God vs Delusion

What's this, I hear you cry, two posts in the space of 24 hours? Yes, I'm afraid I couldn't stop myself from posting, having heard today about Richard Dawkins's new book, The God Delusion. This book apparantly sets out to show that God does not exist, and that religion is a negative thing. Having read some extracts of the book on the BBC website, it seems to me that it's more anti-theist rambling, but I'll reserve judgment until I've read the whole thing.

I will, however, address one point which Dawkins makes, and which is a particular bugbear of mine. He discusses at length the favourite charge levelled at religion, namely that it "always leads to violence". In the present climate, it is not difficult to see why, with the threat of so-called "Islamist terror" ever-present. In the recent past, conflicts between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland and between Palestinians and Jews in Israel have also given rise to such claims. I would argue, however, that far from being the cause of such strife, religion is the easy scapegoat. These conflicts are almost exclusively concerned with ownership of land or other economic resources, and have little if anything to do with the religious orientation of the groups involved.

More convincing, however, is to consider an overview of the twentieth century's major wars. The Great War was caused by an arms race, and had nothing to do with religion; the Second World War was caused by the all-consuming egotism of Adolf Hitler, who was to all intents and purposes an atheist. The Vietnam War was about political ideology, as were the Korean and Afghan wars. The Balkan conflict principally concerned ethnicity and the egos of the principle players. The First Gulf War was, again, prompted by the ego of Saddam and the response from the West in defending its economic interests. Indeed, the man responsible for more deaths than any other person in the 20th century, Josef Stalin, was an atheist who acted solely out of self-interest in order to maintain himself in power and grow the cult of his personality.

Faced with these facts, it seems somewhat outrageous to claim that religion is a major source of conflicts. It seems to me that the major source of killing and destruction in the past 100 years has been through individuals turning away from God and embracing the cult of their own ego. Ultimately, it is human failing that provokes war, not religion; the last century, which saw more human suffering than any previous, shows us that.

One final point - having discussed the religion/war claim in such detail, it occurs to me that there is a certain weakness in the overall purpose of arguments which attack religion on these grounds. By concentrating on this topic, Dawkins and others are seeking to undermine faith on the basis of its effects, and possibly the character of the various religions. They never seek to tackle the truth which underpins faith - and when they do, it is with bland statements such as "there's no evidence for a God".

If I were to take such an approach to one of 20th century science's greatest achievements, namely the discovery of the atom, I would point out that
a) I've never seen one, and I only have the word of various scientists for its existence (all of whom have a vested interest)
b) Within a very short time of the atom's "discovery", its name had been used to unleash the most destructive man-made forces ever - namely the atomic bombs which destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki
c) This "atom" still threatens us today, being present in the many hundreds of nuclear power stations across the West. These will all have to be decommissioned, at a huge cost - most of which will be spent on employing, er, scientists.
On this basis, science is a terribly bad thing and we should stop spending huge quantities of cash on scientists.

Ok, so I'm being slightly fascetious, but I hope you get the point. Science should not be quarreling with religion, it should be working with good Christian people to find solutions to the world's problems. Ultimately, Dawkins and his ilk can ramble on forever about how terrible religion is, but it's not going to stop me believing, and it certainly won't prevent me from trying to make this world a better place.

Alienation

As regular readers will know, it is some six months since I moved from my family's home in rural South West England to my nation's capital. Moving to London has certainly provided me with opportunities, both in furtherance of my career and in what I will, for the moment, term "social" activity.

What troubled me most about moving here, and what has continued to press upon my mind since, is the problem of social alienation which has been increasingly present in urban life since the nineteenth century. Even modern rural towns and villages maintain a sense of community (Gemeinschaft, according to Tönnies), in which individuals subordinate their own needs to that of the "greater good", believing this to be in their own self interest. Modern urban areas, by contrast, operate on a principle more accurately described as society (Gesellschaft) in which shared morality is replaced by an almost market-driven system of self interest.

In today's London, this manifests itself in a number of ways. There is a growing trend amongst young people to avoid long-term relationships, staying single in order to "enjoy life". What is troubling about this is that many consider it desirable to get drunk every night of the week and sleep with as many different people as possible. The result of this is a form of social alienation which commodifies people - whether as drinking companions or sexual playthings. This is to say nothing of the people who serve our coffee, sweep our streets and keep our transport system running - they often don't even merit acknowledgement.

