Gove defends the power of religious faith

Great stuff from Michael Gove in The Times.  He reflects on the moral force of Christian leaders like John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, in the light of suggestions from Richard Dawkins et al that religious believers "are in the grip of a tragic delusion":

"John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, calmly pointed out that the situation in Zimbabwe is a towering moral disgrace. And we need a campaign to topple President Mugabe every bit as urgent as past crusades to get rid of apartheid. He also reminded us that Kate and Gerry McCann weren’t just probably innocent. They are totally innocent. And they will be until the situation ever arises that they have been tried, and found guilty, in a forum better designed to arrive at the truth than the media. One thing is certain: they have lost a daughter and their daily suffering must be torture. Christianity teaches us to show compassion to individuals who find themselves in such a position.  With his affirmation of the need for justice towards the poorest, and love for those who suffer, Sentamu may not speak as wittily as Dawkins. But I think I know whose moral force is more likely to mobilise action against dictatorship and win sympathy for a family enduring agonies that none should know."

Related link: Perfect freedom

Comments

[Umbrella man]

Gove is right. Religious people get a lot of blame for things when they're involved but not much credit for the roles they play in great causes.

[spagbob]

its so nice to see a politician supporting people of faith and acknowledging their valuable contribution to building a better society. thanks michael.

[Arron Fitzgerald]

So Michael Gove's position is that while Dawkins is right about the delusion of religious believers, they can sometimes be useful in opposing injustice through the strength of their delusion?

[Michael Davidson]

The Archbishop should concentrate a bit more of eliminating the discrimination within his own Church rather than intervening in foreign affairs.

What's Sentamu's position of stopping women becoming Bishops? And does Sentamu think being gay is a sin? The irony is that the average Joe Bloggs on the street is more 'moral' and tolerant than those in the hierarchy of the Christian Church.

The Church of England has lost all credibility and is the last institution which should be criticising others for discrimination and bigotry.

Religion can have a positive influence on society. Whether it actually does or not is another question.

[Traditional Tory]

Michael Gove's comments could indeed be interpreted in the way Arron Fitzgerald suggests. Does anybody know Gove's religous position (or lack of one)?

Given Gove's 'Neocon' credentials I would personally prefer that he does not believe that God is on his side.

I have a lot of time for Archbishop Sentamu and very little for Gove; however the Archbishop's views on Mugabe and the McCanns are simply personal opinions which might well be held by any of us, including (for all I know)Professor Dawkins.

As a Christian I can understand why any sincere atheist might find Gove's presumptions deeply offensive.

[Traditional Tory]

What's Sentamu's position of stopping women becoming Bishops?

Dr Sentamu is in favour of ordaining women Bishops.

And does Sentamu think being gay is a sin?

I daresay that depends on how you define 'being gay'. It is not a sin to be a celibate homosexual.

However, I understand that Dr Sentamu believes that homosexual practices are incompatible with scripture.

That appears to me to be the only coherent view for any Christian to hold.

[Mark Fulford]

He also reminded us that Kate and Gerry McCann weren’t just probably innocent. They are totally innocent.

Did he hear that on the hotline?

There is a difference between innocence, as a fact, and being presumed innocent.

[Jake]

How refreshing that someone in the smug , sick, stale , self regarding British establishment actually speaks out and says the truth . I quite agree with everything he says .

Archbishop Sentamu has also refused to be intimited into keeping quiet about the discrimination against England by the British state and crust of British pan party politicos who conspire against England in all the doings of British political classes . .

[David Belchamber]

It would be very inspiring to have a conservative government working hand in hand with the established church (and other faiths) to help alleviate poverty, homelessness, drugs, crime etc in this country and in countries abroad; also to work together to influence world opinion against people like Mugabe who ruin their countries.

[Graeme Archer]

Not that I disagree with a word that the Archbishop says about Zimbabwe, but it is ridiculous to attempt to make the inference - which religious people do all the time - that *because* some religious people are good, then religion is either necessary or sufficient for goodness. Dragging Richard Dawkins in as a comparison is a bit facile too. It's hardly astonishing that a figurehead of a religious movement should be more able to stir political action than a scientist and academic.

Maybe it was lazy thinking like this that first got Dawkin's goat up? It certainly gets up mine. I don't for a moment understand why the C of E keeps attacking people who don't share its religious dogma, but who pretty much accept everything else in their view of the world. Are liberal atheists really the biggest problem facing Britain today?

[Jomo]

Have the Cameroons reached the depths of despair. Is this Blairite place man the source of wisdom on foreign policy. Given his contribution to domestic peace and tranquillity can we expect him to advocate the bombing of Portugal and Zimbabwe for their institutional immorality?

