religion

“Redemptoris Missio was not a positive response to the challenges posed by religious pluralism.” Discuss [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

Redemptoris Missio, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, was written in response to what the Church perceived as a crisis of missionary identity in an increasingly religiously plural world. In sections 55–57 in particular, the encyclical addresses interreligious dialogue, affirming it as part of the Church’s mission while maintaining the uniqueness and universality of Christ. Religious pluralism, understood as the coexistence of multiple truth claims and religious traditions within a shared social space, presents a theological challenge: how can Christianity affirm its own truth while engaging respectfully with others? Critics argue that Redemptoris Missio fails to respond positively to this challenge because it ultimately prioritises proclamation over genuine dialogue. However, this essay will argue that, despite certain tensions, Redemptoris Missio represents a largely positive and theologically coherent response, as it integrates dialogue into mission, affirms the presence of truth in other religions, and provides a framework for respectful engagement without capitulating to relativism.

One reason to view Redemptoris Missio as a positive response to religious pluralism is its clear affirmation that interreligious dialogue is an essential dimension of the Church’s mission. In section 55, Pope John Paul II states that dialogue “does not originate from tactical concerns or self-interest” but is “part of the Church’s evangelizing mission.” This is a significant development, as it moves beyond earlier models that saw other religions primarily as objects of conversion. Instead, dialogue is presented as a genuine encounter characterised by “mutual knowledge and enrichment.” This reflects the influence of Vatican II and documents such as Nostra Aetate, suggesting continuity in the Church’s approach to pluralism. Scholars such as David Bosch have argued that this marks a shift towards a more dialogical and less triumphalist understanding of mission. By recognising that other religions can contain “elements of truth and grace” (section 56), the encyclical acknowledges the spiritual value of non-Christian traditions without abandoning Christian particularity. This creates space for respectful engagement and cooperation, which is essential in pluralistic societies. Therefore, by embedding dialogue within its theology of mission, Redemptoris Missio offers a constructive and positive response to the realities of religious diversity.

A further strength of Redemptoris Missio lies in its attempt to hold together commitment to truth with openness to others, thereby avoiding both exclusivism and relativism. In sections 56–57, the encyclical insists that dialogue and proclamation are “both legitimate and necessary,” rejecting the idea that engaging with other religions requires a dilution of Christian belief. This balance is crucial in responding to pluralism, as it allows Christians to participate in dialogue without abandoning the claim that salvation is found in Christ. This position is philosophically underpinned by Fides et Ratio, which argues that truth is objective, even if human understanding of it is limited. From this perspective, dialogue becomes a means of deepening one’s grasp of truth rather than relativising it. Theologians such as Gavin D’Costa have defended this approach as a form of “inclusivism,” where other religions are valued but ultimately fulfilled in Christianity. While this may not satisfy all critics, it provides a coherent framework for engaging with pluralism without collapsing into what Dominus Iesus later describes as a “relativistic mentality.” Consequently, Redemptoris Missio can be seen as offering a nuanced and balanced response, maintaining doctrinal integrity while encouraging genuine dialogue.

However, critics argue that Redemptoris Missio is not a positive response to religious pluralism because it ultimately subordinates dialogue to evangelisation, thereby limiting its authenticity. Despite its affirmations of mutual enrichment, the encyclical insists that proclamation remains primary, which may suggest that dialogue is instrumental rather than genuinely reciprocal. The pluralist theologian John Hick would argue that this position fails to take religious diversity seriously, as it continues to privilege Christianity as the normative path to salvation. Similarly, Paul Knitter critiques such approaches for engaging in dialogue “with a hidden agenda,” undermining trust between traditions. From this perspective, sections 55–57 reveal an unresolved tension: while dialogue is affirmed, it is ultimately framed within a missionary paradigm that seeks conversion. This can create what might be termed a “surface openness,” where other religions are respected but not treated as equal partners. Furthermore, critics influenced by postcolonial thought argue that such a model risks perpetuating historical patterns of religious dominance, particularly when applied in non-Western contexts. While defenders such as Gavin D’Costa maintain that truth claims must be preserved, the concern remains that Redemptoris Missio does not fully embrace the implications of pluralism. Nevertheless, these criticisms, while significant, do not entirely undermine the encyclical’s positive contributions. The insistence on proclamation reflects a commitment to theological coherence rather than hostility to other religions, and the genuine space it creates for dialogue should not be overlooked. Therefore, although the document exhibits tensions, it still represents a meaningful and largely constructive engagement with pluralism.

In conclusion, Redemptoris Missio can be seen as a broadly positive response to the challenges posed by religious pluralism, even if it is not without its limitations. Its greatest strength lies in its integration of interreligious dialogue into the Church’s mission, particularly in sections 55–57, where dialogue is affirmed as a source of mutual enrichment. While critics argue that its commitment to proclamation undermines genuine openness, this tension reflects an attempt to balance truth and dialogue rather than a failure to engage with pluralism. Ultimately, the encyclical offers a framework that is both theologically coherent and practically applicable, enabling Christians to engage with other religions in a spirit of respect without abandoning their core beliefs. In an increasingly diverse world, this balanced approach remains valuable, and further development of its dialogical elements could enhance its contribution to interfaith relations.

“To what extent has inter-faith dialogue contributed positively to community cohesion” [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

Inter-faith dialogue can be broadly defined as constructive, respectful engagement between members of different religious traditions, aimed at increasing understanding, reducing conflict and fostering cooperation. Within Christian theology, official encouragement for such dialogue can be found in Redemptoris Missio (1990), where Pope John Paul II describes dialogue as “part of the Church’s evangelizing mission,” and in the Church of England’s Sharing the Gospel of Salvation (1999), which affirms that dialogue and proclamation are not mutually exclusive but complementary. In practice, inter-faith dialogue may take structured forms such as scriptural reasoning—where Jews, Christians and Muslims read sacred texts together—or community initiatives like joint charity work and local interfaith councils. This essay will argue that inter-faith dialogue has contributed significantly and positively to community cohesion by fostering mutual understanding, reducing prejudice, and encouraging collaborative action, although its impact is sometimes limited by superficial engagement and power imbalances.

One key way in which inter-faith dialogue contributes positively to community cohesion is by breaking down ignorance and prejudice between religious groups. Misunderstanding is often at the root of social division, and dialogue creates a space in which misconceptions can be challenged. Through sustained engagement, individuals begin to see members of other religions not as abstract “others” but as neighbours with shared concerns. Theologically, this is supported by Redemptoris Missio, which states that dialogue is “a method and means of mutual knowledge and enrichment.” This suggests that dialogue is not merely polite conversation but transformative encounter. Empirically, practices like scriptural reasoning exemplify this: by reading texts together, participants gain insight into both differences and shared moral themes, fostering intellectual humility and respect. Scholars such as David Ford have argued that scriptural reasoning builds “deep mutual understanding without erasing difference,” which is crucial for genuine cohesion rather than enforced uniformity. The positive impact is clear: communities that engage in such dialogue are less likely to experience religiously motivated tension, as individuals are equipped to challenge stereotypes. Therefore, by addressing ignorance at its root, inter-faith dialogue directly strengthens the social fabric and supports the thesis that it contributes positively to cohesion.

