It's Easter Sunday and I hope the more secular readers of ConservativeHome will forgive a dollop of Christianity for today's ToryDiary.
The Cornerstone Group has posted an excellent Margaret Thatcher speech from 1978 on to its website. The speech is a great insight into Mrs Thatcher's early thinking and includes some powerful references to a proper Conservative and Christian concern for the poor in Britain and overseas. The speech lauds the superiority of private welfare over state welfare and contains warnings against utopianism and big government.
One theme of the speech - the morally mature citizen - is the main subject of this post, however. Mrs Thatcher understood that all societies are ultimately sustained by the virtue of their citizens. Few conservatives expressed this permanent truth better than the great Russell Kirk:
“It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honour, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilise; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.”
Mrs Thatcher refers to the Collect for Peace in the Book of Common Prayer and its reference to service of God as 'perfect freedom':
"O God, who art the author of peace and lover of concord, in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life, whose service is perfect freedom; Defend us thy humble servants in all assaults of our enemies; that we, surely trusting in thy defence, may not fear the power of any adversaries, through the might of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
"My wish for the people of this country, Margaret Thatcher says, "is that we shall be "free to serve"". Some conservatives believe that morality is perfectly sustainable without religion but Peter Hitchens used Thursday's YourPlatform to argue that "no proper conservatism can be divorced from religion and the morality and self-discipline which are founded on it." My guess is that morality is certainly harder to sustain if people feel no accountability to a higher power. The Christian thinker Os Guiness believes that freedom requires virtue... that virtue requires faith... and that faith requires freedom.
I'll end with a quotation that hopefully brings all ConservativeHome readers together again. We may disagree with the role of belief in God in sustaining civilisation, and in countering entropy, but we can all agree with Revd William Boetcker in this classic statement of the importance of encouraging, and never suffocating, the vigorous virtues:
“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”
Boetcker's Ten Cannots (wrongly attributed to Abraham Lincoln by Ronald Reagan) are my favourite statement of conservatism. They point to our goals - helping the poor, building character, creating prosperity - and they salute the virtues of personal initiative, thrift and courage as the routes to those goals.
A typically thoughtful piece, Tim. It is a sorry indictment on the education system that so few conservatives understand the importance of Christianity in the development of both our nation and our political philosophy.
Posted by: Donal Blaney | April 16, 2006 at 16:32
Thank you Donal. For those wanting a historical overview of Christianity and Conservatism this lecture by Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach is essential reading. Brian Griffiths was head of Mrs T's Downing Street Policy Unit.
Posted by: Editor | April 16, 2006 at 16:39
Religion should play no part in the policy decisions of this country, ergo religion should play no part in any of the political parties of this country.
Posted by: wicks | April 16, 2006 at 17:21
"Religion should play no part in the policy decisions of this country, ergo religion should play no part in any of the political parties of this country."
Clearly you are forgetting that the Tories originated as the party of Church and King. We might have moved on since then but Britain is still essentially a Christian country and, as a Conservative Party, the Tories ought to be preserving our heritage.
Posted by: Richard | April 16, 2006 at 17:38
A splendid article.
Any supposed Tory who has not attended church today should hang his head in shame, or at the very least keep quiet about it.
Posted by: Anti-Cameron Tory | April 16, 2006 at 17:47
"Any supposed Tory who has not attended church today should hang his head in shame, or at the very least keep quiet about it."
What happened to individual freedom? ;)
Posted by: Melissa Bean | April 16, 2006 at 18:33
Touche!
Posted by: Anti-Cameron Tory | April 16, 2006 at 18:52
I didnt go to church and I am certainly not hanging my head in shame.
Posted by: Rob Largan | April 16, 2006 at 19:13
Wicks - "Religion should play no part in the policy decisions of this country, ergo religion should play no part in any of the political parties of this country."
Well, why then should any belief system play a part in policy decisions / political parties? Why should humanist values have a role? Or egalitarian principles? Why respect for human life? Respect for nature? Why notions such as liberty? Fairness? Justice? Where do you think these derive from, Wicks?
It follows from your stricture that only science can form the basis of policy, which is of course a crazy notion. When science provides an unequivocal answer, we generally follow it. But most policy decisions are matters of priorities, of the use of resources, which inevitably draw on belief systems.
If you meant not giving a privileged position to a particular sectarian attitude, sure. But the context makes it clear you didn't mean that.
