Peter Singer, Ethics and Belief in God.

There is an interesting item about ethics and the environment in the Guardian 'Comment is Free' by Mark Vernon - Without belief in moral truths, how can we care about climate change? - Peter Singer admits his brand of utilitarianism struggles with the challenge of climate change in a way Christian ethics does not.

Singer comments that he 'regrets' he doesn't believe in God and that he seems to accept that only faith in a creator can properly ground objective morality.

Tim Mulgan, professor of moral and political philosophy at the University of St Andrews also offered some interesting comments. According to Vernon, he explained "why ethical objectivism may be vital to making a robust ethical case against environmental degradation." This is because "Only a doctrine of creation can affirm that we are fundamentally linked to the natural order manifest on Earth. The fantasy of fleeing this planet, or disappearing into virtual reality, won't actually do. Our island home matters because the lives of human beings go well only when her natural systems go well too. Or, as the psalmist intuited many centuries ago: "Truth shall spring out of the earth."

Aborting girls?

The BBC is reporting a story about abortion in India, and the preference for having male children over female ones. With the possibility now of determining a child's sex before birth there is a relative increase in the number of abortions (foeticide) and even infanticide of baby girls as opposed to male abortions. This is leading to a greater number of male children under 6 years old. The main reason is that male children attract a large dowry for the family upon marriage. A similar situation has arisen in China where there is a preference for male children.

See India's unwanted girls

It will be interesting to see how this impacts upon the whole question of the ethics of abortion generally.

BCSE, Education Policy and Respecting Religious Diversity

The BCSE, with support from Ekklesia, are campaigning to restrict some religious groups from presenting their views freely, and therefore in a way that respects their beliefs. They wish to stop creationists from claiming any scientific validity for their position. In other words, creationists may only speak in schools if they maintain that their views are not real or even false.  I have blogged about this here

So what will be lost by this? Children will be prevented from asking questions in a way that allows them to think for themselves, but instead will be encouraged to think of education in terms of learning 'official facts.' This will not prepare children for higher education where ideas are debated with more freedom. Science itself will potentially be damaged by this, because science advances through dialogue and is not based on authority. Children from religious backgrounds will feel that their beliefs are not respected in the classroom and will turn off of learning altogether.

One may hope that government ministers have greater wisdom when considering policy in light of campaigns from various pressure groups. 

Exeter School Under Fire by Secularists for Allowing Creationist into School RE Lesson.

A Church of England school in Exeter, St Peter's, has come under fire for allowing Philip Bell of Creation Ministries International to speak in an RE setting  Anger after controversial creationist is invited to talk at school

The question I wish to raise is whether there is room for respectful dialogue on the question of origins in schools. The British Centre for Science Education wishes to remove all such discussion from the classroom, apparently even from RE lessons. But there are still many religious believers including Christians, Jews, Muslim and others who do not accept Darwinism believing it to be an ideology that goes against the core values of their faith. I believe the education system needs to come to terms with such plurality and accommodate dissent and respectful dialogue in this area. There needs to be greater respect for other's beliefs. The irony is that secularists are showing a degree of intolerance that they accuse fundamentalist religious believers of displaying.

The BCSE claim that "It believes in the tools for everyone to think for themselves - Science, Education and Reason - and the outcome – Democracy, Pluralism and Liberty." and that its "...campaign is dedicated to keeping all forms of creationism including Intelligent Design out of the science classroom in the UK." but then asserts that "The BCSE is open to all, irrespective of religious or political affiliations, who wish to oppose the tide of creationism in the United Kingdom." In other words, it is opposed to all forms of creationism in the UK, not just in the science classroom, and it is not committed to respecting all religious beliefs, only those that are similar to its own position. One wonders how this ties in with their desire to uphold "Democracy, Pluralism and Liberty?" I would suggest their very basis for existence is muddled and confused.

The Christian message advanced in the first century AD through dialogue, not through human compulsion, and there must continue to be room for dialogue in this area. Christianity has never had anything to fear from such dialogue with people of other faiths and none.

Andrew S 

Is Nuclear Power Safe?

A fierce debate has started over on the Guardian blogs concerning the safety of nuclear power. Helen Caldicott responds to George Monbiot's claim that nuclear power is safe.

Caldicott writes that nuclear apologists, such as George Monbiot, have misled and misinformed us over the risks of radiation, and 'at worst distort evidence of the dangers of atomic energy.' (11/4/2011).

Monbiot has asserted that the Fukushima emergency enabled him to 'stop worrying' and come to 'love nuclear power'. He believes that the fallout from the Japanese disaster needs to be set in the context of other harmful alternatives to energy production, and that atomic power must remain 'part of the mix.'