A further strength of inter-faith dialogue lies in its ability to promote cooperative action and shared civic identity. Dialogue does not remain purely theoretical; it often leads to joint initiatives that benefit the wider community, such as food banks, disaster relief, and peacebuilding projects. This reflects the teaching in Sharing the Gospel of Salvation, which emphasises that Christians should engage with others “in service to the common good.” When religious groups collaborate in this way, they demonstrate that diversity need not lead to division but can instead enrich communal life. Sociologically, this aligns with the concept of “bridging social capital,” where connections between different groups strengthen overall societal resilience. For example, interfaith organisations in the UK, such as local councils of Christians, Jews and Muslims, have successfully addressed issues like homelessness and youth violence by pooling resources and perspectives. Such cooperation reinforces a sense of shared responsibility and belonging, key components of community cohesion. Moreover, this practical dimension of dialogue counters the criticism that religion is inherently divisive, showing instead that faith can be a unifying force. Consequently, inter-faith dialogue not only improves attitudes but also produces tangible benefits, further supporting the claim that its contribution to cohesion is substantial.

However, it can be argued that inter-faith dialogue has a limited or even counterproductive impact on community cohesion, particularly when it becomes overly idealistic, superficial, or theologically reductive. Echoing concerns articulated in Dominus Iesus—largely authored by Pope Benedict XVI— Roman Catholic Scholar Gavin D’Costa maintains that dialogue can risk collapsing genuine doctrinal differences into a form of relativism, thereby weakening the integrity of religious traditions; if participants feel pressured to minimise exclusive truth claims, this may generate distrust rather than cohesion. Similarly, David Ford’s successor as leader of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme Nicholas Adams has expressed scepticism about the way interfaith dialogue is often framed, arguing that it can become a “performance of agreement” rather than a site of genuine theological engagement. For Adams, dialogue that prioritises harmony over truth risks becoming inauthentic, as it avoids the difficult but necessary task of grappling with real disagreement. This critique is reinforced by Mohammad Arkoun’s observation that many interfaith initiatives are dominated by liberal, educated elites, leaving more conservative or marginalised voices unheard. As a result, dialogue may fail to address the very tensions it seeks to resolve, limiting its practical impact on wider community cohesion. Moreover, power imbalances between majority and minority religions and the difficulty of engaging textually with non-Abrahamic traditions can lead to tokenistic inclusion, where dialogue serves more as a symbolic gesture than a transformative process. Nevertheless, these criticisms ultimately highlight weaknesses in the implementation of inter-faith dialogue rather than in its fundamental aims. Authentic models of dialogue (such as scriptural reasoning as practiced at Rose Castle) directly address Adams’ concerns by encouraging participants to engage deeply with difference rather than avoid it. Furthermore, as David Ford has explained, the acknowledgement of disagreement—rather than its suppression—can foster a more robust and honest form of cohesion grounded in mutual respect. Therefore, while the critiques of Benedict XVI, D’Costa and Adams expose important limitations, they do not negate the overall positive contribution of inter-faith dialogue; instead, they point towards the need for more rigorous, inclusive, and theologically serious forms of engagement, thereby reinforcing the original thesis. Such critiques suggest that inter-faith dialogue may at best produce a fragile ‘surface cohesion’ based on politeness; however, this only strengthens the case for more theologically rigorous forms of dialogue capable of generating deeper, more resilient cohesion grounded in honesty.

In conclusion, inter-faith dialogue has contributed positively to community cohesion to a significant extent. Its greatest strength lies in its ability to transform relationships through understanding, as well as to inspire collaborative action for the common good. While criticisms regarding superficiality and limited reach are important, they do not undermine the core value of dialogue as a means of fostering respect and unity amidst diversity. Ultimately, in an increasingly pluralistic society, the need for meaningful engagement between religious communities is more urgent than ever. Expanding access to inter-faith initiatives and embedding dialogue in education and local governance would further enhance its impact, ensuring that community cohesion continues to grow in both depth and resilience.

Critically evaluate Richard Dawkins’ critique of religion. [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

Richard Dawkins is better known today as a celebrity atheist than he is for his work in evolutionary biology.  His “The God Delusion” (2006) presents a devastating critique of religion, which became a bestseller and provoked many people of faith to respond in defence of religion, including Alastair McGrath and Terry Eagleton.  Overall, Dawkins’ critique of religion was shown not to be successful.

Firstly, Dawkins argued criticised religion because as he sees it, science has made faith either unnecessary or impossible.  Big Bang Theory and Evolution explains the existence and nature of the universe better than Religion, offering a simpler and evidence-based view.  It is no longer necessary to posit God as the explanation for why the universe and human life exists and not intellectually possible given the existence of a superior alternative explanation.  For Dawkins’ “The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity” so that “Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun.” Religion makes assertions which are grounded in faith, which represents a retreat from a rigorous, evidence-based concern for truth. For Dawkins, truth is grounded in explicit proof; any form of mysticism grounded in faith is to be opposed vigorously. Dawkins is deeply suspicious of faith, which he understands as being unshakably committed to a position beyond the evidence or even in the teeth of the evidence. By this definition, faith would be the opposite of the approach a scientist should have towards the truth. Scientific method demands that scientists accept only those beliefs that are supported by evidence and then in such a way as to be open to those beliefs being falsified and either dropped or modified as new evidence comes to light. For Dawkins, being committed to an unevidenced position is the antithesis of the scientific ideal.  He wrote “Religious fanatics want people to switch off their own minds, ignore the evidence, and blindly follow a holy book based upon private ‘revelation’.” And “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”, “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” Concluding, “Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.”  Nevertheless, in both “The Dawkins Delusion” (2006) and in lectures given on the topic, Professor Alister McGrath makes several criticisms of Dawkins’ arguments. In particular, he pointed out that Dawkins promotes the myth that science and religion are engaged in a warfare from which only one can emerge as victorious. This sets up a FALSE DICHOTOMY, meaning that Dawkins argument is fallacious.  McGrath’s argument is supported by the existence of many leading scientists who are religious, for example John Polkinghorne.  They do not subscribe to the view that religion is unnecessary or that faith is impossible and nor do they accept that science and religion are opposed, that it has to be either or.  McGrath is right to argue that that Science does NOT necessarily lead to Atheism. As scientists from Aristotle to Stephen Jay Gould have observed, science just can’t answer questions about God’s existence or nature. McGrath wrote… “To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time: science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists”.  This view is persuasive; it is unscientific to do as Dawkins does and treat Evolution as if it was fact and simply ignore evidence to the contrary or the prevalent human experience of God because it doesn’t suit the theory. Because of this, McGrath showed Dawkins’ critique of religion not to be successful.

