As we discussed last week - a belief that has been allowed to form and perhaps even to coagulate is the belief that religious beliefs are impervious to criticism. We all know that the one subject in this current era that we are tacitly prohibited from speaking openly about is religion.
The protective niche that religion has been afforded is, in one sense, no more justified than a protective niche for criticising politics or literature or art or music; that is to say, one should be entitled to question the validity of religious beliefs in the same way that we question the validity of, say, science and history. I want to assert that as Christians, not only should we have the right to question the validity of other people’s religious beliefs, it is imperative that we act freely in doing so. Here is how I think we can overcome any difficulties.
Some people declare that religions should continue to be segregated on the basis that because of the cultural differences involved no man can hope to understand fully the belief systems of those who believe different things to him. The result of this is that religious criticism is a bit like currency - it is only valid in the country of origin. In other words, for a Christian to impugn the beliefs of a Hindu would be synonymous with trying to spend an English pound coin in Bombay. This form of isolationism - or more accurately the feelings that have precipitated this isolationism - are the root cause of the protective niches that religions have carved out for themselves (Christianity, of course having the thinnest protective niche). People seem quite happy to adopt this isolationist approach themselves, largely because they feel that in doing so they are offering respect to other people’s personal beliefs. In fact, I think the opposite is true - I do not think that such an attitude is respectful at all; it certainly is not in accordance with the teachings of Christ and St Paul.
The principal reason why it is not respectful is that no sane person can really respect something they think is false. To offer genuine respect one has to find something truthful and beneficial in the belief however tentative and peripheral it is. In one sense to be a person of faith requires a degree of understanding of other faiths, at least in the sense that one understands about human fervency. The Christian would not, for example, subscribe to the Islamic belief that people have to pray five times daily. But one is the forced to ask - is our criticism of that particular belief reversible, that is, do Muslims think that the fact that Christians do not feel enforced to pray five times daily is an error on their part, or are they happy to accept the nuances between respective faiths? In using this method of argument we begin to see which tenets of the faiths are contradictory and which are simple cultural differences. Moreover the question of what we are allowed to criticise must then be reduced to purely philosophical things, for it would not be proper to criticise the cultural traditions of other belief systems, just whether the doctrines themselves are reliable and based on truth.
The question of philosophical disputes really boils down to this. Is the barrier that separates one belief system from another blocking criticism? If we say yes, then we must agree that the barrier also blocks compliments and praise too - otherwise the situation becomes too claustrophobic for any objectivity. If I am not allowed to criticise something I should not be entitled to offer any praise either; if I am not allowed to say that I think a particular belief is based on falsehood, I should not be entitled to say that I think a particular belief system is true. The difficulty would be - how can any compliment or any claim of truth mean anything if it rested on immovable grounds? Unless something has it origins in a true-false objectivity then we can never confidentially ascribe truth or falsehood to it.
If we have at least agreed that it would be wrong to prohibit people from forming judgements and opinions, we must then enquire as to how the situation has become so bad whereby criticism of any religious belief is taboo. We ought to frown on those who seek to insult or incite hatred, but surely it is incumbent upon us to embrace any free-thinking person who wishes to express an opinion about a religious belief. The difficulty would follow that if a man is forbidden from speaking candidly about other religions why is he allowed to speak candidly about a religion that happens to be his own?
Any attempts to stifle opinions really does damage to honest efforts to find the truth about religion, even the ones to which you might very well be subscribing. The system then becomes totalitarian - we are now suggesting that a man is not even free to find his own belief system - for if we say he is, we must then say that he is allowed to hold the outward opinion that others are false. In short, religious isolationism prohibits theological reasoning.
But surely even the religious fanatics who wish to ban free expression must themselves need alternative beliefs in order that they might know that their own belief systems are true. The ideas that belong to free expression are not indulgences they are essential for all beliefs. To say that one belief is true implies the existence of false beliefs. There are complacent people who try to get round this by not thinking about truth and falsehood, but they end up having no insight into ultimate realities. The only way a man can form a religious judgement that could be described as valid is by allowing others to believe in, and form opinions about, things which differ from what he happens to believe.
