In a story I originally read in a post by Family First which can be found here I decided to look a little closer and so followed the story to the Mail Online here.
While both sources clearly laid out the details of the story, what I sensed lacking, was a clear articulation of how this was not only unfair but quite plainly ludicrous. Just further evidence of a global trend to marginalize the Christian voice and presence whether by force as in the sort of violence seen against Christian minorities and others in ISIS controlled Middle East or by legalese and political correctness as found in Olde Englande as was rightly pointed out by Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester in a separate development of the story on the same page entitled:
The irony of the situation should not be lost on us when we consider that it takes a Christian who hails from a recent Muslim background to point out what should have been obvious to a nation of Christianized people whose laws and judicial system had been influenced by Christianity for 1500 years! Familiarity has indeed bred contempt.
Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester, said the Lord Chancellor had 'declared war on faith'
Rather than repeat the sorry story all over again in this space I wish to focus on just one point from this all too familiar scenario. What does the following phrase really mean?:
"influenced by his religious beliefs and not by the evidence"
Is it not ineradicably true that the evidence is always interpreted through the lens of ones beliefs, religious or otherwise? Is it intrinsically wrong to be influenced by religion? Does that automatically qualify as a prejudice? Is it inherently wrong to interpret evidence through your own worldview? Does this only apply if you are a Christian? Is it even possible to do otherwise? Can judgements based on evidence be completely separated from our understanding of reality? Is it similarly considered automatically prejudicial to let a naturalistic view of the world inform your decisions regarding sexuality, or the rights of children? Or indeed any issue of morality? How has the Chief justice's own worldview coloured his view of the effects of the religious worldview? How does it inform him of the idea of justice and morality? On what basis does the Chief justice assume that a naturalistic, materialistic view of the world is any more neutral and impartial than the one he is castigating?
Don't we believe that belief in the virtue of honesty is integral to right judgement? We take that for granted, we are so used to assuming honesty is paramount. But it is not a foregone conclusion at all. Take the present situation in Isis controlled territories, and the harsh judgements dished out in reference to the strict observance of Sharia law. Does honesty feature as much there as we have so luxuriated in, in our Western cultures? How can we even begin to expect that when- enshrined in the Qur'anic traditions- we observe a thing called "Al-Taqiyya" which, in a nutshell is a justification for Muslims to lie when it is expedient to do so with regard to their struggle to see Islam as the unchallenged, world dominating religion?
So you see, the assumption of the importance of honesty and its corelative Truth, is a belief that we in the West have held paramount in our deliberations and judgements in issues of law and justice. It is a worldview issue that both secular and Christian worldviews have held in common for centuries. Would it be wise to separate honesty as a belief, when dealing with issues of justice? If the answer to that isn't obvious- don't bother reading on any further. To put it in other words, who in their right mind does not see that faith in the virtue of honesty is a belief that is imperative in the search for truth, and real justice cannot be dispensed without truth. But this faith in the necessity of honesty is part of the lens through which all the evidence will be weighed and observed. It makes no more sense to separate oneself from the lens through which one makes sense of the world and every issue in it- than it does to try and live a life quite apart from the blood that flows in your veins.
Why should a secular worldview not be put aside for purposes of making judgements with regard to the evidence? Why is it necessarily assumed that a naturalistic view of the world is automatically presupposed to be a more accurate representation of reality? Is it not true that naturalists simply assume that naturalism and a materialistic view of the world is ideologically neutral?
Why should a naturalistic view of the world be allowed to trump a theological worldview?
