Rowan Williams has decided to wimp-out rather than stick by his earlier pronouncements that “it’s quite difficult in some parts of Ireland to go down the street wearing a clerical collar now”. Now he has expressed his “deepest sorrow and regret” over his own comments.
Williams has been known to put his foot in his mouth on many occasions. But , on this occasion, many would have agreed with him when he suggested that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has lost “all credibility” over the way it had dealt with paedophile priests.
I’ve said it before, but it appears to me that the Anglican Church really should dispense with God – then it would be much freer to make comments about ethical (or unethical) behaviour without risking schisms in the Christian Church. Williams would have to worry less about minding his Ps and Qs if he didn’t have a bunch of clerics to answer to. But, then again, I suppose no-one would report what he says or give him any air time if he didn’t lead a church. But he would, at least, be free to put his foot in his mouth as often as he wished – without need for apology.
I take it Jeff that if you were an MP in 1990 you would have voted for the blacklist of prolife doctors? Your reply would be most interesting!
Damien it’s not too hard to see that I would naturally be pro-choice. I’d also be in favour of the Abortion Act being extended to Northern Ireland. I’ve made that clear repeatedly. As far as ethical votes in parliament are concerned, however, I think all should be free votes and not subject to Party whips.
I believe this post to be ill-informed.
If you had taken the time to actually examine the context of Williams’ comments you would realise that he wasn’t intending to offend the Catholic Church, merely stating a point of fact, that it has lost a considerable measure of its credibility. He didn’t retract, or shy away from that statement in any way in his subsequent remarks.
As for the Church abandoning Christianity (a bizarre notion) I don’t know when you decided to co-opt such vile new-atheist/anti-religion polemic but it wouldn’t seem to fit well with the idea of religious freedom – that our society, atheist agnostic or otherwise have traditionally held dear.
I don’t see how abandoning an objective Christian moral system would help to clarify the nature of one’s ethical pronouncements. Indeed, if you embrace the ethical relativism/subjectivism that is the necessary cocomitant of the atheistic worldview “ethical” statements would, if anything, – being necessarily grounded, as they are, in one’s own subjective preferences or opinions – be even more nebulous and unclear.
I’m not sure how you can argue that a Christian moral system is objective when it is defined by the boundaries of a Christian world-view i.e. in the context of redemption etc. Most atheists I know do not seek redemption in order to define their ethical/humanist world-view. Anglicans, in particular, have exercised constant revisionism in terms of their Christianity – so much so that the church is, to all intents and purposes, a charitable/humanist organisation – with ethical discussions stifled by religious strictures and regionally variant perspectives (e.g. the doctrinal differences of the African church v Western church re. homosexuality). In short, for most living species, altruism tends to work very well – without the need for religion. It’s called “live and let live”.
I should also point out that Atheists were not raping, abusing and violating children in Ireland and elsewhere – rather it was religious clerics with (to use your words) “an objective Christian moral system” turning a blind eye.
I don’t understand the connection between redemption and objective morality.
I would respecfully disagree…. Even most skeptics generally recognise that Christian ethics are demonstrably deontological… The fact that various schisms of the Church cling to different objective ethical systems does nothing to detract, internally, from those systems being objective in and of themselves. Regardless, the vast majority of these differences could be resolved if different denominations adhered to the doctrine of Biblical infallibility, and then actually followed the New Covenant – the clear problem when it comes to the Anglican Church, for example.
Atheistic altruism is irrational as a basis for ethics. As a Christian I do, but per atheism why should I, as a rational, self-interested individual care what happens to other people? Why should I not act completely selfishly? Do I have any rational basis for determining what actions are good and what actions are bad when it comes to how I treat those people?
Stating that altruism works well in our society – in any case a demonstrably false assertion (given that the vast majoroty of people don’t act altruistically and the tremendous levels of human inflicted suffering in the world) – makes the classic ethical error of deriving an ought from an is (the Humean guillotine).