To offer an opinion about whether something is appealing or not is to confer a comment about preference, but to offer an opinion about whether something is true or false is to take a philosophical position, therefore our entitlement to do so should never be in question - and usually never is except by those whose beliefs are so absurd that philosophical examination will expose them to be groundless and fragile.
One of the reasons why people are afraid to speak candidly about other people’s religious beliefs is, I would say, a subliminal fear that the stigma of ‘race’ and ‘immigration’ will be unavoidably attached. Now it is obvious that to disagree openly about a man’s religious beliefs is quite different to being racist towards him - and we do not, as such, have any real problems regarding the issue of race. But immigration is a different thing - while it is equally true that to disagree openly about a man’s religious belief is to say nothing about immigration, there is a problem in this country with people’s perception of immigration, with frequent calls for stricter border controls.
The truth of the matter is that our managed migration system functions pretty well - even the Lords committee was strident in asserting that the rapid flow of workers into the country has helped keep down the costs of both goods and public services. Any sane person knows that without the influx of immigrants the economy would have been hit hard with much higher inflation and increased taxes (although they are still too high). Immigration expands the talent pool, allowing a much more beneficial specialisation not found in indigenous folk - the multifarious input from hard-working immigrants creates a virtuous and diligent cycle of production and efficiency from which we could learn a lot and have learned a lot. It is not always remembered that ‘multiculturalism’ was almost entirely invented by white left-wing ideologues intent on infusing and filtrating ways of life which are wholly untenable.
When we talk about speaking openly in criticising other religions we must take this point on board. If this matter is important it is going to cause a stir, or else, we must be content with the situation as it is; that is, we must carry on observing people living in delusion. It is not difficult to see that the solution to the first problem is also part of the solution to the second. If we want people to know the truth about Christ then we must favour integration - for integration is the only way a pluralistic nation can prosper and cohere. It is imperative that Christians interact with all citizens as individuals - not as members of a group, ethnic or religious (the same is true of the government). The government’s flaccid approach to this problem has given rise to communalism and cantonisation - two of the things which make it very difficult to speak openly about religion.
Some people object that immigration is somehow preventing young British people from finding work and therefore exacerbating welfare dependency. It is a lie, a big resounding lie. Immigration is only a symptom of an indigenous problem - in fact, immigrants are doing jobs that would otherwise remain vacant. The government has done a pretty good job in helping thousands back to work, and it is true that there are many people out there that need help still. But it is disingenuous to blame immigration.
It seems to me unfortunate that the very thing that puts us above the other mammals - the faculty of reason - is being suppressed in this way when it comes to investigating religious belief - after all, when we talk about whether God exists and, if so, which is the right religion, we are talking about the two most important questions that Homo sapiens will ever have to contemplate. Therefore it is my view that we must stand firm against those who wish to suppress this kind of critical thought - for it is a subject that no right-minded person can approach with indifference.
Any attempt to stifle genuine enquiry is usually an attempt by the government to appease the most outspoken and fanatical adherents, and I am sure that none of us need telling which that particular group is. If it is incumbent upon humankind to care about truth and delusion and all the different kinds of unhelpful inculcation that occur in repressive societies, it is necessary to speak out with the utmost love, grace and respect that is humanly possible, for we ourselves do not advocate those who speak out against different cultures, different ethnic groups and different creeds.
Our objection is something different - it is an objection based upon a desire for human solidarity - solidarity which brings people together with the truth. Now if people choose to disregard the belief system that we happen to think is true, it is their prerogative, and we have no business making any kind of outward challenge to that decision. But we should insist that every person who comes to such a decision was able to do so by his or her own volition - that the decision reached was made without any fear of investigating whether certain belief systems were based on truth or falsehood. On this point we are asking to unite people in two things. In the first place we are asking for an agreement that the moral law from which we all understand right and wrong is able to invoke a consensual agreement that that is our basis for insistence. And in the second place, it must be agreed upon that our attempt at finding the truth is based on our desire to see the morality observed; that is, we condemn oppression and the attempt to limit our expression about religious truths because we think that it is an infringement of human liberties. In other words, our insistence on being able to speak openly about religion is not a cultural quirk; it is part of the very foundation on which we base the inalienable rights of mankind.