One of the main problems with nuclear power is that when it goes wrong it does so much harm to organic life and disrupts agriculture and fisheries over decades, or longer. Carbon based fuels, even though they may cause serious problems for human communities around the world, at least run with the grain of creation in that carbon dioxide is a natural part of the eco-system. I don't think nuclear is really the sustainable solution to a low carbon energy mix. 

Have we forgotten Chernobyl ?

Have we forgotten the long-tern health problems of Chernobyl? John Vidal is critical of environmentalists who have downplayed the seriousness of the Fukushima incident.

Nuclear's green cheerleaders forget Chernobyl at our peril - Pundits who downplay the risks of radiation are ignoring the casualities of the past. Fukushima's meltdown may be worse

British Humanist Association is abusing the census

I believe the British Humanist Association is abusing the integrity and therefore the quality of the census by campaigning for people to say they are not religious when given a choice of options. Clearly they don't have much confidence in people to answer as they see fit, but believe they need encouragement to fill it in 'accurately', but also in a way that suits the BHA. (See  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12799801). As a result the BHA risks undermining the quality of an important survey.

I would go further and argue that such campaigning around the census should be illegal because it puts pressure on people to answer in a way that is not necessarily in accord with their deep seated beliefs.

Andrew Sibley 

William Paley and Theological Utilitarianism

I have discovered that William Paley was a Theological Utilitarian. That is; that ethics begin with a belief that God wishes people to be happy. But for happiness to be ultimately possible we must accord our lives with the will of God. In other words it embraces deontology (that is an ethical systems involving rights and duties), but one that has a benefit in terms of personal and social happiness. We are often encouraged to think of religion as only embracing rules and regulations, but a true Christian approach to ethics involves happiness for people and benefit for society. This is also the message of John 15:9-17 where deontological ethics are bound up with love, peace and joy.

9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other."

I disucssed some this in my book, Restoring the Ethics of Creation pp.126-129
Andrew Sibley

Response to Simon Barrow of Ekklesia

Simon Barrow has responded to my article on legal matters and human rights Discriminating Christian Confusion. There is a sense I think in Barrow’s writing that suggests he has failed to understand the nuances of a Christian understanding of grace. I would like here then to offer my approach to these matters and to offer some further thoughts that might help to unlock his mind.

My own background is non-conformist and charismatic. I am socially conservative it is true, but some would say more left wing than right wing. I believe in social morality as much as personal morality. I share for instance a frustration at what I see as right wing fundamentalism in the church because it fails to display the love of God and tends to be very fearful of the world, which can lead to wrong thinking and action. One example is over such strong support for the State of Israel that it leads to lack of concern for Palestinians, and I have written a book Zion’s New Name to try and redress the balance. I share Jim Wallis' sentiment about some Christian approaches to politics that the ’right gets it wrong and the left doesn’t get it’. For instance, one irony is that although many evangelical Christians are opposed to Darwinism in America, they are willing to uphold a sort of belief in economic social Darwinism through support of weak social legislation. It is also too easy to think that being strong on law and order is a Christian ideal, but fail to see that mercy has triumphed over judgement (James 2:13). I don’t really support the idea of Christians going to court to force legal judgments because it is a hiding to nothing and it risks legal judgments that may restrict freedoms further, as has happened with the various American creationist court cases.

However, I can’t help thinking that Ekklesia are throwing the baby out with the bath-water in their work. They say they want a more humble Christian church that has a servant heart, and I share that ideal. A bottom up Christian faith that serves and loves instead of overbears. But I can’t help thinking that there is a tendency towards an undermining, evolutionary-socialist mindset in the work of Ekklesia, especially when they side with the British Humanist Association that perhaps reflects an approach similar to Daniel Dennett's observation that evolution as really a ‘universal acid.’ This approach risks undermining the good in the church as well as questioning the abuses of power. Yes by all means question abuses of power, but to undermine all forms of Christian authority and power will render the church power-less to work for social justice. I am not an Anglican, but do not for instance wish to remove Anglican Bishops from the House of Lords on the basis that Christians shouldn’t have any elevated positions in society. We need to regain an understanding of meekness; to be guardians of power, but to exercise it lovingly and responsibly – as we are told the meek shall inherit the earth.

Secondly, the argument that the New Testament interpretation of the Law of Moses provides a sound basis for law is not to claim ascendancy of my beliefs over others for the sake of pride or prejudice. It is instead I believe Christian values that most respect the lives and freedoms of others who are not Christian, and historically has informed British laws and values, at least in part. People of other faiths have rights in the West; but such rights are often not reciprocated where those other faith systems are dominant. Secular humanism offers subjectivity based on human sentiment, and this risks leading to relativism in ethics, a relativism that can lead to the rise of nationalism or fascism where the state or race is idolised. Secular humanism risks creating a vacuum that may be filled by those who have a much more legalistic or dictatorial mindset, whether it is militant Islamists seeking to impose Sharia Law, or secularists who idolise the law. It is noteworthy that the last Labour government, that didn’t ‘do God,’ imposed an increasing number of laws to control social behaviour and allowed economic inequality to increase. If you otherthrow the Christian basis for law and values you will find that you are on a road to greater legalism and less equality.