Secondly, Dawkins argued that belief in God arises from a “meme”, or a “virus of the mind”. The idea of the MEME first appeared in Richard Dawkins’ first book “The Selfish Gene” (1976) as an attempt to understand why some behaviours, from an evolutionary perspective, seemed to make no sense but, somehow or other, were found to be very common in human societies. As Dawkins emphasised, natural selection is a ruthless judge of its subjects and any frailty, physical or behavioural, is almost inevitably rewarded by a rapid exit from the gene pool. It therefore followed that any widespread behaviour, prevalent in a thriving population, no matter how immediately inexplicable, should give some advantage in terms of gene survival. Continued research – now called MIMETICS and conducted by Psychologists like Susan Blackmore aimed to understand the reasons behind animal behaviours has yielded results that are entirely consistent with Dawkins’ thesis. Aaron Lynch in Thought Contagion: How Belief Spreads Through Society (2005) sets out seven different ways in which memes are passed on in society, including through proselytism or encouraging believers to pass them on, through encouraging believers to preserve them, or through being adversarial (encouraging people to oppose the dominant view), cognitive (appealing to reason) or motivational (inspiring people to behave in a particular way).  Nevertheless, while Dawkins’ claim that religion is a meme is influential and superficially attractive, there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of memes and as McGrath pointed out, in fact Dawkins relies on memes of his own.  These come in the form of prevalent historical myths – such as the legendary account of the debate between Wilberforce and Huxley at Oxford – which cast a lingering shadow over contemporary discussions by supporting Dawkins’ erroneous view that science and religion are necessarily opposed and that it has to be either/or and that there is no middle way of accepting both science and religion. For McGrath, Dawkins taps into science vs. religion memes so that participants in today’s debate are DAMNED BY ASSOCIATION with caricatures of previous participants, showing that Dawkins’ critique of religion is fallacious in relying on the GENETIC FALLACY as well as a FALSE DICHOTOMY.  In this way also McGrath showed Dawkins’ critique of religion not to be successful.

Thirdly, Dawkins argues that Religion offers an impoverished vision of the world. In contrast, science offers a bold and brilliant vision of the universe as grand, beautiful, and awe-inspiring. As Dawkins explained in his “Religion: The Root of All Evil?” documentary for Channel 4 (2000), religion proposes a poky, medieval vision of the universe which pales into insignificance beside the grand design of the scientific vision of the universe.  As he wrote: “The universe presented by organized religion is a poky little medieval universe, and  extremely limited” As Dawkins sees it Religion peddles bronze-age myths to answer life’s big questions, myths which offer us as poor a moral guide as they do a scientific account of creation. Yet McGrath presents a convincing riposte to this point as well.  He points out that Dawkins is working with a very particular definition and understanding of the things he argues against. For Dawkins faith “means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence” (The Selfish Gene, 1988) and faith is “the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence… Faith is not allowed to justify itself by argument” This non-propositional, fideist definition of faith wholly contrasts with the propositional definition of faith put forward by many Philosophers of Religion… so Dawkins is, in effect, setting up a STRAW MAN and introducing yet another fallacy into his argument. For McGrath, Scripture contains a positive moral message and Truth, but it needs to be interpreted as a whole rather than quoted selectively to understand this.  He argues that religion accounts for the existence of morality much better than evolution, which struggles to explain altruism. McGrath drew on CS Lewis’ moral argument here. It is fair to say that evolution cannot, albeit as yet, provide a convincing explanation for moral altruism, despite the efforts of Robert Trivers and other evolutionary psychologists to explain it in terms of kin selection and other theories. McGrath’s critique of Dawkins is, therefore, persuasive.  He shows that Dawkins claims about religion offering an impoverished vision of the world are based on an unfair and narrow account of religion and are fallacious once again.

On the other hand, Dawkins’ critique of religion is persuasive when he points out that “The universe doesn’t owe us condolence or consolation; it doesn’t owe us a nice warm feeling inside…” and when he asks “How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe something because he finds it ‘comforting’?”  While McGrath is not guilty of wishful thinking and projecting a God to fulfil human needs and wants, as Dawkins – and of course Feuerbach and Freud before him – rightly point out, many religious people are. Even if Dawkins Critique cannot fairly apply to all religious believers, it certainly does apply to some.  Further, Dawkins is right to point out that “The chances of each of us coming into existence are infinitesimally small, and even though we shall all die someday, we should count ourselves fantastically lucky to get our decades in the sun.”  It is true that religious beliefs sometimes encourage people to think, rather like babies, that their own existence was planned and inevitable and that they are the centre of the universe.  This can lead believers to over-emphasise their own and human importance more generally, leading to selfish behaviours and Speciesism, as Peter Singer has pointed out.  Yet again Dawkins critique is unfairly applied to all religion and all religious believers.  As McGrath points out, Dawkins’ critique of religion depends on a GENETIC FALLACY, damning all believers because of their association with “prevalent historical myths” such as the denial of the heliocentric universe or evolution. Just because Bishop Wilberforce was a Christian does not make him a fair representative of Christian faith today!  Just because many believers are guilty of wishful and childish thinking does not mean that all are. It is unfair to characterise the faith of McGrath, or of others such as John Polkinghorne or William Lane Craig in the way that Dawkins attempts to.  Dawkins’ critique of religion depends, therefore, on the FALLACY OF ASSOCIATION… damning all believers because they are associated with those whose faith depends on lazy or ill-informed thinking. It follows that Dawkins’ critique of religion is unsuccessful.

In conclusion, McGrath shows that Dawkins’ critique of religion is fallacious to its core and therefore unsuccessful.  As Terry Eagleton wittily observed in a review of “The God Delusion” back in 2006, “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology”

“It is right to give the poor a preferential option.” Discuss. [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

The idea of giving the poor a preferential option is central to Christian social teaching, particularly in Liberation Theology, which argues that those most vulnerable should be prioritised in ethical, social, and political action. Supporters claim that prioritising the poor corrects historical injustices, addresses structural inequality, and reflects God’s concern for the weak. Critics, however, question whether such an approach is ethically defensible, raising concerns about favouritism, fairness, and the rights of other groups. Philosophical debates, such as John Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness, which supports redistribution to benefit the least advantaged, and Robert Nozick’s focus on negative rights and equality of treatment, illuminate the ethical tensions involved. Biblical texts and classical theology also inform the debate: James 2:1–9 warns against unjust partiality, while Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between morally justified partiality and arbitrary favouritism. This essay argues that giving the poor a preferential option is morally right because it responds to structural injustice, fosters human flourishing, and is ethically defensible when framed as corrective justice, while remaining consistent with broader principles of fairness.

One reason it is right to give the poor a preferential option is that it addresses structural and historical injustice. Poverty is rarely the result of individual failure alone; it is often caused by systemic inequalities in wealth, education, and opportunity. Gustavo Gutiérrez, in his foundational work on Liberation Theology, emphasises praxis, arguing that theology must be rooted in the lived experiences of the poor, and that action is required to transform unjust structures. Leonardo Boff similarly highlights that prioritising those most disadvantaged allows resources and attention to reach those who are most affected by oppression, creating a foundation for broader social reform. Philosophically, John Rawls’ difference principle, outlined in A Theory of Justice (1971), justifies redistributive measures to improve the situation of the least advantaged, showing that ethical concern for the poor is compatible with a rational conception of justice. This contrasts with Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), which defends equality of treatment and negative rights but does not require intervention to achieve equity. Biblical precedent also supports this approach: Acts 2:44–45 describes early Christians distributing according to need, illustrating the moral imperative to prioritise those who cannot meet their own needs. Addressing structural injustice in this way is therefore both practically necessary and ethically defensible.