[Mark Fulford]

If you think that decisions should be based on evidence, it becomes hard to trust big decisions to people who can faithfully believe.

[Andy]

"I understand that Dr Sentamu believes that homosexual practices are incompatible with scripture.

That appears to me to be the only coherent view for any Christian to hold." - Traditional Tory: 18/09/07 at 17:59

Well that's all right then! Are we saying that the only way to be a coherent Christian is to believe something that many people would regard as repellent? Come on, Traditional Tory: The fact that Sentamu's view is compatible with Christian scripture doesn't get him off the hook in the slightest and is of no relevance whatsoever to the debate about whether or not his views on homosexuality are right or wrong.

Is it not conceivable that a person could think something that is compatible with Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) AND is morally repugnant, or are you seriously suggesting that the mere fact that something is compatible with religious scripture is sufficient to classify it is morally desirable?

[TomTom]

Did he hear that on the hotline?

There is a difference between innocence, as a fact, and being presumed innocent.

I don't think there is Mark. You are wrong.

By your logic Scotland would not need three verdicts in court, besides who is a former barrister in a wig and theatrical robes to declare someone innocent; that is their natural status

[Traditional Tory]

Is it not conceivable that a person could think something that is compatible with Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) AND is morally repugnant

Disapproval of homosexual practices may be repugnant to you Andy, but for many others it is the practices themselves that are repugnant. No doubt that would be their view with or without the backing of scripture.

In a free society it is incumbent on you to allow others the right to their own opinions. That, in case you were unaware, is the Conservative point of view.

What interests me more is whence you, in the apparent absence of any religious belief, derive your idiosyncratic notion of right and wrong conduct.

[Graeme Archer]

Actually Traditional Tory that is a good question. But it's also recursive for Christians. Bear with me and don't stamp on my clumsy attempt to express a concept I'm not claiming to be an expert on. So, a Christian such as yourself would say that your notions of good and evil are derived from your religious teaching - which sounds sensible (as it is, of course, I'm not saying that it's wrong to derive such notions from religious teaching) - but there's a germ there that suggests that the religious believe some epistemic worth is established for *their* notions of good and evil, vis-a-vis those of an atheist like myself.

But: from whence does the religious teaching derive its notion of good and evil? From God. From whence does God derive His notions? From ... ? The point is: it might take more recursion for a Christian to get to the "I don't know" place that we probably honestly are with regard to "where do right and wrong come from" ... longer than an atheist ... but you still get there - unless one accepts the existence of God - but that's what we were trying to look for evidence for, with regards to this question.

A sociological point of view might be (and one, I think, many Tories share): regardless of the transcendental component of religion, it (religion) has worked as an institution to transmit those values of right and wrong. But this is a utilitarian argument, and nothing to do with the value for the concepts of right and wrong derived from any religious point of view.

So -- this is why I never bother debating the rights and wrongs of my life with Christians. It's - literally - pointless. The best is to hope for mutual respect and to bang on about the things we do agree about (right and wrong, for example). In that sense I'm quite empirical rather than psychological: I don't care so much about *how* we derive common notions of right and wrong, so much as I wish more people had an instinctive thrust for them.

Now, we need one of those pantheist types to join in and say "You see - Christians and atheists -- you all derive good and evil from the pulsating heart of mother Earth" or some such garbage :-0)

[HF]

Gove is the shadow cab person who approved of Bercow joining Brown's big tent.

Just plain stupid.

[ToMTom]

But: from whence does the religious teaching derive its notion of good and evil? From God. From whence does God derive His notions? From ... ?

Oh Graeme, such a fallacy...anthropomorphism in relation to GOD - you have started from a false premise

[Graeme Archer]

But I don't know what else to do. I'm aware - from Iris Murdoch novels! - that the idea of a personal God is anti-religious. But what then provides the notion of right and wrong? From the "machine" defined by the relation between people? Is this God?

I used to wonder that when I was young, that perhaps God is the name we give to the unknowable algebra that describes the dependency of things.

[Andy]

"Disapproval of homosexual practices may be repugnant to you Andy, but for many others it is the practices themselves that are repugnant. No doubt that would be their view with or without the backing of scripture."

I can well imagine that many people find homosexuality wrong, although I simply cannot imagine why they are interested in the sexual preferences of others and still less why we ought to listen to them! What interested me was that you sought to use Sentamu's being a Christian as the sole moral defence for his views on homosexuality, as if his being a Christian was sufficient to get him off the hook.

"In a free society it is incumbent on you to allow others the right to their own opinions. That, in case you were unaware, is the Conservative point of view."

