should do than the weather forecast. In this respect science is the slave of philosophy, serving to find methods to make our proposed way of life possible rather than visa versa. When science is encountered with the unknown it seeks to understand but to do so needs to embrace ambiguity and uncertainty and to question the foundations upon which existing knowledge is built. It does not offer easy certainties and concrete absolute truths in the way this article suggests.

writeon
03 February 2008 at 14:07

Agog,

A good post. It's odd, or maybe not, that calm and reflective rationality almost appears 'radical' in contexts like these. This is, I believe, a sign of the times. A change is happening. We seem to be moving into an era when superstition and magic are making a comeback.

At times I've wondered whether science wasn't taking on some of the characteristics of religious dogma, but then I realized this was mostly bad science, and if science stands for anything it is an implacable enemy or opponent of superstition.

Clearly liberal, democratic, core values, have a lot to do with our religious heritage. However, one can argue that they've got just as much to do with the ancient Greeks and their pre-Christian philosophy and their emphasis on science.

It's alos a gross oversimplification to see Europe as being uniformally Christian. It's easy to exaggerate the importance of Christianity. There were of course; laws, customs, and attitudes towards human rights, property, punishment... long before Christianity appeared in Europe. Not only that these pre-Christian cultral traits didn't just vanish overnight, they remained in place forming the foundation on which the edifice of Christianity was built. Alas this is a massively complex subject to enter into here. Suffice to say, I think the article is highly problematic and very political. It seems to be using history to support a contemporary political analysis.

Brendan
03 February 2008 at 18:00

Byrnes' article isn't a philosophical argument, it's a journalistic comment. There mere fact that there is a lot of rather shrill religion in the news lately proves nothing theological . What is interesting (and rather worrying) is that liberal theology is having a hard time in all the major faiths. Byrnes is right that the god we keep hearing about is increasingly the god of scriptural literalists and one-eyed fundamentalists. But the important dividing line is not relgious/secular, it's liberal/ fundamentalist. You can find believers on the liberal side and atheists on the fundamentalist side.

As for the rest, well, Agog is right that our modern ethical attidudes have many origins, including the pagan philosophers of classical antiquity and the more recent pagan cultures of Northern Europe as well as Judeo-Christianity. But in any case, let's not commit the genetic fallacy. Astrology was very important for the development of astronomy; this honorable mention does nothing to alter the fact that astrology is utter nonsense.

Finally, ethics. The counter-argument pre-dates Christianity. You can find it in Plato: the Euthyphro dilemma. I'm sure there's a decent wikipedia article on it.

writeon
03 February 2008 at 19:44

Bredan,

I agree. It's an important point. We are moving towards not so much the 'clash of civilizations' but the clash of fundamentalisms. This is disturbing in the extreme and can lead towards anything and everything. By this I mean something close to madness fueled by passion and faith, and blood and barbarism follow closely behind. The thirty years war, but on a global scale!

I think we are moving towards 'fundamentalism' based on a foundation of superstition, not rationality. For example the decision taken in Britain to attack Iraq wasn't based on a rational analysis of the available facts, but rather on the faith that Saddam was incomparably evil and a threat to civilization. A belief that was just plain wrong. The weapons of mass destruction were an illusion. Saddam was not Lucifer made flesh, but a pretty ordinary third world dictator who unfortunately got on the wrong side of western interests. What this shows is that what we believe is becoming more important than what we know. Witches aren't real, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

David Flint
04 February 2008 at 09:31

Sholto Byrnes is wrong to say that God is the source of moral principles. People have had principles against lying, theft and murder since the dawn of history and long before Moses produced the Ten Commandments. The God of the Old Testament certainly demands that people obey such principles but in that he's more like a judge than a legislator.

Those looking to the Old Testament God as a source of morals should look at all his demands and deeds - not just the well-known ones. The book of Deuteronomy demands many curious observances - few of which are followed by modern believers. The God of Moses killed all the first-born of the Egyptians - most of whom had no influence on Pharaoh's policies - and caused the Israelites to kill the people who held the land of Israel/Palestine before them.

Unhappily many believers have followed their God in smiting their enemies.

Colonel Blimp
04 February 2008 at 17:57

Sholto Byrnes is wrong. So is arson.