A second reason the preferential option is right is that it promotes human flourishing and solidarity, integrating moral, social, and spiritual dimensions. Christianity teaches that all humans are created in the image of God and possess intrinsic dignity, yet the poor often lack the resources to realise this potential. Prioritising their needs allows society to foster equality of opportunity and social cohesion. Acts 2 demonstrates that communal sharing, directed at the most vulnerable, benefits the community as a whole. Moreover, Christian belief in moral accountability and eternal reward motivates self-sacrificial action, encouraging individuals to act for justice even when immediate personal benefit is absent—a motivation absent in purely materialist systems. Theologically, James 2:1–9 reminds believers to avoid favouring the rich or powerful over the poor, highlighting that ethical action requires attentiveness to those in need. Aquinas’ ethical framework reinforces this: he distinguishes between just partiality, which favours those in need to correct disadvantage, and unjust partiality, which constitutes arbitrary bias. Thus, prioritising the poor is consistent with both moral theology and practical ethics. Philosophically, Rawls’ positive rights approach similarly justifies intervention to improve the prospects of the least advantaged, while ensuring that overall fairness and social cooperation are maintained.

Critics argue that giving the poor a preferential option is ethically problematic or unfair, raising concerns about favouritism and the rights of other groups. Nozick’s libertarian perspective stresses negative rights: redistributive action may violate the entitlements of those who have legitimately acquired property. Some theologians caution that privileging one group could conflict with impartial love or universal justice, as emphasised in Galatians 3:28, which asserts equality in Christ: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.” Critics also suggest that prioritising the poor could generate dependency or resentment, undermining social cohesion. From a purely consequentialist perspective, resources might be more efficiently used to maximise overall well-being rather than directed preferentially. However, these criticisms can be evaluated and rebutted. Preferential treatment of the poor is not arbitrary; it is a morally justified corrective measure designed to address inequalities that remain despite formal equality of treatment. Aquinas’ distinction between just and unjust partiality clarifies that supporting those in genuine need constitutes ethically defensible partiality, not unfair bias. Christian ethics and Liberation Theology frame preferential concern for the poor as fulfilling moral obligations rooted in human dignity and divine justice. Rawls’ difference principle provides further support: assisting the least advantaged is necessary to achieve substantive equality, rather than undermining fairness. Redistribution and prioritisation can be implemented carefully to respect negative rights, addressing Nozick’s concerns, while still ensuring that the most disadvantaged benefit from corrective measures. Biblical teaching supports this nuanced approach: while James 2 warns against unjust partiality, it implicitly endorses preferential concern for those marginalised, showing that moral reasoning can reconcile equality with targeted support. In this way, the preferential option is both ethically defensible and socially effective, promoting justice while maintaining respect for the rights of others.

In conclusion, it is right to give the poor a preferential option because it addresses structural injustice, fosters human flourishing, and is ethically justifiable as corrective partiality. Biblical texts such as Acts 2 and James 2, Aquinas’ moral reasoning on just partiality, and contemporary theological scholarship from Gustavo Gutiérrez and Leonardo Boff all support prioritising the most disadvantaged. Philosophically, Rawls’ theory of justice provides a framework for understanding why unequal treatment in favour of the poor can promote overall fairness, while concerns about equality of treatment, articulated by Nozick and Galatians 3:28, can be addressed through careful implementation that respects the rights of others. By integrating theological, ethical, and philosophical reasoning, the preferential option emerges as a morally coherent and practically effective approach to addressing social inequality, ensuring that justice, solidarity, and human dignity are upheld.

In meta-ethics, the term “good” has an objective factual basis. Discuss [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

In meta-ethics, in the past most scholars have held that the term “good” has an objective factual basis. Moral realists include ethical monotheists, who see the term good referring to God and God’s commands, as well as ethical naturalists, who see the term good referring to some quality that can be observed, and ethical non-naturalists, who see the term good referring to a rational intuition. On the other hand, since the early part of the 20th Century moral non-realism has come to dominate.  For example, non-realists like AJ Ayer and JL Mackie argue that the term “good” has no objective factual basis because it does not refer to a verifiable point of reference but rather expresses subjective feelings and emotions.  Overall, today the claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis is not persuasive.

Firstly, ethical monotheists claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis in God and God’s commands.  The Bible claims that “only God is truly good” Mark 10:18 and this is supported by both Classical Theism and Theistic Personalism, which have in different ways established that God is the omnibenevolent creator and the source of goodness in human actions. Further, at least for Protestant Christians, faith is Sola Scriptura and the Bible is a comprehensive moral guide, which suggests that what is good depends on God’s commands, which can be checked against the Bible, objectively.  Nevertheless, ethical monotheism is not credible.  Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma shows that if God is the source of moral standards, as ethical monotheism suggests, then God cannot be good but is an arbitrary tyrant.  On the other hand, if in fact there are objective moral standards that God follows, he can be good but is not the origin of goodness as ethical monotheists suggest, and neither is He all-powerful.  Bertrand Russell found the Euthyphro Dilemma so persuasive that he used it as the basis for a disproof of God. Further, centuries of Church history demonstrate the problems with the ethical monotheist claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis, when Christians so rarely agree on what it is or involves. Biblical Criticism shows that God’s commandments are not clear from the Bible, existing in different sometimes contradictory lists, being obviously influenced by the contexts of the biblical authors and being wide open to interpretation.  For example, the ten commandments are detailed in Exodus 20 and Exodus 34 and again in Deuteronomy 5.  The versions are phrased and organized differently, and the order of the coveting commandments is different between Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.  Further, Jesus said that the two greatest commandments were love God and love of neighbour in Mark 12 and also that love was the only commandment in John 13.  Which commandments should a Christian follow and with what priority?  Further, the Commandments have always been interpreted differently by different Christians.  For example, Catholics and Lutherans combine the first two commandments, “no other gods” and “no graven images” while other Protestant Christians separate the first two commandments, making “no graven images” a separate commandment and leading to radically different attitudes to art and architecture even within Protestantism.  These examples show how ethical monotheism and its claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis is not credible.

