Left to our own devices
It is disappointing when figures like Rowan Williams complain that morality has gone to pot. In reality, no such thing is happening.
In his Wilberforce Lecture on April 24 Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, argued that the state itself should be moral, among other things, because by failing to be so it has the effect of making its individual members less than they might be. He further argued that this requires persuading "those who run things in the public sphere that there are human values and ethical norms to which an entire society is answerable". And then, in preparation for reasserting the claim, if not of the Church of England then of religion, to have leadership in identifying those values and norms, he said: "In our relativist climate, this is very difficult."
There is something right and something wrong about these thoughts and their implications. What is right is the closely allied idea that what those who run the state machine, whether as politicians or civil servants, and those who influence them materially through NGO and interest group activities, should always be constrained by ethical considerations, and answerable to them. What is wrong is the idea that this unexceptionable claim entitles us to think of the state itself as an agent possessed of moral duties. The state is not an entity separate from those who run it and those who influence them, and so the expression "a moral state" can only be shorthand for "a state run by morally responsible people".
Once one puts matters like this, it becomes hard to accept a further implication in the offing of the Archbishop's remarks, namely, that those running the state have a duty to identify and inculcate a morality so that the state - now, in a shift of focus, understood as consisting of the collectivity of its members - can itself be moral. What counts as a community's morality is always a double thing, consisting of the conventional morality of a previous generation in tension with the contested, evolving values under negotiation at any one time in the public debate. A living community has to tread this line, always; once a static moral orthodoxy is enforced, the effect on the community is a stifling one. Take the examples of divorce and homosexuality, both of which in living memory were regarded with distaste and opprobrium, and both of which have become acceptable and part of the mainstream, thereby liberating people to more generous possibilities for living flourishing lives. This was not the result of moral legislation de haute en bas (and nor was it the result of leadership given by any religious group or church: indeed, the contrary!), but the outcome of the debate society has with itself about what is good and right, what is acceptable, and why.
That debate is a vigorous and responsible one, and it is disappointing but unsurprising that the former custodians of moral authority, the former arbiters of the good, namely officers of one or another religious group, insist on complaining that morality has gone to pot, is relativistic and thin, has been swamped by consumerism and individualism, and has collapsed in welter of drink and pornography, threatening the end of the world. No such thing is happening; if anything, now that people are less distracted by such irrelevances as what they are allowed to eat and wear, and what they can and cannot do on different days of the week, matters of real ethical concern - war, poverty, injustice, the environment, child labour, human rights - have come to dominate an ethical agenda which once all but ignored them in favour of hand-wringing over Sunday shopping and unmarried mothers.
It is in fact a remarkable and heartening truth about the contemporary western world that it has such a vibrant ethical debate as a distinctive part of its culture. Yes, the west does bad things - makes war, exploits and battens, pillages the environment, and much besides - but it also criticises itself about these very things, challenges itself, argues with itself, and sometimes makes things very much better for its denizens than almost anywhere else, at any other time, in the world and human history.
Think of it this way: would you rather live in a functionally secular western country, or in one where the moral climate is much more influenced by what (among others, religious) leaders say it should be?
I'm no atheist, but McGrath did seem rather feeble. His book is rather better. He seemed to be reticent in really attacking Dawkin's position. The last questioner in the debate made what seemed to me the crucial point: we all have faith - we have to. At the end of the day, observations cannot be made independently of the theories of the observer. Furthermore, both observations and theories can only be reasoned with on the basis of presuppositions which are held by faith because there is no alternative. For example, faith in the laws of logic. Both theists and atheists have faith. We all build complex thought structures to make sense of the world we live in. The question is, which makes more sense of the world and ourselves: theism or atheism? The answer to me seems to be theism.
John Denning, DURHAM, UK
"Science can only ask how, it cannot ask why."
Perhaps I could refer you to a passage in Dawkins' latest book, 'The God Delusion' :
'It is a tedious cliche (and unlike many cliches, it isn't even true) that science concerns itself with how questions, but only theology is equipped to answer why questions. What on Earth is a why question? Not every English sentence beginning with the word 'why' is a legitimate question. Why are unicorns hollow? Some questions simply do not deserve an answer. What is the colour of abstraction? What is the smell of hope? The fact that a question can be phrased in a gramatically correct English sentence doesn't make it meaningful, or entitle it to our serious attention. Nor, even if the question is a real one, does the fact that science cannot answer it imply that religion can.
Hope this helps...
Miles Kershaw, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom
How can reading the Bible save your life? There isn't any evidence on the truth value of anything written in it. It is nothing more than a fictitious, vacuous, and utterly useless piece of literature. Believing such preposterous nonsense is surely an insult to one's intelligence.Derek, Waverly, United States
A theologian like Alister McGrath, who has little grasp of other religions apart from Christianity, should go back to school and learn his craft before engaging in public debates. Eloquence of itself just won't cut it . I thought the less of McGrath, the more I heard from him.
His Christianity is clearly "fundamentalist", considering that he believes in the historicity of the virgin birth and literal miracles such as the resurrection which both violate the laws of physics. Clearly, these are stories no different from other stories we find in other religious myth. How come a professor believes these things actually happened and not see them for what they are, legends perhaps conveying some message? I sure would like to see what evidence he has for his beliefs. All things considered, McGrath arguments were extremely weak and coming from a professor, very disappointing.
Radhica Laukaran, St. James, Trinidad
"I can't disprove God, but I can definitely disprove the Bible so that is a start towards a safer world. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ The best way to destroy a thing is to know it. If you really read the Bible it will make you an Atheist."
What a ridiculous claim! Do you honestly think you can disprove the Bible? Every argument that site brings up can and has been countered. And if you really read the Bible, and understand it, it will save your life.
Science can only ask how, it cannot ask why. It defines laws by observation and interpretation. It is important in reaching conclusions about nature, but it has limitations. It is not the be-all-and-end-all of knowledge.
David, Kilkenny, Ireland
the problem of the BELIEVER is: s/he believes they know the truth (and, therefore, can never come to the truth).
Moreover, any challenge/s to their beliefs and faith; is perceived as a threat !!!
Bill T, Springfield, IL
Much is made of this supposed issue. Those who choose to believe in one or more of the diverse gods that human mythology offers, have thus stepped outside the possibility of discourse. To discuss something that is "not of this world" is mere pretence, since its attributes depend solely upon the whim of the believer.
Nowhere within the vast literature of all the worlds theologies is there even a scrap of evidence for a god - just stories, allegories, hints and innuendos about your fate if you don't agree. Magic is the recourse of the unhappy (or uneducated) who are unable to experience the excitement of living in a deeply complex universe - and the joy of unravelling its many mysteries.
The "immortal soul" is a bag over your head with pictures on the inside - available free from a church, temple or mosque near you.
Sean Shalor, Coventry, UK
McGrath comes from the Tony Blair school of answering questions. The words are eloquently spoken and in the right grammatical order, but completely devoid of any meaning. It seems his religion inspires him to commit himself to absolutely no viewpoint on any topic - ironically, the theist appears to be the nihilist.
McGrath's positions are mirages - when one probes for something more solid from him, he evaporates into meaninglessness only to reappear elsewhere. In the end, it becomes tiring and timewasting.
Rtambree, London,
Proof, as if proof were needed, that McGrath is constitutionally unable to give a straight answer to a straight question. There's theology for you.
Steve, Leicester,