RE-EXAMINING RELIGION AND THEOLOGY Bernard Spurgin 7 The author was brought up as a Congregationalist, attending churches fart' regular4/ at school, in the army (1941-62, at university and for about 6 years while teaching - until age 35. Then, slow4/, over the next 20 years he responded to many of the influences which were later to be set out (in 1984) so clear/' in the Sea of _Faith TV series and book In 1979 he was challenged by a regular C. of E communicant over his apparent lack of traditional religious faith, and asked what his position was. His response was to write this essay, then specifica/4/ aimed at that person, but subsequent/' adopted as a genera/ statement of his thinking, still valid 12 years later:
It has only been through willingness to re-examine long-held attitudes and opinions that important progress has been made in many aspects of human thought and activity. Ptolemy's geocentric cosmology was replaced by Copernicus' heliocentric cosmology.
Early Greek ideas of earth, air, fire and water as the "four elements", and alchemists' notions of "souls", "spirits" and "Principles" being involved in the make-up of chemical substances, have been superseded by more rational hypotheses and theories, which have been better able to account for a wide variety of phenomena.
The role of the "four humours" of the body has been taken over by biochemical substances involved in physiological processes. An ebb and flow pumping action assigned to the heart in the arterio-vascular system was replaced by the current figure-of-eight double circulation involving the lungs for one loop.
Mental illness, once attributed to possession by "devils", is now seen to be capable of rational explanation ; for example, an absence of, or a deficiency in, lithium, in a person's metabolism. The role of force was revised, from being essential for the maintenance of motion, to being essential for change of motion. It was Einstein's percipience in stepping back beyond many tacit assumptions about relationships between physical quantities, to the relationships between the observations from which the quantities are mere inferences, that led to the greater insight of 8 SOF MAGAZINE, SUMMER 1991 his relativity theories.
There can be no justification for excluding theology and religion from careful dispassionate re-examination. If they require us to switch off our intellects in their pursuit, they must be very fragile insubstantial structures. This is not to imply that every adherent to a religious faith must be capable of bringing it under high-powered intellectual scrutiny ; it does require that it should be able to withstand such scrutiny. Failing this, there can be no universality about a religion - a feature of many faiths and apparently implicit in Christianity.
BARRIERS TO QUESTIONING There are substantial barriers to the carrying-out of thorough-going re-examination of religious attitudes and beliefs. They have the respectability of long usage. From an early age we were led to accept such ideas because they appeared to be accepted by all around us and they were implicit in daily worship in which all participated at school. We were, not unreasonably, impressed by the fact that many respected people evidently held such ideas and beliefs, not pausing to reflect why they held them and whether they had themselves subjected them to any scrutiny. There was an "established church" - though the existence, side by side with it, of Catholic and Nonconformist churches should have suggested that there had already been some re-examination - to which much of our life seemed to be related.
Nearly all were given "Christian" names at baptism, and it was an event in a natural sequence to be confirmed or accepted into church membership.
Marriages were solemnized "in the sight of God" and funeral services referred to "resurrection" and "life everlasting". Parliamentary business began with prayer, judges went in processions to church at the opening of an Assize ; kings and queens were crowned by archbishops and in times of national emergency there were national days of prayer. Small wonder that much was taken for granted, tacitly accepted without question.
Moreover, a person would appear to be very unusual who had the temerity to question such apparent fundamentals, might be barred from various appointments - headships of certain schools, fellowships of colleges - and might easily suffer social disadvantages as someone different from the flock. It is small wonder that so many people are content to go along quietly in a situation which may well make them wonder. With so many other urgent matters demanding their attention they are content to participate in the religious observances, and thrust their doubts and questions to a remote corner of their minds. The vast majority of such people are content to accept Authority, either literally, in the case of Fundamentalists, or after interpretation by those they assume are qualified to give it and are "licensed" to do so.
THREE CERTAINTIES There seem to be three things certain. First, life, our existence, and the existence of a universe around us pose a problem. Is there a purpose ? How did it all come about ? From what was it all created ? - and by whom ? But this leads to an infinite regression. If "God" created it all, who created her (or him) ? From what did (s)he make it ? Where did (s)he put it ?