Barrow though questions whether I am committed to equality and justice. Yes I am, but on a rational basis that seeks to understand the real nature of humanity. Today what we call human rights is really based on utilitarian philosophy and is different from historical forms of human rights. It is an Epicurean and Hume’an based approach to rights and not classical deontological human rights. The ideals of utilitarianism can tend towards hedonism and selfishness where we want our rights to ‘do-as-we-like’ protected without considering our duties towards others. We need to be able to discuss this honestly. It is not deontological, i.e. based upon the logic of duties as well as rights, an approach Aquinas saw in terms of teleology and natural law. Today pressure groups of various forms often campaign for their rights without consideration of duties and have no comprehension of duties towards God and others. Of course a society can emphasise duties to the exclusion of rights, but we have swung a long way the other way in our post-modern society where pressure groups campaign for rights that go beyond an understanding of humanity's instrinsic nature. Post modernism is the unwanted child of modernism. Secular humanists don’t really want it, but it is their offspring nonetheless because secular humanism leads to a rootless, purposeless existence for many, and this risks a loss of respect for others.

If human beings are created in the image of God, as I believe, then that includes the rational, the relational, the emotional and the volitional (as Selwyn Hughes noted). I fear though that some of the modern thinking about rights seeks to deny the volitional, especially in sexual ethics. Modern society has taken something that is really I believe a lifestyle choice, and then seeks to deny the capacity for choice by asserting that it is an intrinsic part of who people are. Then modern society seeks to protect it through human rights legislation and use it as a wedge to discriminate against those who hold to a more traditional Christian understanding of rights and values. Of course it may be claimed that Christian belief is also a choice, but is it appropriate to elevate one set of choices above another in human rights legislation? I don't think it is. This denial of the volitional capacity I believe leads to a loss of freedom for many individuals because there is loss of clarity towards understanding the true human nature and a disjunction between physical reality and emotions and mental thoughts. It is this confusion and loss of freedom for an individual that needs to be questioned in a loving Christian society. It is the truth about who we really are as human beings in an intrinsic sense that will enable people to recover an understanding of the volitional capacity and allow freedom to be regained. This is not at all an unloving approach; many of those Christians taken to court for their beliefs in this area have demonstrated a life time of service towards others irrespective of lifestyle choices. So there is nothing unloving in seeking to recapture a deontological approach to human rights where we develop a true understanding of humanity including the volitional capacity, even in sexual ethics. However, such understanding also needs to be held within a doctrine of grace where Christ comes and indwells the new believer, and then heals the eyes of the heart of the person so that they are able to see their true Christ-like humanity more clearly.

Socially conservative Christianity offers a vision for society as the City of God, based upon love, equality and justice, where power is exercised in humility, and on the basis of understanding the intrinsic nature of human beings in terms of belief that we are created in God’s image; that is volitionally, relationally, emotionally and rationally created. At the same time a Christian vision for society is one that gives freedom and liberty in areas where activities do no harm to others, and I am opposed to the type of Dominionist thinking that seeks exclusivity and control in these matters. A socially conservative Christian vision upholds the family, not as perfect units with 2.4 children, but as the best foundation for society even in brokenness, remembering also that Christ established a bigger family that is the Church community. Alternatives for society, for instance Plato’s city republic of Polis, are much more class-based, where a few Philosophers-Kings rule over the masses. Family ties are broken and people reduced to mere economic units, kept in place by a higher-class military or Polis force. Sadly, aspects of the politics of Plato often have a superficial appeal from both the left and right and have influenced Marxism, socialism and economic social Darwinism and even some forms of Christian fundamentalism that strongly support unregulated capitalism or over-emphasise law and order and control in a legalistic sense. But which vision does Ekklesia share for society, one based upon the rigid, legalistic class-based worldly city of Polis, or freedom, equality, grace and love that comes through Jesus Christ in the Civitas Dei?
Andrew Sibley 

Barbara Forrest - Attacking the Wrong Guy for the Wrong Reasons

Well known Darwin defender Barbara Forrest has got into trouble for attacking the wrong guy for the wrong reasons. She wrote an article in Synthase Journal against Francis Beckwith, but left out a lot of useful information, such as the fact that Beckwith is himself a critic of intelligent design. Read about it here, here, and here.

There is a bigger issue here about trust in the science and religion debate. Is the debate between those for and against evolution so heated now that anything goes, or do some 'see red' to the point where they can't think clearly?