If we indeed live in a reality in which objective morality does not exist, that is- a morality that reaches no higher than human convention- to favour a non-religious worldview over a religious one is patently discrimination. If there are no objective moral imperatives- if every circumstance can only be defined by subjective values, which is the default position for the naturalist, then clearly a religious worldview is just as valid as a naturalistic worldview. Any discrimination against the religious influence in a persons judgement is clearly wrong especially on their own terms. One then sees the impossibility of the contrary- because in the statement above I just said that, in that case, "any discrimination against the religious influence in a persons judgement is clearly wrong". Suppose I had said that "any discrimination against the naturalistic worldview is clearly wrong"- assuming the reality that no objective morality exists. Well, if there were no objective moral values then that too would be clearly wrong. But in the very act of saying something is "clearly wrong" I am just as clearly relating to an objective standard by which to distinguish what is right from wrong.
This sort of thinking goes on all the time in so many spheres. But it is indeed riotous to observe this at such a prodigious level.
Therefore objective moral values do exist. That conclusion is inescapable.
Why is the presupposition that we live in a strictly material universe favoured as a neutral view when it quite clearly undermines the basis for any objective morality? The idea of justice as an impartial
The Lord Chancellor of Great Britain whose high office has been in constant use at least since 1066 C.E. was in earlier days almost always a churchman, and was called upon to decide issues of "equity" as well as being the head of the judiciary.
In consideration of the history of his office, I suggest the Lord Chancellor be re-educated and to facilitate this I recommend the following video clip:
Judges who dispense justice on the basis of objective morality are honouring their profession and discharging their sacred duty by serving justice.
Judges who dispense justice on the basis of the shifting sands of arbitrary pragmatism are playing God.
The secularist who tells the religious to forget his prejudice and look only at the evidence with the same eyes as the secularist is actually asking us to ignore his own blindspot, to ignore the reality not to mention the sheer arrogance of believing his view is the only possible view through which reality can be viewed. Now I use the word arrogance guardedly, because it is only arrogance in so far as his view is merely assumed to be the only correct way to look at the world. It is not arrogance if he has done a thorough job of it. It is not temerity to hold to a worldview that is believed on thoroughly grounded evidence to be the best possible explanation for reality in as far as we are capable of knowing it.
So as far as the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice are concerned, on what epistemological basis is their own wordview grounded? On what evidence do they hold that a philosophical naturalist perspective of reality is superior to a Christian one?
In fact I would take it much further, on a naturalistic basis on what grounds do they even believe in a thing called justice? How can they account for it? If anyone should be asked to be reeducated it should be those who cannot account for even the idea of justice. Objective morality is everywhere assumed- but it cannot be inferred rationally from a naturalistic worldview.
I would echo the words of Fyodor Dostoevsky which a Russian speaker assures us he did say through his character in the novel "The Brothers Karamazov"
In a controversial article entitled "Why There Is No Such Thing As A Good Atheist" presented in the Huffington Post (18-12-2013) by Pastor Rick Henderson gives a clear, convincing argument why anyone assuming the worldview that the whole of reality is strictly material cannot thereby account for morality. And if there is no ability to account for morality in that worldview then it is clearly deficient. If you cannot reasonably account for morality, how can justice be dispensed? The provocative title to his op-ed tells it all- if you are an atheist you cannot be good, because your definition of reality has rendered "good" and "evil" without basis, without meaning.
Further developments:
Go to a later post outlining an observation by the Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court decision over the issue of same sex marriage, In that landmark decision, the Chief Justice openly criticises the other Justices who carried the majority, of making their decision as "an act of will" rather than in deference to the Constitution or any legal argument. In short that they let their prior commitment to a worldview influence their decision. Al Mohler cites the Lord Chief Justice as stating that the decision was based more on "philosophy rather than the rule of law" and therefore their worldview has influenced their decision.
Why should a secular worldview not be put aside for purposes of making judgements with regard to the evidence? Why is it necessarily assumed that a naturalistic view of the world is automatically presupposed to be a more accurate representation of reality? Is it not true that naturalists simply assume that naturalism and a materialistic view of the world is ideologically neutral?
Why should a naturalistic view of the world be allowed to trump a theological worldview?