Posted by: buxtehude | April 16, 2006 at 19:44
If you want to base your life around a 2000 year old book that may or may not be the word of God, a lot of which is based on some dodgy translation work and large parts of which are extreme subjective in interpretation, which is more influenced than you may believe by non religous factors, then I have no beef with that. But you have no basis to claim that should be used in any way in this day and age to form policy decision around.
Fairness? Justice? Liberty? Those are things religious organistaions throughout history have tried to suppress, a bit ingenious to turn around and suddenly claim they are great defenders of these.
And yes, its perfectly clear science is the only rational basis for policy decisions. I can think of no situations where it does provide an unequivocal answer by the way, it never claims to do so. What it does try to do is provide answers that aren't influenced by prejudice and self interest.
Posted by: wicks | April 16, 2006 at 20:27
Didnt go to Church though I did consider it earlier this week. I used to believe but as with most things like that (and with no offence meant to those who do believe) my belief faded after a while.
The assertion that policy can be made without a religious influence is complete rubbish. Religion has values and general beliefs which can form part of the social conscience that a political party uses. To exclude it is to miss the obvious.
Posted by: James Maskell | April 16, 2006 at 20:45
And yes, its perfectly clear science is the only rational basis for policy decisions"
Er, no it's not perfectly clear.
Posted by: Sean Fear | April 16, 2006 at 20:54
Whilst I would consider myself a Christian, (albeit not a very active one) and try to live as best as I can by the principles of Christianity (which, as wicks points out, are open to a great deal of individual interpretation) I have to agree that Church and State should be seperate.
Politicians/Combatants who believe that "God is on their side" are generally very dangerous. The hijackers on 9/11 believed that they were doing the will of God, Bliar has said that God will judge him and told us all that he and Bush prayed together. I currently live in the US, and believe me when I tell you that the religious right (who have a huge influence on policy here) are really very nasty people. They would claim to be Christian, but their version of Christianity bears very little resemblance to mine. (Interpretation again).
It is sad that an intelligent man like Senator McCain has had to effectively lie and give his support to those who lobby for the teaching of "Intelligent Design" (which is the most UNintelligent theory ever proposed) as opposed to Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, as he knows that if he does not he has no chance of the GOP Presidential Nomination.
Similarly, albeit over a century ago, Disraeli (a truly great Tory PM) had to convert to Christianity from Judaism. Why should the God you worship matter?
My point is that as Conservatives, we should support everyone's right to religious freedom, and draw inspiration from Christianity (and, indeed, other faiths) but we should formulate our policy to be judged by the voters, not by the Almighty.
Posted by: Jon White | April 16, 2006 at 21:27
Wicks, you rehearse the the usual stuff in a way that suggests little serious thought. Obviously all of us - Christians and non-Christians alike - would agree that religion has very often been used for oppression. So has every belief system, including pragmatism. But if you knew a little more you would grant that the idea of the equal value of each soul is a religious concept. Yes, Wicks, that basis for our civilisation is indeed a Judeo-Christian invention. Before that, the only 'value' was whether or not one happened to be a slave. Where did you think our modern ideas of liberty and justice actually came from?
That doesn't mean one has to believe in any religion to hold those values today. But they are emphatically NOT scientific constructs. Science can never teach you that you should or should not kill someone for your own gain. Science cannot be the basis of policy except in those instances when it is a technical issue we are confronting. So science may well be the basis of environmental policy (you see how tricky that is even in this area); but it cannot be the basis of, say, criminal justice policy, because there is no scientific apparatus which can be applied for that.
And how can science be applied to taxation policy? Partly, we ask of a tax policy that it creates a prosperous society. You might just about argue that in an imaginary world a scientific model could be used, a perfect world in which 'economic scientists' agreed on the difficult bits. But tax policy is also a question of balancing priorities between, for example, encouraging trade, and creating equal opportunity. How you decide these things is not by science but by belief. And any belief system inevitably takes you into the same world of subjectivity that you decry in religion.
Probably you never really meant that "science is the only rational basis for policy decisions", you meant rationalism. But if you think about it I'm sure you'll agree that rationalism is also just another belief system. What appears rational to one person appears irrational to another. And so the political argument begins. It's a struggle of values as well as an argument about facts.