Of course this fear of religious commenting which has been allowed to percolate into the national feeling has done so largely because Christians have been reticent about speaking out against this. Suppose for instance I state that I think the Islamic religion is based on falsehood - it is likely that someone will protest, claiming that in saying this I have offended Muslims. Now it seems to me that such offence is really a disguised manifestation of some inner-personal doubt - for if a man wanted to defend his belief systems in the most strident sense he would surely attempt to defend its veracity with philosophical objections to my claim. And of course it should be said that the great majority of Christians would be quite happy to talk about the veracities of each belief systems - or if you prefer, they do not get offended at philosophical objections precisely because they have a much stronger claim to the truth. Offence is usually a result of self-doubt - although it is true that oppressive inculcation can suppress the self-doubt into very deep levels of the sub-conscious.
The appeal we are making is an appeal which goes right into the heart of that which we treasure so much, as human beings with the faculty of reason. The barriers which we raised to stop beliefs overlapping are really walls of separation intent on eradicating the unhelpful and politically expedient relativism that has crept into out thinking when it comes to questioning religious beliefs. If we accept something as true, we must axiomatically accept a conflicting view as false. In other words, to state that A is true naturally implies that we think arguments that contradict A must be thought of as false. If we refuse to apply the same methods of logic in investigating all beliefs we end up advocating nonsense, and living in a world where we do not respect other people’s beliefs yet are afraid to offer an honest opinion about why we do not, latently at least, respect their beliefs.
One of the greatest fallacies ever put forward was that to respect a man you have to respect his beliefs. No, to respect a man fully one must offer an honest opinion about his beliefs, particularly if you believe that he is deluded in his belief. Religious belief must be subjected to critical thought, for any belief system which claims itself to be true must have factual evidence to substantiate it, and must be able to withstand criticism from every angle. The strongest and best designed ship must be able to survive all weathers.
Certainly we can improve our situation by making an effort to understand different religions better than we do, and furthermore, we can make greater strides in helping people who have different religious beliefs feel loved and respected as individuals. But in my view, the greatest love and the greatest respect often occurs when both love and respect are the catalysts for honest opinion and openness. By loosening the chain a little we make philosophical investigation a must, and we remove in the process all the unhelpful relativism which exists only as a parasite intent on attempting to converge beliefs which are very obviously divergent and contradictory. The obstacles which often prevent us from making real truths known are very often obstacles dressed up as adorned objects of human solidarity - when in fact, in the guise of modesty, they are really quite dangerous objects for humans to embrace.
Mathematics would cease to be effective if we begun to insist that sums can have varying answers. The same is true of religious beliefs. Unless we admit that they all contradict each other - unless we admit that the doctrines can never be reconciled to one truth, we will remain prisoners in the walls of relativism.
Of course, the biggest truth of all is that these barriers do not really exist, save for what man has created in his own head; if they did we would never have got where we are today. What we are faced with now is a jungle of fervently held disparate opinions - the religions of the world, all but one are, in my opinion, retarding true spiritual progression. If we believe in our heart of hearts that Christ really is the truth, then the isolationist approach to religion is bound to retard this truth, and in many cases, halt spiritual progression. Cultures are formed out of many streams, the same is true of creative things. But Christianity is neither a cultural thing nor a created thing - culture and creation exist because of presuppositions which belong to the primary truth.
Everyone should be given the choice to speak openly, to question not just their own religious beliefs but others too. For unless we enquire about the origin of religious belief, we shall never be successful in ascertaining their true validity. The real root of this isolationism will be found in the relativist jungle - it is a jungle that offers only disappointment and dishonesty. Hasty judgements are beginning to be refined in the light of better global communication in almost everything but religion. It is time the same thing happened with religious beliefs - after al, if Christianity does have a genuine claim to be the true religion, it must be true at the expense of all the others. Christ said He is the way, the truth and the life. Therefore if we believe deep within our hearts that He is speaking the truth, we must enter the jungle and cut down the trees that are blocking out the light. It won’t be easy, and we have stiff opposition, but this positive change can only occur when we have eradicated this fear of speaking openly about beliefs systems that we think are based on falsehood.