Quite right, but only to an extent. Although we must take care to allow others the right to their own opinions, it is legitimate to fully assault those positions with the full force of rational argument, even (perhaps especially) where those positions are religious ones. For too long, religion has been used as a means of isolating arguments and people from criticism and to advance a given case without reference to the substantive issues surrounding it - much as you sought to do with Sentamu's views on homosexuality. There is nothing Conservative about protecting this sort of slack argument.

"What interests me more is whence you, in the apparent absence of any religious belief, derive your idiosyncratic notion of right and wrong conduct."

I am not certain, but I should imagine that it is derived from multiple sources. Parents, friends, debates with others, education and so on. The core of this though, is exposure to other people. As a religious person, (presumably - correct me if I am mistaken!) where do you derive your sense of right and wrong from? Surely not from scripture, much of which would appear deeply repellent by the standards of today. Perhaps though, you'll adopt the "quite right, much of what scripture teaches us about morality, if interpreted literally, would be repellent by today's standards, but religious people don't interpret ALL of xxxxx (insert name of religious book) literally and our interpretations have evolved over time" stance. This, however, is exactly my point. If it has evolved over time, then it has done so by reference to influences external to the religion. Perhaps then, you derive your "idiosyncratic notion of right and wrong" from the same sources that I do, even if we have come to starkly different conclusions as to what actually constitutes right and wrong behaviour.

[Traditional Tory]

but there's a germ there that suggests that the religious believe some epistemic worth is established for *their* notions of good and evil, vis-a-vis those of an atheist like myself.

In fact, Graeme, Christians have long respected goodness in non-believers. Christian philosophy is founded on the work of the 'Virtuous Pagan' Aristotle and the concept was formally recognised by the Council of Trent in the mid-c16. It was the Church's position that good men from pre-Christian times were freed when Christ descended into Hell after his death, as stated in the Apostles’ Creed.

In the first circle of Dante's Hell - Limbo - we even find the Muslim Saladin dwelling alongside Homer, Horace, Lucan and Ovid. The souls of these unbelievers exist in comfort, their torment consisting in separation from God.

So – grudgingly no doubt - Christianity has long recognised that goodness can exist in non-believers, in other words that non-Christians can hold to a quasi-Christian system of ethics.

Adam Smith – a believer - said of the atheist David Hume 'I have always considered him, both in his lifetime and since his death, as approaching as nearly as possible to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature of human frailty will admit'

But for Hume, adherence to ‘virtue’ was the result of custom and tradition, not revealed ethical truth. In a sense, it was a 'lifestyle choice' which could be judged by a Utilitarian yardstick (there are Utilitarians who have claimed Hume as one of their own).

The committed Christian Kant was both shocked and excited by Hume’s scepticism, but in the end his mighty mind concluded that the knowledge of God is properly based on faith alone. I accept that. I also choose to accept Kant’s Categorical Imperative as a useful guide to what I beleive to be right conduct, but I cannot claim that is is an absolute standard of truth.

All we can say therefore is that ‘upon the **** hypothesis’ or ‘upon the basis of my religious belief’ x is wrong and y right’. We cannot be more certain than that.

I believe above all that we must each express our authenticity by demonstrating internal consistency within the framework of our chosen religion and/or philosophy. Such an approach may not establish universal truths, but it may promote mutual respect among those of differing opinions.

[Mark Fulford]

I don't think there is Mark. You are wrong.

John Sentamu was not just reminding us that every accused person is innocent until proven guilty. When he said "the evidence does not stack up at all" he was passing judgement -- and I’m questioning how he can.

I’m surprised that you cannot see the distinction between being truly innocent and being innocent in the eyes of the law. Next you'll be saying that there's never been a miscarriage of justice (in either direction)!

[Graeme Archer]

Beautifully and powerfully expressed Traditional Tory. I had forgotten Dante of course! Well I can hope for one of the outer circles then - story of my life. In fact, your masterful tour of Christian theology reminds me - usefully - why it is correct for atheists to respect and admire Christians in a qualitatively stronger manner than that which is expressed by the term "tolerance". You don't "tolerate" values which vibrate within you - you rejoice in them - even if you don't share all the precursors. ("You" in that sentence is "one", i.e. me).

It's when I see or read of some Anglicans giving succour to creeds which would destroy everything that I hold to be good that I despair. I'm not - at all - referring to the above discussion about who sleeps with whom. I can't compete with your theological knowledge. I do know that I grew up thinking of Anglicanism as one of the bulwarks which would help defend us from the deluge. I still hope that, I think.

[Graham]

It is interesting to note that Christains are being attacked for only tolerating 'Gays' and other groups, when there are other religious groups out there who wish to execute them and NOTHING is said about this.

[Traditional Tory]

Thank you for your kind words Graeme.

You don't "tolerate" values which vibrate within you - you rejoice in them - even if you don't share all the precursors

Exactly. The word 'tolerance' is endlessly misused these days.