Secondly, ethical naturalists claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis which can be observed.  For example, the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham argued that “nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters; the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain”, reasoning that “good” refers to actions which produce the maximum amount of pleasure, which can be observed and measured using the seven criteria of extent, duration, intensity, certainty, propinquity, purity and fecundity, as well as the minimum amount of pain.  However, ethical naturalism is undermined by the is-ought gap, which Hume explained thus “in every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it’s necessary that it should be observed and explained; and while a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.”  Hume’s point was that we can observe nature and what is, but we can’t observe any basis for ought claims at all.  Ethical naturalism is based on assertion and not argument and has no observable factual basis for what it claims to be good. Further and despite being a moral realist and thinking that the term “good” has an objective factual basis, G.E Moore claimed that ethical naturalism relies on the “naturalistic fallacy”, the incorrect assumption that something is good because it occurs in nature or is considered normal in society.  For Moore, just because something is natural or normal does not make it good.  For example, misogyny and sexual violence have been endemic through history and still are across the world today… this does not make these good or right.  This shows that the claim that the term good has an objective factual basis cannot b supported through ethical naturalism either.

On the other hand, G.E Moore and other ethical non-naturalists have conceded that what is good depends neither on the commands of God nor on anything that can be observed in nature.  Instead, drawing on Plato, they have argued that we know what is good as a rational intuition.  This explains why people find some actions which go against laws and don’t maximise happiness are good… such as a soldier disobeying orders and getting himself killed while trying to save a comrade.  Nevertheless, ethical non-naturalism is no more persuasive a basis for the claim that the term “good” has an objective factual basis than ethical monotheism or ethical naturalism.  The claim that we all know what goodness is as a rational intuition ignores the fact that people have widely different concepts of what is good.  Actions like that of the soldier are controversial… yes, some people would see him as a hero and say that his actions were “good” despite breaking the rules and compounding suffering… but many would reject this and argue that he should have obeyed orders and lived. Further, AJ Ayer was right to point out that claims about good, bad, right and wrong are better seen as expressions of subjective feelings and emotions, having no objective factual basis, than as having an objective basis in a rational intuition that we can’t observe or prove. Ayer’s argument develops that of Hume, that while we can observe what is, claims about what we ought to do are pure assertion and not verifiable.  Further, JL Mackie later agreed with Ayer, pointing out that ethical claims are based on an error and that moral judgments in fact “reflect adherence to and participation in different ways of life.”  Here Mackie was influenced by Wittgenstein, who had cast doubt on the ability of any term to have an “objective factual basis” arguing that meaning in language comes from usage and not reference so that it is not objective or factual. All these points suggest that ethical non-naturalism fails to provide any better defence of the claim that terms like “good” have an objective factual basis than ethical monotheism and ethical naturalism and that in fact ethical non-realism is more persuasive in its suggestion that terms like “good” have only a subjective basis.

In conclusion, the term “good” has no objective factual basis but is rather subjective and best understood as an expression of personal or communal feelings and emotions.  Today, ethical realism lacks credibility, so attention should be focused on refining ethical non-realism to provide the best possible explanation for how and why people use ethical language.

The five primary precepts are the most important part of natural law. Discuss [40]

/ vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

St Thomas Aquinas explained his theory of natural law, which shares many characteristics with other versions of natural law, in Summa 2i. 94.2.  He explained how natural laws are discoverable through RATIO, the human intellect, which is made up of SPECULATIVE REASON and PRACTICAL REASON.  Speculative reason reveals abstract notions and principles, such as “good is that which all things seek after,” then practical reason applies these to real life, developing moral precepts for us to follow.  For example, “this is the first precept of [natural] law, that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” Aquinas goes on to explain how “all other precepts of the natural law are based upon this: so that whatever the practical reason naturally apprehends as man’s good (or evil) belongs to the precepts of the natural law as something to be done or avoided.” He elaborated on the precepts of natural law, listing and explaining primary and secondary precepts, explaining how “Since… good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary, hence it is that all those things to which man has a natural inclination, are naturally apprehended by reason as being good, and consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance. Wherefore according to the order of natural inclinations, is the order of the precepts of the natural law.” Primary precepts are thus established as “objects of pursuit” or prescriptions and secondary precepts as “objects of avoidance” or prohibitions.  For examples, “whatever is a means of preserving human life, and of warding off its obstacles, belongs to the natural law…” meaning that the preservation of human life is a primary precept and “do not murder” is a secondary precept. Aquinas also lists as primary precepts sexual intercourse, the education of offspring, knowing the truth about God and shunning ignorance as well as living in society, avoiding offending those amongst whom one must live.  Overall, the five primary precepts are not the most important part of natural law.

    Firstly, the five primary precepts are not the most important part of natural law because they are derived from the first precept “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided”, and different scholars have derived different lists of primary precepts, which have gone on to produce different lists of secondary precepts and disagreements in how natural law guides people in practical situations. Aquinas discussed whether or not his list of primary precepts was infallible in Summa 2i. 94. 2 and concluded that the first precept “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided” is infallible, because it is so closely related to the Primary Principle of speculative reason “good is that which all things seek after” and because speculative reason cannot be wrong, its objects being necessary truths.  Nevertheless, the primary precepts of the preservation of human life, sexual intercourse, the education of offspring, knowing the truth about God, shunning ignorance and living in society are known through synderesis, which must develop its understanding of these precepts as it is formed.  While nothing the synderesis suggests can be wrong, the list of primary precepts it provides might be incomplete, which explains why some societies seem unaware of some basic human goods.  Aquinas explains how it is possible to be unaware that living in society and avoiding offending neighbours is a primary precept, “thus formerly, theft, although it is expressly contrary to the natural law, was not considered wrong among the Germans, as Julius Caesar relates (De Bello Gall. vi).”  This would explain why later versions of natural law have listed the primary precepts differently, and particularly why some have added to Aquinas’ five.  For example, John Finnis lists seven basic human goods, including play and aesthetic experience.  This could be because Finnis’ synderesis has developed further than Aquinas’ did, coming to recognise the essential importance of fun and beauty to human flourishing in a way that Aquinas never did.  It follows that the fact that the list of five primary precepts provided by Aquinas, and indeed other lists in other versions of Natural Law, differ and might be incomplete suggests that they cannot be the most important part of natural law.

    Secondly, the primary precepts are general injunctions and need to be translated into secondary precepts in order to provide useful moral guidance. Whereas the primary precepts are positive, secondary precepts are negative and tell people what they must not do.  For example, preserve human life is a primary precept and “do not murder” is a secondary precept.  Yet there are often multiple secondary precepts derived from each primary precept.  For example, the primary precept of living in society would lead to a huge number of secondary prohibitions, ranging from do not steal to do not lie to do not be jealous or aggressive… It follows that the majority of moral rules that people live by in practice are secondary and not primary precepts, suggesting that the secondary precepts are more important than the primary precepts.  Of course, secondary precepts are all derived from the primary precepts, so could not exist without the primary precepts and would differ if the primary precepts differed.  This might suggest that the primary precepts are more important than the secondary precepts, and yet for most people their moral awareness begins with the conscientia speaking against certain actions in a negative way, such as by warning people not to cheat or deceive.  Although it is true that the conscientia does this because it is seeking to apply the primary precepts to specific situations, in practice people are usually aware of the secondary precepts before or even without being aware of the primary precepts, which suggests that in fact the secondary precepts are more important.