In that struggle, why should your (presumed) humanism be superior to someone else's Christianity? I don't say it is inferior. I just don't see how you can say that your beliefs are OK as a basis for policy, but the Editor's are not. Nor does it seem clever to me to dismiss the deepest beliefs of a large proportion of the populations of the UK and the world as incompatible with today's political system! Who exactly, then, is your political system for? Who decides what is admissable? Doesn't your dismissal, in fact, contain the seed of extreme authoritarianism?
Posted by: buxtehude | April 16, 2006 at 21:28
Science and religion are not trying to acheive the same things: science attempts to explain how the universe works a particular way, religion considers why it works. The two are not necessarily mutally exclusive - I read Physics at university, and a large number of my coursemates were devout Christians.
I, alas, am a heathen atheist.
Wicks - when you refer to science as being the basis for policy decisions, are you referring to social "science" (sic) or "proper science", ie Physics? (Chemistry & Biology merely being branches of Physics!)
Posted by: Melissa Bean | April 16, 2006 at 21:30
Jon, your post wasn't up when I wrote mine. So I would just add that your argument for the separation of church and state is quite different from the suggestion that religion has no role in political parties. I completely agree with your last paragraph.
Posted by: buxtehude | April 16, 2006 at 21:32
Your distinction is crucial, Melissa. How on earth could physics (as you rightly say, the only science) be the basis for, say, constitutional reform?
Posted by: buxtehude | April 16, 2006 at 21:34
I have to disagree with you, Jon. My experience of America's religious conservatives is very different although I readily acknowledge that every social group has its undesirable elements. A liberal newspaper like The Economist - often highly critical of Christian conservatives - recently used its Lexington column to say that America's Christians were the main reason pressurising the Bush administration to lead the global fight against HIV/AIDS and intervene in the Sudan crisis. Christian conservatives - interested in 'creation care' - are also the main reason why the GOP can't ignore the environment.
Within Britain churchgoers account for a disproportionate share of charitable giving and voluntary action. Faith schools outperform non-faith schools. I could go on but I think I'd better stop!
Posted by: Editor | April 16, 2006 at 21:34
buxtehude - yes, I agree that my comment about seperation of Church and State was misleading and not what I meant to communicate.
Living in the US, where the constitution GUARANTEES a seperation of Church and State, I find it incredible what a huge influence religion has. (Particularly extreme fundamentalist Christianity, which I find as appealing as fundamentalist Islam) In Britain, where the Head of State is also the head of the 'official' religion, this does not happen to anything like the same extent. Long may that continue.
An interesting side note however, is that it is widely believed that Bliar will convert to Catholicism when he leaves office. He cannot do so now: As Head of Government he has to advise the Head of State, and will have an influence on the appointment of Bishops and other Senior Clergy. Much as I dislike the man, that is not right. He should be allowed to follow his own religious convictions. In that sense, I would argue for a complete seperation of Church and State. AS WELL as a limited (but valued) roll for religion in policy making.
Posted by: Jon White | April 16, 2006 at 21:41
Editor - I did not mean to condemn ALL American Conservative Christians. I agree that they can, and do, do some good. However, there is a large minority that have a very unpleasant side to them.
I also agree about faith schools - my son attends one.
I am NOT against Christianity, or any other faith. I just fear those in power if they claim that "God is on their side".
Posted by: Jon White | April 16, 2006 at 21:45
We're not so far apart then, Jon!
Posted by: Editor | April 16, 2006 at 21:48
Jon, I wasn't suggesting you were wrong, just that the two things are different.
I should refine my previous comment - I meant of course that there was no inherent 'value' to human life prior to Christianity aside from the status assigned to it by raw power or wealth. I didn't mean there were no values - there were of course values such as honour, but these were never based on the value of all human life.
The fact that Chrsitainity was also used to maintain an oppressive social heirarchy ('you will receive your reward in heaven') doesn't change the fact that such a heirarchy had become humanised (in the modern sense) compared to the previous feudalism.
I also freely accept that the scientific method is the second great innovation that liberated thought. More than merely 'accept', I love science. And obviously the scientific method can be usefully applied outside of physics (chemistry/biology). Although I do maintain that the moment one attempts to apply the scientific method to human concerns (as I think one should try to do wherever appropriate), it is inevitably hitched to 'values' and becomes something slightly different.
Posted by: buxtehude | April 16, 2006 at 21:54
Those of us interested in modern history will note that most legislation passed in this country that has had a dramatically positive effect on the welfare of the British people have in some way or other had direct Christian influence. Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery for one clear example.