Klatu
04 February 2008 at 23:31

"Whatever 'christianity' is, it probably has nothing to do with either God or Christ, and a new interpretation of the Resurrection spreading on the web intends to literally prove just that and not with abstract, theological argument. Quoting OVI web zine:

"Using a synthesis of scriptural material from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds great poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle offering the promise of its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds to an act of perfect faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural world; correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception outside all natural evolutionary boundaries. Understood metaphorically, this experience of transcendent power and change is the 'Resurrection' and justification of faith."

For the first time in history, a religious tenet exists offering access, by faith, to absolute proof for its belief.

Klatu
04 February 2008 at 23:36

Continuing from the previous message:

And if this new interpretation, called The Final Freedoms, can demonstrate itself in sufficient numbers, to be accepted as solid fact, a new reality, the rest of religious history is up %&Ł@ creek without a paddle.

Links: http://www.energon.org.uk

Nigel in Manchester
05 February 2008 at 15:46

Do we have to put up with this nonsense in a sensible magazine? "The Almighty"? Do me a favour. Rights, wrongs, morality, even language - all are the products of socialisation. When people are badly socialised (ie, don't have values and language inculcated from an early age) then the damage is done. Merely asserting that "He" is the source of morality doesn't make it so.

"No act was wrong in itself, it was wrong because God said so." And who decides what "God" says? Well, humans, of course. It is all SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED. End of debate.

That gives up a good deal more responsibility. As grown-ups, we realise that WE decide what's right and wrong. To pretend otherwise is simply childish.

Remember this: all religious wars (eg, Iraq) amount to nothing more than fighting over who's got the best imaginary friend.

The Almighty
05 February 2008 at 16:37

How dare you end the debate! No-one cares what you think. A. Because you are called Nigel and B. because you are in Manchester. I shall rudely smite you!

radius
06 February 2008 at 22:03

"God-shaped hole" about sums it up. "God" is defined by a hole in our psychological makeup. Where fear of death and the clinging 'self' are holed up. Man made God in the image of his hole.

As someone said recently, this lacks dignity as well as reason.

gnuneo
06 March 2008 at 12:21

damn, don't you just hate it when you have some good points and commentators before you get there first! :)

1. abrahamic religion is NOT the source of all morality - the nations of the East seem to do fairly well without it, as indeed did the pagan, pre-christian nations of Europe.

2. secularism has its own schisms, there are the horrors of marx/mao for instance, where the lack of 'natural law' allowed them to try to remake society in their own image - and slaughtered millions in the doomed attempt. However there is also the secular values of such as robert pirsig, who argues that there IS a universal value, that he calls Quality/arete, a secular value that Fx buddhists/Taoists appreciate and base their philosophies upon, without needing to claim it is external to their natures (ie 'God').

its like languages - are all languages social constructs? Yes, of course they are. But the tendency to USE language, to communicate, is an inherent part of our make-up.

3. considering the largest part of the troubles in the world today are *caused* by JCM fanaticism (and i am more thinking of the US brand of judeo-christianity than the islamic brand, although both have their share of the blame), it is rather disingenuous to claim we should be looking to it for our morality.

we CAN place a universal secular humanism, without JCI religion involved, upon a pedestal, and also see off the moral-relativity-fundamentalists, by, as i said, reading the works of robert pirsig and seeing the kernel of Truth he uncovered in his (sadly) only two books.

4. it is perfectly possible to understand and use magickal systems without losing your rationality, don't be so ignorant and judgemental of something you clearly know nothing about.

as someone said earlier, the danger is fundamentalism - of BOTH religion AND secularism.

be sceptical, but also be open-minded, and you'll go a lot further.

sdguy2005
14 March 2008 at 21:33

Brendan mentioned the Euthyphro Dilemma, so I wanted to mention this article: "A Christian Answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma" http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47024

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Sholto Byrnes

Sholto Byrnes is a contributing editor of the New Statesman and the jazz critic of the Independent. Previously he was diary editor, chief interviewer and senior feature writer at both Independent titles. He is a judge for this year's Paul Hamlyn Foundation awards for composers.

Read More

Vote!

Are your savings now safe?