    On the other hand, Proportionalists like Bernard Hoose would argue that the primary precepts of Natural Law are more important than the secondary precepts because there are sometimes proportional justifications for breaking secondary precepts, but never for breaking primary precepts.  For example, the primary precept of preserving human life might lead to the secondary precept, don’t run inside… because running causes accidents and people might get hurt… but in the case of an explosion it might be proportionally justified to run, risking accidents, when this is the only way to save lives. Similarly, the primary precept of preserving human life might lead to a secondary prohibition against abortion, but in the case of an ectopic pregnancy where inaction would lead to the death of both mother and child, it might be proportionally justified to abort in order to preserve the maximum number of human lives. Hoose points out that even Aquinas uses proportional reasoning to justify war, capital punishment and even the toleration of prostitution… so surely this suggests that primary precepts are more important than secondary precepts, given that secondary precepts can be broken in the pursuit of good, but not primary precepts.  Nevertheless, while Hoose is right that proportional reasoning in the writing of Aquinas and later scholars suggests that secondary precepts are less important than primary precepts, proportionalism has been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, the main adopter of Natural Law.  The Church sees proportionalism as a slippery slope towards situation ethics, utilitarianism and antinomianism in ethics. Instead, the Church has chosen to adopt a Heteronomous Ethic, with the Magisterium using Natural Law alongside Scripture and Tradition to develop Church Teachings which are Secondary Precepts.  These are then used as the basis for encyclicals, Catholic instruction and advice as well as for formation. It follows that for ordinary Roman Catholics secondary precepts are more important than Primary Precepts, because they are encouraged to follow Church Teaching rather than to try to develop it!  While the Church accepts Aquinas’ teaching about conscience, it emphasises the importance of formation so that the Synderesis and Conscientia guide Catholics to follow Church teaching in all matters, rather than really to think for themselves.  This suggests that in practice secondary precepts are in fact more important than primary principles, even though this might not be true to Aquinas’ intention.

    In conclusion, the five primary precepts are not the most important part of natural law. As has been established, the list of five primary precepts might be incomplete and is certainly disputed, while also depending on the key precept “good is to be done and evil avoided”.  Further, secondary precepts make more difference in peoples’ lives today than primary precepts.

    To what extent is the cosmological argument a sufficient explanation for the existence of God? [40]

    / vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

    The cosmological argument has its roots in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, but is most associated with Aquinas’ first, second and third ways to demonstrate God’s existence and today with William Lane Craig’s Kalam argument.  While cosmological arguments see God as the “sufficient reason” for the universe, overall, they do not provide a sufficient explanation for the existence of God.

    Firstly, Leibniz’ version of the cosmological argument saw God as the “sufficient reason” for the universe. God is needed, he reasoned, to explain why there is anything at all. In “The Existence of God” Richard Swinburne writes how this is the most basic and persuasive argument for God’s existence.  Leibniz’ reasoning built on Aquinas’ third way, which started with the premises that everything in the universe is contingent and that something cannot come from nothing, concluding that there must be a necessary being – a being which exists because of itself and cannot not exist – to explain the existence of everything else. Yet Kant rejected this line of argument in the introduction to his “Critique of Pure Reason”, pointing out that as everything that we experience exists contingently, necessary existence is not something we can posit or discuss.  For Kant, to exist is to exist contingently and to be capable of non-existence… the idea of necessary existence is contradictory and impossible. While there are those who reject Kant’s argument and indeed his whole worldview, such as Willard Quine and Charles Hartshorne, it remains the dominant position in philosophy. While Kant may not have shown that necessary existence is impossible, his observation that it falls outside the scope of our experience strongly supports that conclusion.  This shows that God is not needed to be the necessary explanation for the universe we experience.

    Secondly, as David Hume observed through his character Philo in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, despite being presented as deductive proofs for God’s existence cosmological arguments fail because there is no way to show that their premises are true. For example, Aquinas starts his first way with the premises that everything in the universe is moved and that things can’t move themselves, concluding that there must therefore be a Prime Mover and that this is what everybody calls God. As Hume pointed out, there is no way to know if everything in the universe is moved or that no thing can move itself because our experience of the universe is too limited to support such sweeping claims.  It is possible that while things in the universe are moved and must be moved by other things, the universe itself could be unmoving and/or self-moving.  As Bertrand Russell later asked, why should not the universe itself be considered a “brute fact”?  Although Big Bang theory seems to have falsified the idea that the Universe could be considered a “brute fact,” in other ways science supports Hume’s scepticism, finding that sub-atomic particles like Quarks do not follow standard laws of causation and logic and forcing William Lane Craig to use more limited premises in his Kalam argument than Aquinas did in his Cosmological Argument.  Craig reasons that since “everything that begins to exist must have a cause” and “the universe began to exist” it follows that “the universe must have a cause”.  Although it strategically stops short of concluding that the cause of the universe is “what everybody calls God” – leaving this for people to infer – Craig’s argument seems persuasive in the context of a layman’s understanding of the standard model of Physics. Yet, Stephen Hawking criticised his argument for assuming that causation must or even could apply where there is no time or space at and before the Big Bang. This shows that the cosmological argument fails to demonstrate God’s existence

    On the other hand, other versions of the cosmological argument have been presented as inductive or even abductive arguments, suggesting that God is the most probable explanation for many observations of movement, causation, contingency and other forms of order in the universe.  This approach acknowledges that science could provide natural explanations for these phenomena, but dismisses these as less probable than the simple, elegant explanation provided in God. Yet, while the prime mover, uncaused cause or necessary being supported by Aquinas’ ways seems   to be a simpler explanation than the complex natural accounts presented by science, as Hume pointed out, the prime mover, if such there is, would be very far from being “what everybody calls God.”  In terms of prime movers, uncaused causes or necessary beings, there could be several for all we know and it/they would hardly need to be personal, immanent or good.  Also, the God of the Bible is nothing if not a complex character, being possessed of many characteristics outside the scope of those possessed by the prime mover, so that Richard Dawkins was right to reject the claim that “God” could ever be a simpler explanation in “The God Delusion”.  While Aquinas did attempt to show how the prime mover, uncaused cause and necessary being demonstrated by the cosmological argument was really the God of Christianity, these explanations were outside the scope of the cosmological arguments and unconvincing.  For example, Aquinas claimed that because God is the prime mover, uncaused cause and necessary being He must be timeless-eternal and outside the universe.  It follows that divine attributes like power, knowledge or goodness must be understood as analogies when describing God. Yet Aquinas’ classical theism is unconvincing because although it attempts to provide a philosophical justification for believing that “God” exists – not least through the cosmological argument – this justification is flawed and comes at the price of undermining both the Bible and Christian Doctrine as sources of knowledge about God.  This shows that inductive or abductive versions of the cosmological argument are no more useful as explanations for God’s existence than deductive versions.