If religious beliefs weren't allowed to be the basis for political beliefs, at least in an organised way, we would be much the poorer for it.
Posted by: Sam Coates | April 16, 2006 at 22:00
"So has every belief system, including pragmatism. But if you knew a little more you would grant that the idea of the equal value of each soul is a religious concept. Yes, Wicks, that basis for our civilisation is indeed a Judeo-Christian invention. Before that, the only 'value' was whether or not one happened to be a slave. Where did you think our modern ideas of liberty and justice actually came from? "
You think that purely was an idea handed down from up high and not influenced in any way by society at that time?
"So science may well be the basis of environmental policy (you see how tricky that is even in this area); but it cannot be the basis of, say, criminal justice policy, because there is no scientific apparatus which can be applied for that."
I think we're adopting different ideas of what "science" is. With your example, criminal justice policy, a scientific way of choosing a policy would be to study the evidence collected from various different policies at work and choose the best one on the avaliable evidence. Same goes for tax rate etc etc etc, you choose the best policy because evidence tells you it is the best policy.
And of course there is subjectiveiy in that, but the context is totally different and far mroe appealing to me.
"Nor does it seem clever to me to dismiss the deepest beliefs of a large proportion of the populations of the UK and the world as incompatible with today's political system! Who exactly, then, is your political system for? Who decides what is admissable? Doesn't your dismissal, in fact, contain the seed of extreme authoritarianism?"
excuse me? Freedom of speech is the start of authoritarianism is it? As far as I'm concerned I have as much right to say someones religion is a pack of lies as a religious person can say my views are rubbish. I don't see the problem with that.
Posted by: wicks | April 16, 2006 at 22:04
Oh Wicks.
1) Wherever one thinks it came from, whether through divine revelation or created by individuals in society, has no effect on the central point, which is that religious belief has been responsible for basic concepts about our humanity.
2) Social sciences are not true sciences (though they may well still be useful, I'm not dismissing them). You cannot use scientific method to determine, for example tax policy. Scientific method demands that you can control the variables and see which outcome is best. You can't do that with social constructs. The world may provide you with instructive examples, but how you read them is value-ridden. Consider for a moment how a conservative and a socialist economist might, in good faith, try to decide the 'best policy' by 'evidence'. You must know this is silly. You can go a long way with rational argument but you will always come up against assumptions, and those will be based on personal beliefs.
3) No, freedom of speech is not the start of authoritarianism, quite the opposite. But you were nopt advocating freedom of speech. True, you were not advocating penalties for those who say something you disagree with, but the whole point of your original post was to exclude certain belief systems from the debate and leave it only to your rationalism. Yes, that is indeed authoritarianism.
let me remind you of two things you said:
"science is the only rational basis for policy decisions"
"Religion should play no part in the policy decisions of this country, ergo religion should play no part in any of the political parties of this country."
Now, if you find a way of turning those statements into a celebration of free speech, then we are no longer talking the same language and we may as well stop wasting our time. I think it's rather obvious that both statements seek to marginalise and indeed dismiss an entire belief-system of a large portion of the people on this planet as being irrelevant to policy debate. That, dear Wicks, is the very essence of authoritarianism.
Posted by: buxtehude | April 16, 2006 at 22:34
Thank you for posting such a moving article at Easter. I had never read Lady Thatcher's speech on religion but have felt moved by it today. My conservatism and my Christian faith are my intertwined backbones and I have rarely felt that synergy so articulated as in this speech and in this article. I don't criticise those who are able to disentangle them. In fact I envy those of you who can - it would make things easier for me if I could. Tim, thanks for sharing on this very special day.
Posted by: Mark Clarke | April 16, 2006 at 22:34
What is fascinating, is there is indeed, another dimension. What human beings will never accept, is that this same other dimension can be cloaked in judeo/christianity, Islam, the gods of hinduism, Buddah, the household gods of ancient greece and Rome........all the same "4th dimension." But there is another equasion. My concept is better than your concept, and I will blow you up, and attack your country until you agree with me. We however, are still dealing with that same 4th dimension. God. Allah. buddah. Jove. Call it what you will. This complex quarrel is the main reason folk think ... Oh no! Enough already! I am a Humanist.. or Athiest.... or Pagan.. or Druid....Do you posters see where I am going with this??? Will there ever be an agreement???
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | April 16, 2006 at 22:47
Thank you, Mark. Your reaction makes my post worthwhile.