What would have been there if things had not been created as they are ? These are metaphysical questions which are incapable of being answered. It is a pointless activity to ponder them. To do so may be an interesting or amusing pastime, but it will have no fruits in the shape of answers on which to base one's philosophy. Insubstantial speculation is all we can manage.
Secondly, there is little doubt that religion can have beneficial results. In spite of such horrors as were features of holy wars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the 1978 mass suicide at Jonestown in Guyana (all of which may have derived their evil aspects largely from political or economic pressures, rather than solely from religion) there is ample reason to believe that much that is good in the world stems from religious motivation. Abolition of slavery, penal reform, medical and nursing services, compassion and care for the unfortunate, the handicapped, the aged and infirm, can all be seen to have origins with religious groups or individuals. If religion produces beneficial results there is clearly something to be said for it. But this does not imply that there is a "Power" behind it, or, indeed, that religion is based on anything more than speculation and make-believe.
Thirdly, there is little doubt that many people find help in their individual lives from acting in consequence of their religious beliefs, and it cannot be said, because the supernatural and metaphysical aspects of their belief cannot be substantiated, that they are wrong or misguided in acting upon them. It may well be best for them to become aware of the basis for their actions (or it may not "where ignorance is bliss ..."), but aware of it or not, they can have no justification for thinking less of others who do not adopt their postures nor adopt the same bases.
How Did It All Start?
How did religion begin ? In the absence of evidence one can only speculate, one cannot assert ; but even speculation may lead to enlightenment. What follows is offered as no more than speculation.
The notion of a god in charge of the universe (or of part of it, with a god for each nation, or territory, or aspect of activity, such as a god of war) was a response by man to his ignorance, in the light of his experience that generally someone is in charge and has responsibility, in most situations. In every social group, the family, the village, the tribe, it is found that leaders emerge, who decide who does what, make SOF MAGAZINE, SUMMER 1991 9 plans, direct, demand obedience, punish, reward, expect homage and service. So - but it is an unjustified conclusion ! - there must be someone to whom tribal leaders are answerable, since things happen to them also. They meet with success - win their subjects' approval - and with failure, and suffer accidents. They break a leg, suffer boils, their eldest sons die, they lose battles, their crops fail. Clearly, someone is above the leader and can punish him or reward him.
Primitive societies have found it helpful to give some concrete embodiment to their deities, making graven images, golden calves of Baal, or to locate the god in a temple or a holy place, perhaps a cave or a grove of trees. It was no doubt an advance when the Jews were able to abandon graven images. But in modern churches there are, again, those who rely on icons, statues, and symbolic objects in a way that cannot be very different from idolatry.
ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF SIN The notion of sin arises in relation to such a self-invented god. A servant must behave well so as to please his master. Underlings in a family or tribe must behave so as to please its leader. They must all acknowledge the superior's position. It is therefore thought that a god requires acts of homage, obedience and admiration - worship. Inevitably, some leaders would claim special powers and privileges of communication with the god. It gave such leaders power and authority over the others to do so. They could use what they declared to be the god's will to boost their own authority. Moses, leading Israel out of Egypt, required a code of behaviour to provide tolerable conditions among his followers in the desert.
A free-for-all, in which anyone might stab anyone else, or take off with their property, could not provide a tolerable environment. Nobody could feel safe.
Nobody would work if the fruits of his labour were likely to vanish.
Society can only survive if its members are fairly hard-working or resourceful. In general, people will only work hard if they can see benefits for themselves, their family, or some other fairly immediate group - which, in the end, means benefits for themselves - in the form of a food supply, warmth, shelter and means of contentment, such as oil paintings, "best" tea services, jewelry, cassetteplayers, books, fine clothes - and if they can be sure of retaining control over such benefits, to have them, to use them, or to dispose of them (for their own pleasure in doing so) as they will. Friction in society leads to trouble and unhappiness. To reduce it, rules are made and attributed to divine origin. To give teeth to the rules, the notion of sin is introduced, with punishment and damnation. Failure to comply with the rules may damage your "future life".