    Further, all versions of the cosmological argument are part of Natural Theology, the attempt to explain that and how God exists using reason. Natural Theology has long been controversial within Christianity, because it assumes that human beings can discover God and potentially salvation for themselves without God’s grace, which idea was dismissed by St Paul (e.g. Ephesians 2:8) and later made a heresy because of St Augustine’s theological arguments.  It follows that for most Christians Natural Theology cannot provide sufficient knowledge of God’s existence or concerning God’s nature for human beings to attain salvation apart from God’s grace.  Instead, Christians must rely on Revealed Theology, such as through Scripture, Jesus and/or personal religious experience, to demonstrate God’s existence, nature and will.  In one way, this makes sense of the cosmological arguments’ failure to show that God is the necessary or even the most probable explanation of the universe and of the disjunct between the attributes of the prime mover and the God of the Bible.  It could be that the cosmological argument, and wider Natural Theology, provides only an indication that God exists, showing that faith is rational and that atheists are as St Paul put it “without excuse”, while maintaining the necessity of revelation and grace for salvation. Yet it seems terribly convenient that Christian doctrine should so cover for the failure of Natural Theology and the cosmological argument. St Paul and St Augustine would both have been aware of versions of the cosmological argument in the work of Plato and Aristotle and that these arguments are not sufficient explanations for the God of Christianity.  Could their theological arguments have been pragmatic rather than principled in their attempt to sideline reason in favour of revelation?

    In conclusion, the cosmological argument does not provide a sufficient explanation for the existence of God. None of the versions of the argument succeed in demonstrating God’s existence. Deductive versions rely on uncertain premises and don’t contain the full conclusion of the Christian God’s existence. Inductive and abductive versions fail to establish that “God” is a simpler explanation of the universe than natural explanations provided by science.  Also, theological attempts to explain why Natural Theology should fail are unconvincing.

    Examples of mystical experiences should be considered valid religious experiences. Discuss [40]

    / vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

    In his “Varieties of Religious Experience” William James argued that examples of mystical experiences which have the four marks of being passive, transient, ineffable and noetic justify their recipient’s belief in God and deserve to be taken seriously by others, as potentially valid religious experiences. Yet, atheists like Richard Dawkins remain unconvinced, arguing that “exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence” and dismissing all “mystical experiences” as fakes or mistakes. Overall, Dawkins’ argument arises from prejudice and an unscientifically closed mind, so James’ argument is more persuasive.

    Firstly, Dawkins rejects the claim of any “mystical experience” to be considered a valid religious experience.  Like David Hume in his analysis “Of Miracles”, Dawkins reasons that it is always more probable that the experience was the result of psychological and/or physiological processes than that the experience was of God.  Dawkins’ argument has intuitive appeal and has been supported by other atheists, including Susan Blackmore, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, yet it does not stand up to closer scrutiny. Yes, scientists can “explain away” individual experiences… saying that St Augustine undergoing a moral crisis and St Bernadette an attention-seeker… but each explanation is different, while what the mystics claim to have experienced is one and the same. Is it more likely that so many different people in different circumstances are all deluded from multiple different improbable causes, or that what so many people have reported to have experienced in diverse ways is real?  As James concluded, “higher” mystical experiences “offer us HYPOTHESES, hypotheses which we may voluntarily ignore, but which as thinkers we cannot possibly upset.[1]” It is fair to say that Dawkins chooses to ignore examples of mystical experiences which, if taken seriously and properly investigated, might yield a better insight into reality than the narrow scientific materialism that Dawkins seems wedded to.  In “The Existence of God” Richard Swinburne has shown how it is slightly more probable that God exists than not and that – given that prior probability and the principles of credulity and testimony – the existence of so many religious experiences (though defined more broadly than according to James’ four marks) tips the balance decisively in favour of God’s existence. Dawkins’ argument that mystical experiences are always more probably fakes or mistakes than valid has thus been falsified.

    Secondly, scientists like Dawkins have sought to provide alternative explanations for mystical experiences to show that they are not valid religious experiences.  Yet, as James pointed out, such explanations cannot account for the positive and lasting change that such experiences bring about in their recipients’ lives. For example, it may be that St Paul’s experiences were the result of epileptic seizures, but this medical explanation can’t account for the spiritual effect of the experiences on Paul and through him, on the world. Many people have had epileptic seizures, but only one wrote most of the New Testament. Further, despite his scepticism about their causes, Dawkins is fascinated by spiritual experiences and volunteered to be a research subject, wearing Michael Persinger’s “God helmet” to discover what so many religious people have felt.  Afterwards, he said that he was “very disappointed” by the experience, finding that the brain stimulation did not in fact create the sensation that mystics report.  This suggests that one of the most common scientific means of “explaining away” mystical experiences is not credible. In addition, assuming that some experiences are valid, God must appear to people in some way; if not through visions or voices, then through some ineffable, transient sensation as reported by mystics.  Yet, whatever sensation God chooses is bound to be affected by disorders, so that if a person has an ineffable sensation, it is likely to be diagnosed in terms of an associated disorder.  Also, even if scientists can identify how somebody might have an unusual sensation, this does not account for why they had the sensation… God could be working through physiological processes.  All of this shows that Dawkins is wrong and that examples of mystical experiences should be considered as potentially valid religious experiences.

    On the other hand, claimed “mystical experiences” are very diverse and vary in credibility. It is difficult to define mystical experiences so that only those that are credible are included when claiming that they should be considered valid religious experiences. For example, James argued that “higher” mystical experiences, such as should be considered as valid religious experiences, have the four marks of being passive, transient, ineffable and noetic. Yet, it is not clear that even the examples James appeals to have all four marks.  James uses St Teresa of Avila’s descriptions of mystical experiences to develop his argument, yet were these experiences really either passive or transient… and given the number of words she used to describe them, were they ineffable either?  Further, other scholars have defined mystical experiences differently, either more narrowly as in the definitions of Otto and Stace, or more broadly, as in the definitions of Swinburne and the Alister Hardy Centre.  The lack of a single, clear definition for mystical experiences and the inclusion of less credible experiences within some of these definitions surely undermines the case for considering them valid religious experiences.  Nevertheless, perhaps the lack of a clear definition is to be expected if mystical experiences are valid religious experiences. As James points out, language is inadequate when it comes to describing God so that scholars have sometimes resorted to the apophatic way or analogy and the use of qualifiers. Why would we expect people to be able to describe mystical experiences of God any more clearly? 

    In conclusion, examples of mystical experiences should be considered as potentially valid religious experiences.  While some claimed mystical experiences lack credibility and are probably not valid religious experiences, others deserve serious consideration and scientific investigation that does not begin from a fixed starting point of naïve materialism.