Posted by: Editor | April 16, 2006 at 22:52
Anti-Cameron Tory: Any supposed Tory who has not attended church today should hang his head in shame, or at the very least keep quiet about it.
What do you mean, "supposed Tory"? What are you doing for the Conservatives at the moment, exactly, aside from carping?
You might try starting by displaying the same kind of tolerance and acceptance for those of all faiths and none that Tim did in his original post. Isn't that supposed to be a Christian virtue, too? I respect your right to observe Easter as an important religious occasion, why can you not respect my right not to?
The Wilberforce lecture that Tim quoted above said: "[the Conservative Party] has always been open to people of all faiths and to people of no faith."
Melissa Bean: I read Physics at university, and a large number of my coursemates were devout Christians. I, alas, am a heathen atheist.
Melissa, I just had to say "hi" from another heathen physicist!
Posted by: Richard Carey | April 16, 2006 at 22:57
Exactly, Annabel. I am not here defending Christianity, and for all I've said in this thread I might well be an athiest or a druid too. My arguments have been that you cannot exclude beliefs from politics. To do so is patently absurd. And beliefs come from somewhere. We are dropped into a world of ideas, beliefs, shared assumptions, providing an environment for our own experiences. we fight against them or draw strength from them or both at the same time.
My point was that you cannot exclude religion from politics. To do so is not only intellectually wrong but also practically fool-hardy, as politics functions in a world in which most people have some kind of values derived at least in part from religion. Your own list of conflicting religious claims makes it obvious that religion is part of the challenge we face in the world, we cannot create two separate mental zones. What we CAN try to do is what Jon suggested.
Posted by: buxtehude | April 16, 2006 at 23:00
1)
If religion is simply a human construct then of course that affects the central point !
2)
You get personal beliefs in so called "true" sciences as well, you are simply missing the point.
3 and the rest) again you are simply missing the point.
With respect to the original article. The Conservative (or any mainstream) party with ambitions of government should seek to represent the views of all (or as wide a range as practically possible) or the british nation as possible. Draping yourself under a Christian banner excludes about 30% of the population in this country (and that's just looking at people who don't declare themselves to be Christians, amongst Christians themselves you have a wide range of beliefs and views, Whose are you planning to go with?).
That is why (partly) any political party should distance itself from religion.
Posted by: wicks | April 16, 2006 at 23:08
"Mrs Thatcher understood that all societies are ultimately sustained by the virtue of their citizens"
As did JS Mill, father of modern British liberalism (eg his views on gratification & higher pleasures/dignity). Strange how these things overlap.
Posted by: Andrew | April 17, 2006 at 00:05
>>The Wilberforce lecture that Tim quoted above said: "[the Conservative Party] has always been open to people of all faiths and to people of no faith."<<
Not so Richard.
At the beginning of the 19th Century the Party wasn't even open to Catholics and Dissenters, let alone non-Christians.
Posted by: Anti-Cameron Tory | April 17, 2006 at 00:21
Not so Richard. At the beginning of the 19th Century the Party wasn't even open to Catholics and Dissenters, let alone non-Christians.
Well, if you're going to try and kick me out now, you're going to lose one hell of a work-rate... local elections underway, too!
Posted by: Richard Carey | April 17, 2006 at 00:47
Perhaps Richard and I should form a Conservative Atheist Physicist splinter faction... :)
Posted by: Melissa Bean | April 17, 2006 at 01:14
"My point was that you cannot exclude religion from politics. To do so is not only intellectually wrong but also practically fool-hardy, as politics functions in a world in which most people have some kind of values derived at least in part from religion."
But are those values derived from relgion? Are not religious values invariably universal values? I do not need to go to a church, a mosque, or a synagogue to know that it is wrong to steal, kill or lie.
Posted by: Melissa Bean | April 17, 2006 at 01:42
Perhaps Richard and I should form a Conservative Atheist Physicist splinter faction... :)
I'd be more than happy to, Melissa - except that we'd share an acronym with a rather unpopular piece of European legislation... we need a better acronym!
Posted by: Richard Carey | April 17, 2006 at 01:58
"you are simply missing the point... again you are simply missing the point"
Sorry, Wicks, that I'm so dumb.
"Draping yourself under a Christian banner"... well, I don't think I've advocated this, but perhaps you'll tell me I'm missing my own points. I didn't even say that I was a Christian. Or that Christianity - or any religion - should get some privileged position in any political party. I simply argued against your first post that "religion should play no part in the politics of this country", which is patently an absurd proposition.