Since the Industrial Revolution, many writers have sought to explain the causes of this phenomenon. Tönnies pointed out, rightly, that the loss of family bonds was a key factor (for instance, I can't remember the last time I saw any of my cousins). The fact that most people living in urban areas no longer live with, or even see their families regularly is surely a contributory factor.

Marx claimed that capitalism and commodification were to blame for the situation. There is some truth here; the fact that so many of our interactions with others are impersonal - buying coffee from a stranger in Starbucks, or asking for information from an unknown TfL worker - surely leads us to view such individuals in an almost mechanistic fashion, thus devaluing their humanity.

Georg Simmel comes perhaps closer to the truth. He argued that man has a natural "impulse to sociability", but that the nature of modern urban society led people to the creation of a defence mechanism to protect against the hostility of city life. This is, it seems to me, self-evident in London today; if one is approached by a stranger in the street asking for help or such like, the natural impulse is to avoid him, largely through fear for our safety, which subordinates concern for our fellow man.

The most obvious cause of this alienation, it seems to me, is our alienation from God and from faith in general. Feuerbach argued that the concept of God serves to alienate man from his own nature, and in an odd way he was half right. While Feuerbach (and others since, right up to modern day Objectivists) argue for a new morality based on the primacy of the human ego and self-interest, it seems to me that the breakdown of community has not achieved positive results. The alienation was never from our own nature; rather, it was from the portion of our nature which is interested only in the immediate requirements of the self. But this element of our nature has no regard for the human need for spiritual fulfillment. Objectivism and other such philosophies attempt to circumvent this by substituting human achievement as the ultimate route to such fulfillment. However, as anyone who, as a child, spent time building large towers of bricks will know, the tower just keeps getting bigger along with the ambition of its creator until it all comes crashing down.

I firmly believe that the human soul requires more than personal achievement for sustenance. While the anti-Christian theorists claimed that the spread of capitalism and egoism to all areas of society would eventually improve the human condition, in reality the personal happiness of the individual is suffering as a result. Terrible alcohol and drug related problems blight my generation, particularly in London, and more will be in store in ten or twenty years time. The answer, I believe, is not more wealth or more drunken sex; it is, rather, the love of God which binds us together in unity with Him.

Malaise? You should see the state of Iraq

This evening, President Jimmy Carter gave an extraordinary interview to BBC's Newsnight programme. In it, he was heavily critical of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq, and of Tony Blair's apparant lack of influence on them. He also spoke about the worrying breakdown of boundaries between religion and state in the US over the last 20 years, and of the impact of his own faith on his political beliefs.

Essentially there is nothing I can say here which President Carter didn't say himself - he managed to articulate everything I have been thinking recently about our present situation. I strongly urge you to watch the interview, here.

Of all the extremely good points made, the one I would like to develop here above all is the relationship between Tony Blair and George Bush. I am, and always will be, in favour of a strong friendship between our two nations and, where possible, between our two governments. However, as President Carter points out, the British government has recently been "subservient" to the policies coming out of Washington, to the extent that the our government "automatically...adopted the same policies without exerting its influence".

There was a brief three year period, 1997-2000, in which the Clinton and Blair administrations worked together effectively (although not always perfectly) to further the causes of social and political justice in the world. Since then, my government - who are traditionally allied with the Democrats - has been willing to defer to everything Washington says in order to remain America's "friend".

I have been a member of the Labour party for 12 years, and have actively campaigned for Tony Blair and the party at three General Elections. It saddens me greatly, therefore, to see my party leader give in so regularly to the policies of an administration which started off right-wing and seems intent on drifting further in that direction. It is one thing to hold right-wing views, as George Bush does; it is quite another to derive your political philosophy and support from a left-wing movement, but still to defer spinelessly to a right-wing "ally" for the purpose of maintaining an easy life. In that regard, I consider Blair's actions to be far worse than Bush's - whether he believes in them or not, he has betrayed the very people that brought him to power in the first place.

I hope President Carter's words will be heeded on both sides of the Atlantic. It is refreshing to hear a Southern Baptist, who happened also to be President, talk of the wrong that is being done in the name of Christianity at present. I'm off to find a copy of President Carter's latest book, Faith and Freedom: The Christian Challenge for the World. I imagine it'll be a fascinating read.