If we indeed live in a reality in which objective morality does not exist, that is- a morality that reaches no higher than human convention- to favour a non-religious worldview over a religious one is patently discrimination. If there are no objective moral imperatives- if every circumstance can only be defined by subjective values, which is the default position for the naturalist, then clearly a religious worldview is just as valid as a naturalistic worldview. Any discrimination against the religious influence in a persons judgement is clearly wrong especially on their own terms. One then sees the impossibility of the contrary- because in the statement above I just said that, in that case, "any discrimination against the religious influence in a persons judgement is clearly wrong". Suppose I had said that "any discrimination against the naturalistic worldview is clearly wrong"- assuming the reality that no objective morality exists. Well, if there were no objective moral values then that too would be clearly wrong. But in the very act of saying something is "clearly wrong" I am just as clearly relating to an objective standard by which to distinguish what is right from wrong.
This sort of thinking goes on all the time in so many spheres. But it is indeed riotous to observe this at such a prodigious level.
Therefore objective moral values do exist. That conclusion is inescapable.
"For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind" G.K. Chesterton.
Why is the presupposition that we live in a strictly material universe favoured as a neutral view when it quite clearly undermines the basis for any objective morality? The idea of justice as an impartial
The Lord Chancellor of Great Britain whose high office has been in constant use at least since 1066 C.E. was in earlier days almost always a churchman, and was called upon to decide issues of "equity" as well as being the head of the judiciary.
In consideration of the history of his office, I suggest the Lord Chancellor be re-educated and to facilitate this I recommend the following video clip:
Video courtesy of William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith.Org"
Judges who dispense justice on the basis of objective morality are honouring their profession and discharging their sacred duty by serving justice.
Judges who dispense justice on the basis of the shifting sands of arbitrary pragmatism are playing God.
The secularist who tells the religious to forget his prejudice and look only at the evidence with the same eyes as the secularist is actually asking us to ignore his own blindspot, to ignore the reality not to mention the sheer arrogance of believing his view is the only possible view through which reality can be viewed. Now I use the word arrogance guardedly, because it is only arrogance in so far as his view is merely assumed to be the only correct way to look at the world. It is not arrogance if he has done a thorough job of it. It is not temerity to hold to a worldview that is believed on thoroughly grounded evidence to be the best possible explanation for reality in as far as we are capable of knowing it.
So as far as the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice are concerned, on what epistemological basis is their own wordview grounded? On what evidence do they hold that a philosophical naturalist perspective of reality is superior to a Christian one?
In fact I would take it much further, on a naturalistic basis on what grounds do they even believe in a thing called justice? How can they account for it? If anyone should be asked to be reeducated it should be those who cannot account for even the idea of justice. Objective morality is everywhere assumed- but it cannot be inferred rationally from a naturalistic worldview.
I would echo the words of Fyodor Dostoevsky which a Russian speaker assures us he did say through his character in the novel "The Brothers Karamazov"
Without God there can be no moral absolutes, and without moral absolutes there can be nothing but arbitrary human judgements, there can be no such thing as being able to account for justice in this world or any other. Justice cannot even be a legitimate category, still less dispensed equitably in a relativistic world."If God does not exist, everything is permitted."
In a controversial article entitled "Why There Is No Such Thing As A Good Atheist" presented in the Huffington Post (18-12-2013) by Pastor Rick Henderson gives a clear, convincing argument why anyone assuming the worldview that the whole of reality is strictly material cannot thereby account for morality. And if there is no ability to account for morality in that worldview then it is clearly deficient. If you cannot reasonably account for morality, how can justice be dispensed? The provocative title to his op-ed tells it all- if you are an atheist you cannot be good, because your definition of reality has rendered "good" and "evil" without basis, without meaning.
'Anything and everything that happens in such a universe is meaningless. A tree falls. A young girl is rescued from sexual slavery. A dog barks. A man is killed for not espousing the national religion. These are all actions that can be known and explained but never given any meaning or value.