FANTASY OF ETERNAL LIFE Life after death, eternal life, resurrection, the same general notion under a variety of names, that life does not end at death, is fairly central to many religions, and certainly to Christianity. How does this notion arise ? Almost certainly from man's overweening pride in his own importance, and from his reliance on and his attachment to those close to him. In spite of "All flesh is grass ..." he cannot bear to believe that one day he will cease to be, or that certain others will cease to exist apart from in the memories of those who knew them or in memorials and records, and in what they have left behind by way of reputation, in works of art or fine buildings they have made, or in advances in they have made in knowledge or in ways of organising society.
We sing: "And some there be that have no memorial ; who are perished as though they had never been", and though it goes on "their name liveth for ever more" there is a tendency to think "their souls live for ever more". The writer of Ecclesiasticus 44 was far less presumptuous. Why does man hanker after a life after death ? Is it not enough to be born, to live, and to die ? People are unwilling to accept that a friend, a spouse, a child, is there no longer ; they cannot bear the separation and invent some after-life in which they hope to be reunited. They are, of course, entitled to their own private fantasies. They are not justified in imposing them on others as an apparently essential part of faith.
Another aspect of this matter is as follows. A god is only satisfactory if powerful. Power is best demonstrated by ability to enforce obedience, and this requires sanctions, the ability to punish sinners. Since many sinners are seen, manifestly, to flourish, punishment must be awaiting them later. It will have to be by damnation in an after-life Use can be made of this by priests and secular leaders (who often, in the past especially, have been one and the same) to keep the lower orders in subjection. Do as we say, do as we recommend, or else I An after-life has been a useful idea to keep going, a lever to help those who wish to direct others to maintain their authority. So, too, with the notion that kings rule by divine right, or that proper priests are only those validated by the laying on of hands in a true apostolic succession from Peter.
JESUS AND CHRISTIANITY What of Christian religion ? There is no point in denying that Jesus may have existed historically - nor that there have been many other prophets and leaders in many communities at many different times.
Nor need we discuss whether he was killed by crucifixion (using this as a technical term for the method, and dissociating it from all its emotional overtones for Christians) when there are good grounds for believing that many - very many - others suffered the same fate, and other fates. His impor10 SOF MAGAZINE, SUMMER 1991 Lance today arises from the fact that his teaching has proved very acceptable in many of its features (whether or not many people are willing to act on all its implications), and has therefore survived. It offers a good ethical approach to the conduct of life. There is no reason to put him in any special relationship with the mystery of the origin of the universe, or to call him divine in any literal sense.
THE IDEA OF A PERSONAL GOD What of the notion of a personal god, relating personally to each and every person. In the first place, the mystery of the universe is totally inaccessible to us, greater than we can imagine, beyond our intellectual reach and comprehension. Realisation of this, in all humility, may perhaps be called a response, an act of worship - but, of what ? The men of Athens were not far out in erecting the altar on Mars Hill, "to the unknown god". We have no right to embellish our minimal apprehension of the mystery behind the universe with anthropomorphic notions of a father-god. (We will return later to the possibility of acting as though such notions contained truth.) Such ideas were understandable in the primitive states of knowledge and understanding in past millennia. With our present background they are altogether too fantastic to be taken as reality. (Again, we will come back later to the possibility of a person acting as though he had contact with a god.) What was not outlandish in days when the universe was confined to one or two kilometres up or down from the surface of the finite Earth cannot be extended to the modern universe, containing uncounted and uncountable numbers of galaxies, each made of countless stars, many of which must be similar enough to the Sun to make evolution of life on some of their planets extremely probable - evolution, moreover, on lines very similar to those on Earth. Has A salvation been offered to these other communities ?
Have they been visited yet by a Messiah ?