What people who claim to be Christian do is irrelevant when their actions clearly show that they do not follow Christ. Christ himself taught that you will know my followers by their actions. In the century just past, two atheistic dictators – Stalin and Pol Pot, between them, murdered more people than the leaders of any religious faith over the past 2000 years.
I’m not sure I understand your definition of ‘objective morality’. It seems to me that there are vast arrays of objectivity (implying subjectivity) in most religions – in terms of the ethical dimensions of faith. Moreover most religions are highly revisionist over time. Modern Christianity is more humane than it used to be – indeed Christians used to be slave owners and engage in brutal crusades – and were not admonished for doing so. The inquisition was nothing short of barbaric cruelty on a grotesque scale. Objective ethics?
As for selfishness – I’d suggest you read an excellent book by Matt Ridley called The Origins of Virtue. He describes very well the Darwinian basis of altruism and reciprosity.
As for your final point. Stalin and Pol Pot were indeed evil dictators – but not because they had no religious faith. Hitler was a Catholic. And one could argue that Stalin’s slavish obession with an ideological doctrine was religious in nature.
Religions foster the concept of one group being morally superior to others – which, in itself, gives rise to sectarianism and, often, violence. Just consider Northern Ireland, the Middle East, East Timor, the Balkans, Ruanda.
One can lead a decent life and respect humanity without the guiding principle of faith. Indeed many of the world’s leading humanitarians are atheist – just consider Bob Geldof – and many of the leading charities are secular. One can patently live a highly moral and ethical life without any faith. That is self evident.
IN reply to my query I take it you would have voted for the publication of a blacklist of pro life doctors!
What was your view on Chris Grayling’s comments that that the Christian couple who ran the B&B were right to refuse to rent a room to a gay couple. Your views are most appreciated!
Grayling has put his foot in his mouth quite a few times. He made clear that he’d voted “the right way” re. the guest house issue in the Commons – which raises the question why did he express a different view at a private function. However, he’s hardly a right-wing firebrand – generally speaking. Just a tad silly and inconsistent.
Jeff, if ‘The Mayor of Antrim has been barred from standing as an Ulster Unionist candidate, because, he claims, he is not “politically correct” enough for the Tories.’ http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/04/01/homophobic-ulster-unionist-candidate-barred-from-standing/
Surely you must agree it is only “politically correct” that the Tories likewise barr Chris Grayling, from standing as Conservative MP for Epsom and Ewell http://www.chrisgrayling.net/.
To not do so will show David Cameron up to be a hypocrit with Tory double standards treating their linkage partners the UUP as second class politicians.
UUP Member – It’s up to Cameron to decide, obviously (and I’m sure he won’t be waiting for my opinion). Grayling is rather making a habit of messing up. However, I’d imagine that he has already been selected – given that he’s the incumbent MP. Cameron could weigh in but I can’t imagine he will – given the fact that Grayling is Shadow Home Secretary. However, I’d imagine that Grayling is unlikely, now, to get a front bench role if the Conservatives are elected.
It raises an important question, as well, as to why Cameron has so many ex-SDP people on his front bench. Perhaps they are just not very able politicians if they vacillate so much in their political outlook. Grayling voted with the government on the legislation relating to discriminatory practices by guest house owners. Now he appears to disagree with himself. He was a member of the SDP…now he’s a Tory. Oh and there was the Sir Richard Dannatt cock-up.
He seems too confused to be a public representative.
Jeff
You are not factoring in that some people grow in maturity and commonsense as they get older ……. some do
Poor Rowan….should he just have joined Ian McCrea’s ‘No Pope Here’ campaign?
Mmmmmmme concerned Christian….biblical infallibility? Let me see:
* stoning at Castle Junction for all the adulterers in Belfast?
* burning down Primark for fostering abominations by selling clothes made of mixed fibres
* most of the butchers have to go …they are breaking kosher law
* we will need separate shops, buses, offices etc from menstruating women…or we could just lock them up
Jeff – My defintion of moral objectivism/universalism refers to the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid. The fact that different religions, or ethical systems, (or even different denominations or sects within those religions) offer differing deontological systems of ethics doesn’t stop each of those systems being internally objective (as fiction). All it means is that their positions contradict each other. That does nothing to engender external subjectivity.