I don't know what you mean when you say "you get personal beliefs in the 'true' sciences as well". Do you mean that all people, including scientists, have personal beliefs? Quite so, you support one of my key arguments. But personal beliefs do not form part of the scientific method. The sceintific method is designed precisely to exclude that possibility. In the evaluation of research, of course, you do get bags of belief. Again, my very point: you cannot therefore claim that 'science' should be the only basis of policy. As the great Richard Feynman would surely have said, "that's nutty".
Can't you just accept what is so obvious, that personal beliefs (many of which derive from religion) are at the centre of political debate and therefore cannot and should not be excluded, and that 'science' cannot possibly be, and has never been, the basis of policy development? It's not worth wasting any more time on this nonsense. If what you originally meant to say was that the Conservative Party should not be 'draped' in the banner of Christianity, or any other religion, I'm sure most of the people who come to this blog, including me, would strongly agree.
Posted by: buxtehude | April 17, 2006 at 09:19
Well ultimately this comes back to my original point, the basis for most religion is flawed, you seem unwilling to accept that most of the positions adopted by religion were due to social factors at the time the texts were produced rather than any deep religious meaning, to try and apply them now is extremely flawed. You seem unwilling to accept this point, so indeed I don't want to waste any more of my time trying to educate someone who doesn't want to be educated.
Posted by: wicks | April 17, 2006 at 11:20
So, Wicks, are you saying that all religion is down to "me" and "not me" ? Accept that there is only one "4th dimension" or "the Divine", then you have the basis for all wars, inter religious squabbles, one sect agin another, then you can go on to the roots of all this blood shed. When all is said and done, there is only one "him upstairs" All the rest is human intransigence. Power if you like. As a one time boarder at a girls anglican convent, I know of what I speak!!!
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | April 17, 2006 at 15:58
Thinking about this debate today, I remembered a piece written by Richard Dawkins which I quite like:
"The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first."
The teapot reference comes from a famous quote by Betrand Russell, the mathematician & philosopher (and communist!):
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"
Perhaps this is not the ideal forum for a debate on such things, however!
Posted by: Melissa Bean | April 17, 2006 at 19:53
"Russell's books should be bound in two colours, those dealing with mathematical logic in red—and all students of philosophy should read them; those dealing with ethics and politics in blue—and no one should be allowed to read them."
Not quite sure which camp the teapot falls into :-)
Posted by: Andrew | April 18, 2006 at 00:24
Russell's assertion about the teapot is a very good one. It's to do with the burden of proof, i.e. it's impossible to prove a negative.
That principle can apply to politics as well as to philosophy.
Posted by: John Hustings | April 18, 2006 at 01:14
But are those values derived from relgion? Are not religious values invariably universal values? I do not need to go to a church, a mosque, or a synagogue to know that it is wrong to steal, kill or lie.
Not so Melissa. There have indeed been societies where stealing and lying were approved (Ancient Sparta) and many more where state-sponsored murder in the norm.
If you are not guided by the principles of revealed religion then your code of ethics becomes simply a 'lifestyle choice', with no greater moral force than Hitlerism or Stalinism.
This is why politically powerful agnostics and atheists from ancient times to the present day have realised the importance of upholding religion and keeping their doubts to themselves.
Posted by: Anti-Cameron Tory | April 18, 2006 at 07:52
Jon White: Similarly, albeit over a century ago, Disraeli (a truly great Tory PM) had to convert to Christianity from Judaism.
Not so. Disraeli was baptised into the C of E as an infant and remained an observant Christian all his life.
Posted by: Anti-Cameron Tory | April 18, 2006 at 08:39
"If you are not guided by the principles of revealed religion then your code of ethics becomes simply a 'lifestyle choice', with no greater moral force than Hitlerism or Stalinism."
You've just Godwinned yourself.
Anyway, "the principles of revealed religion" are also a lifestyle choice. The backing of an invisible deity renders no moral force whatsoever, until you can prove the existence of said beings. If not, then it's simply a weak attempt to render objectivity onto what is just another subjective belief.
Posted by: Andrew | April 18, 2006 at 13:45
Fair enough.
In that case all ethical codes are merely 'lifestyle choices'
Posted by: Anti-Cameron Tory | April 18, 2006 at 21:59