If the notion of God is intended to be a name to cloak our ignorance of the mystery behind the universe, well and good. Nobody can quarrel with another name. If it is intended to stand for an entity personally involved in the doings and thoughts of every individual, one has to ask questions. Is such a notion remotely reasonable ? Is there any evidence which can be appreciated by all reasonable persons ? (If so, the matter would then fall within the territory of Science, and there would be little room for argument if the evidence were acceptably sound.) Is the notion being put forward that every person has his (or her) own god, not demonstrable nor accessible to any other person. Fair enough, this, though it cannot be made the subject of discussion for communication to others. It leads to what may be called pragmatism in religion.
Close Encounters of a Religious Kind?
Until religious leaders, prophets, priests and preachers can give acceptable evidence of direct contact with a god there is no reason to accept their word that they have such contact. (Did Jesus make assertions about this ? One recalls such phrases as "I and the Father are one" etc. But isolated statements found in the gospels cannot be relied upon.
Texts are often corrupt, and one cannot rule out such statements from being later insertions made to support a particular view. The question is, "Did Jesus ever make a central issue of his divine connection ?" Probably not.) Persons claiming contact with a god need not all be branded as liars. They may be well-meaning but deluded. They may be well-meaning but aware that their assertions cannot be substantiated, nevertheless choosing to make them because they believe that by persuading others to accept their statements they can achieve beneficial results - giving unity to a nation in wartime, welding a community together, helping people endure adversity, giving them a desired sense of purpose, or merely giving them comfort.
It has to be said, of course, that there remains the possibility that they may be right - whether aware of it or not. But people should not be expected, by them or anyone else, to accept their assertions as representing reality unless they can support them with acceptable evidence. It is not enough for someone to assume authority and say : "I tell you it is so ..." ; or even, "I know it to be so ...", or "The Church says (or teaches) ...", or "Our Lord said ...", or "God has revealed ...", or "Holy Scripture says ...". An intelligent person, whether aware that he is doing so or not, is extremely likely to act in accordance with intellectual habits of thought. Centuries ago, William of Ockham wrote:"Ent/j non su' tnu/I0/eanda" (entities are not to be multiplied) - we must not keep making ad hoc additions to theories every time there is a new detail to be explained. This is referred to as "Ockham's Razor", it cuts away a lot of nonsense.
Newton said : "Hypotheses non fizgo' (I make no hypotheses) - I deal with experimental facts, with evidence. The French mathematician and astronomer Laplace, asked about God, said "I have no need of that hypothesis." PRAGMATISM IN RELIGION It is now appropriate to consider pragmatism in religion. Pragmatism is the philosophy of accepting something - a theory, a policy, an explanation - because it works ; judging it by the result of adopting it, not because it is thought to represent ultimate truth (whatever that means !). It is a perfectly valid basis for a personal religion, for a guide to a personal way of life. Anyone who says : "I will act as though there is a personal god who wishes me to worship him and who will respond to my prayers. I will act as though SOF MAGAZINE, SUMMER 1991 11 my well-being in a postulated future life depends on my response to my postulated god." - and uses this as a guide for life - is adopting a pragmatic approach to religion. This may well be what the vast majority of churchgoers are doing, without in fact realising it, not having thought enough about what they are doing. It is a perfectly valid and acceptable approach.
What is not at all acceptable is that they should assert that they are dealing with reality and ignore the fact that their edifice is founded on unverifiable postulates. What is still more unacceptable is that they should judge others who are not prepared to do as they do. This provides the prime difficulty in discussing religion with the unthinking majority of churchgoers. They do not accept, perhaps because they are unaware of it, that they are undeniably relying on "make-believe" in their pragmatic approach to religion. Any attempts they may make to pass on their beliefs - as distinct from their ethics - to others must unmistakenly be called indoctrination, the teaching of their own doctrines. Their justification for doing so must rely on their conviction that what seems right for them must also be right for others. They may be presuming too much. The churches are on far safer ground when concentrating on Christ's teaching about how we can best conduct our lives than when they wander off onto accounts of supposed reasons for following it.
BERNARD SPURGIN is a retired Physics master living in Sleaford, Lincs. He has attended all three previous SOF Conferences.