A good atheist -- that is, a consistent atheist -- recognizes this dilemma. His only reasonable conclusion is to reject objective meaning and morality. Thus, calling him "good" in the moral sense is nonsensical. There is no morally good atheist, because there really is no objective morality.
At best, morality is the mass delusion shared by humanity, protecting us from the cold sting of despair.
For those of you who think you're about to light up this supposed straw man and raze me to the ground, consider the following:
"Modern science directly implies that there ... is no ultimate meaning for humans."
--William Provine
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. ... DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
--Richard Dawkins
"No species, ours included, possesses a purpose beyond the imperatives created by its genetic history."
--Edward O. Wilson
Based on the nonnegotiable premises of atheism, these are the only logical conclusions. But I've never met an atheist who's managed to live this way.
All the atheists I've known personally and from afar live as if there is objective meaning and morality. How is this explained?
In a Hail Mary-like attempt to reconcile the inescapability of objective morality and their assurances of atheism, two possible answers are launched.
1. Morality is the result of socio-biological evolution. This is a two-pronged attempt at justifying moral claims. First, a sense of morality evolved to ensure human survival. Much like an eye or tooth, it is necessary for the human race to continue. If this were true, for any claim to be moral, it would have to serve the practical purpose of advancing the human race. So compassion for the dying would be immoral, and killing mentally handicapped children would be moral. Perhaps the most moral action would be men raping many women and forcing them to birth more children.
Morality, in this view, can only mean those actions that are helpful to make more fit humans. It does nothing to help us grapple with the truth that it's always wrong to torture diseased children or rape women.
Second, morality was developed to ensure the success of societies, which are necessary for human survival and thriving. Like the rules of a board game, morality is contrived to bring us together for productivity and happiness. If this were true, there is nothing to which we can appeal when we find the behavior of other societies repugnant and reprehensible. Because morality is the construct of a social group, it cannot extend further than a society's borders or endure longer than a society's existence.
Furthermore, within our own society, the most immoral are not merely the ones who transgress our code but the ones who intend to change it. This would make those fighting for marriage equality the most immoral -- that is, until they become the majority and institute change. I suppose they then become moral, and traditionalists become immoral. But it's the math that determines rightness or wrongness of a side, not the content of any belief or argument.
So this view of morality does nothing to provide a reasonable answer for why it would be objectively wrong to torture diseased children, rape women or kill those who don't affirm a national religion. It only provides a motivation for continuing the delusion of objective morality.
2. Morality is logical. Atheists who take this route start in a position of checkmate without realizing it. First, the temptation is to pervert this conversation into a debate about whether atheists can be moral. Of course they can. That is not the question. The question is how we make sense of moral claims if we play by the rules that atheism demands.
Morality may be logical, but logic does not equate to morality. The only way to make a logical moral argument is to presuppose morality and meaning to start with. Try making a logical argument that slavery is wrong without presupposing morality. It is impossible. A woman wrote to me with her attempt at doing just that. Her claim was that slavery is logically wrong because it diminishes other human beings. The problem is that that argument presupposes human dignity. In the strict framework of atheism outlined above, what reason is there to ever assume human dignity?
All logical arguments for morality assume that human thriving, happiness and dignity are superior to contrary views. The strict framework of atheism does not allow for those starting points. So any person arguing for 1 or 2 would not be a good atheist. That is, he lives in contradiction to the mandates of his worldview.' Pastor Rick Henderson
Go to a later post outlining an observation by the Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court decision over the issue of same sex marriage, In that landmark decision, the Chief Justice openly criticises the other Justices who carried the majority, of making their decision as "an act of will" rather than in deference to the Constitution or any legal argument. In short that they let their prior commitment to a worldview influence their decision. Al Mohler cites the Lord Chief Justice as stating that the decision was based more on "philosophy rather than the rule of law" and therefore their worldview has influenced their decision.