    [1] https://csrs.nd.edu/assets/59930/williams_1902.pdf page 325

    Secularists who say that Christianity is a source of unhappiness are wrong.  Evaluate this statement. [40]

    / vardycharlotte / Leave a comment

    Philosophical secularists such as Sigmund Freud and Richard Dawkins have often criticised Christianity for causing unhappiness.  Freud saw all religion as a “universal obsessional neurosis” which supported irrational beliefs and behaviour and created taboos which are often harmful to individuals.  While Freud admitted the usefulness of religion in “keeping down the masses” in his “Civilisation and its Discontents” (1927), Dawkins went further, claiming that religion is the “root of all evil” and the cause of multiple personal and social problems because it is anti-intellectual and as a meme corrosive to the critical faculties, particularly of the young.  Christianity, Dawkins suggests, may seem benign… but really indoctrinates people into a backward ideology which provides questionable moral guidance.  While these arguments seem persuasive and certainly highlight personal and social problems that religion in general, sometimes Christianity, might contribute towards, overall, they don’t demonstrate that Christianity causes unhappiness.  This is because people may well be happier with the crutch of an “obsessional neurosis” than without one, because the good the Church still outweighs the bad and because confronting the truth and being a critical thinker is rarely conducive to happiness!  For these reasons, secularists such as Freud and Dawkins are wrong when they say that Christianity is a source of unhappiness. 

    Firstly, Freud argued that religion causes unhappiness because it is a “universal obsessional neurosis”.  In the same way as an individual might deal with unresolved childhood trauma by channelling tension into ritualistic behaviours such as obsessional handwashing or superstitions such as saluting magpies or not treading on cracks, societies deal with trauma by channelling it into religion.  For example, in Totem and Taboo (1913) Freud claimed that the Judaeo-Christian tradition emerged as a response to an original act of patricide, a claim which he later elaborated in Moses and Monotheism (1939).  Nevertheless, Freud’s critique of religion does not claim that Christianity is always a source of unhappiness.  People may find it easier to cope when they have a ritual which they believe influences feelings and situations which they cannot otherwise control.  Societies might well function better when they are able to process their collective guilt and grief through religious myth and ritual than they would without such an opportunity.  Just because a belief or practice is irrational and/or not based on a scientific or historical truth does not mean that it necessarily makes people unhappy.  Further, influenced by Feuerbach, Freud suggested that God is subconsciously created by human beings in an act of wish-fulfilment, rather than the other way around.  Feuerbach wrote “Consciousness of God is self-consciousness, knowledge of God is self-knowledge” and Freud would certainly have agreed, judging by his “The Future of an Illusion” (1927) Nevertheless, since when did self-knowledge cause people unhappiness, especially when it results in beliefs that comfort and compensate for deficits as in this case?  Also, as Swinburne, Plantinga and Hick have pointed out, Freud can’t exclude the possibility that God might have designed us to subconsciously project God in this way.  As Alston pointed out in 1967 “Freudian theory is not logically incompatible with the truth, justifiability and value of traditional religion…”  and also, projecting God fulfils wishes and so makes people happy, not unhappy suggesting that as a secularist Freud was wrong that Christianity is a cause of unhappiness.

    Secondly, Dawkins argued that religion causes unhappiness because it is “anti-intellectual” and -acting as a meme – attacks the critical faculties, particularly of young people.  Nevertheless, Dawkins has no scientific evidence for the existence of memes in the way that he describes them, and further if they do exist in this way, by Dawkins own logic they must do so because they confer an evolutionary advantage of some sort.  The fact is that more people are affected by the religious “meme” than are not – and those who are affected seem much more likely to breed! – so there must be an evolutionary justification for religion.  Of course, Dawkins would reject the claim that human beings should follow evolutionary pressures, writing “we should not live by Darwinian principles… I am very comfortable with the idea that we can override biology with free-will…” and yet he fails to explain why people should believe the free-will to do this, when there is no evidence other than a feeling to support it, or why we should try to behave in ways that make our individual and human genes more generally less likely to be reproduced.  Further, Dawkins rejects religious belief because “how can you take someone seriously who likes to believe something because he finds it comforting?” yet this line of argument shows that religion – including Christianity – makes people happy, while also admitting that secularism does not.  It is what Dawkins calls “bracing truth” that makes people unhappy, not Christian beliefs, even if they are false.  As Dawkins himself wrote “the universe doesn’t owe is condolence or consolation; it doesn’t owe you a nice warm feeling inside…” yet for many people this is precisely what they get from religion.  While Dawkins claims that “I care passionately about the truth because it is a beautiful thing and enables us to live a better life…” he fails to justify these claims.  What is beautiful about the truth of evolution through natural selection and what helps us to live a better life about confronting our own insignificance in the meaningless infinity of the universe? This shows that the secularist Richard Dawkins was wrong in claiming that Christianity makes people unhappy. 

    Of course, Freud and Dawkins make sensible points when they argue that religion and particularly Christian beliefs make some individuals and some societies unhappy.  Freud is right that the guilt engendered by faith can be corrosive, leading to the state of “soul sickness” identified by both St Augustine and much later by William James.  Yet, religious faith, an ineffable sense of happiness and peace, hope and a second chance at purposeful living can sometimes be precipitated by such a state of despair, when it triggers a conversion experience.  St Augustine describes how he was saved by such an experience and James documented many other cases where religion – most usually Christianity – made somebody happy when no dosage of antidepressants were ever likely to work. Further, while Christianity can make individuals unhappy, social surveys have shown that on average religion makes people happier, more socially engaged, healthier and more long-lived.  As the Heritage Foundation Report (2006) states “a steadily growing body of evidence from the social sciences demonstrates that religious practice benefits individuals, families and communities, and thus the nation as a whole.”  Of course, Dawkins is right that religions can and have caused bitter wars and can and have fostered appalling abuse.  Christopher Hitchens powerfully enumerated the instances when the Roman Catholic Church alone has caused conflict and suffering.  Yet religion is also a force for good in societies, encouraging people to care for the weak and vulnerable, educate children, improve prison conditions and be more inclusive.  While it is difficult to do an objective cost-benefit analysis, Jurgen Habermas is right in highlighting that secular societies develop what he called “an awareness of what is missing” as they enter a “moral wasteland” in which society becomes “normatively mute” and where individuals lack any sense that their actions matter one way or another, as well as any hope beyond death.  Charles Taylor is right that secularism makes death into a taboo in a way that creates mental health issues, and that societies are forced to replace religious values and mores with secular equivalents – which lack the advantages of relative transparency and transcending human borders.  It follows that notwithstanding the unhappiness that religion undoubtedly causes some individuals and societies, on balance the effect of religion is to make people more rather than less happy.  As regards Christianity – given the scale of abuse and conflict that it has caused – the scales might be more even than in the case of other religions, yet the scale might well be proportionate given that Christianity is the largest world religion. Also, it is probably fair to say that if religion did not cause the abuse and the conflict, then something else would have.  Atheistic societies such as the USSR and Communist China were not marked for being inclusive and peaceful!   Human beings tend to cause abuse, conflict and unhappiness… and need little encouragement from religion to do so. 

    In conclusion, Secularists who say that Christianity is a source of unhappiness are wrong.  While Christianity and other religions undoubtedly cause some individuals unhappiness, as well as giving cover to abuse and conflict on multiple occasions, the net effect of religions is to promote human happiness, even if this might well be the result of promoting comforting delusions.  The continuing dominance of religious worldviews suggests that they offer societies an evolutionary advantage, perhaps in helping people to be satisfied with not knowing the answers to the “big questions,” and this confirms that societies are happier and function better with religions than without them.