Both slavery and the crusades are clearly in breach of the new convenant. As I said, the fact that certain people claiming to be Christians, and possibly even some Christians, did certain things in Christ’s name does not make those things objectively morally permissible to those seeking to follow his example. It just means they were done in disobedience to his example. The book of Philemon, for example, clearly sets out an approach to slavery running directly contrary to that practised for centuries.
I’ll take your suggestion, thank you. But it strikes me from your summary that it doesn’t seem to address any of the obvious points I’d raised. To argue, again, that reciprocity might find its historical basis in the neo-Darwinian evolutionary paradigm again makes the classic category error of deriving a moral ought from a factual is (in other words deriving some prescriptive or normative ethical principle from descriptive observations). For an excellent, and very readable, account of similar category flaws in secular ethical systems I would suggest CS Lewis’ work the Abolition of Man (which you can access online).
I’m glad that you agree with me that Stalin and Pol Pot were evil (although, given the widespread philosophical acknowledgement e.g by Niezschte, that a belief in the non-existence God necessarily warrants the anbandonment of a belief in the existence of good and evil, as true, mind-independent, objective descriptors of human conduct it would be interesting to hear your basis for such agreement). I would, however, reject your argument that Stalin and Pol Pot’s atheism did not play into their conduct. Religious persecution has characterised “every” single communist regime to have come to force since the writings of Marx. Archtypal communist patriarachs – Marx, Engels, Lenin, were united as one in their view that atheism and Communism were inextricably linked. Stalin and Pol Pot’s most violent persecutions and repressions were those conducted against people of faith. As for Hitler being a Catholic… the proposition seems to betray as coloured a historical narrative as you held in relation to the views of Martin Luther King… Hitler never once attended mass after having left home – he is known to have stated that “The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness …” and that, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.”
One most certainly could – in fact many have identified a similar slavish obsession with ideaological doctrine in the figureheads of new atheism – Dawkins, Hitchens etc. And, although I know nothing about you personally so I apologise if this judgement is ill-founded, elements of similar views do seem to come across in your writing.
I’d agree with you that certain religions do indeed engender such views. Biblical Christianity, however, does, and should, not. The overwhelming example of Christ was that of servitude – even when claiming to be God (whether or not you accept that claim) that was an example that He lived throughout his time on this earth. The Apostle Paul even writes that we are to be viewed as “the scum of the earth, and the refuse of the world”. One cannot fully understand the Christian world view.. one which permeates Northern Ireland… until one understands its view of humanity.
In relation to your final point, I broadly agree. Atheists, agnostics, Muslims or Christians can live, in general terms, broadly moral lives, insofar as they live their lives in accordance with the deontological ethical stipulations of Christianity, written to an extent upon the hearts of men.
But that was not the dilemma I presented you with. The problem for the secularist is not doing good or evil, but knowing what is good, and what is evil. It just so happens that in occidental societies with secular world views that still largely correlate to Christianity, the differences in how you and I define morality are small. But what happens if this basis disappears altogether?
Potential FST Voter – An acceptance of Biblical infallibility is precisely what would prevent those sorts of moral stipulations – in place for a particular people at a particular junction in time – from being applied. Christians who hold to Biblical infallibility have to live under the New Covenant, as outlined in the New Testament and the example of Christ.
Concerned Christian, I’m not going to deal with all your points because, to an extent, I think we’re at one (and I’m off to bed). I’m delighted that you subscribe to an elementally Christian morality that, it would appear, is essentially humanist. I just wish that more people (esepecially here in Northern Ireland) were more like you. I have no faith and never have. I try to live by an essentially live and let live moral code – and I assume that it arises from an elemental, reciprocal codex – that has also defined our common law in the United Kingdom. However you sound like my kinda Christian. Hopefully I’m also your kind of Atheist.