Skip to main content

The Big Questions

I will briefly be on TV this Sunday morning - BBC 1's "The Big Question". I am a "front row" audience member, which means I will be asked a couple of questions. The "big question" for that bit of the show is something along the lines of "Would Britain be a better place if it was a Christian society?" On the panel will be: Lord Carey (former Arch-bishop of Canterbury), Anne Atkins, a druid lady (called Emma, I think), and Prof. Peter Atkins.

So, would it...?


Kyle said…
I think these sorts f questions are a bit pointless.

How can a society be a Christian society unless most of the people in it are Christian? Unless everyone agrees to pretend that they are Christian.
Wholeflaffer said…

This has been another short answer to easy questions.
wombat said…
So which flavour of Christianity did they have in mind?

We alternated between RCC and Anglican in Tudor-ish times and that didn't seem to be a very happy age.

How about the Cupitt version?
Kosh3 said…
What would it mean for Britain to be a Christian society?

-close and undiscriminating adherence to Biblical scripture? (Presumably not! the Bible is full of many awful things no society should encourage of accept)

-the cherishing of a subsection of values and attitudes displayed in the Bible, like love, kindness, consideration of the less fortunate (Yes, but then a) Christianity is not necessary for any of these values, and b) it is dubious to select only the very nicest parts of the Bible and hold them up as essentially Christian).

If we're going to accept falsehoods like Christianity for their social utility, surely we can make up a better story.
Toby said…
We used to be a Christin Society (i.e. everyone believed in the Christian religion) a few hundred years ago. Were things better then? Obvously not: we had slavery, discrimination against women, the death penalty and cruel punishments, etc, etc.

That said, the Battle of the Atkins (Anne vs Peter) should be good value.
jeremy said…
I love the asymmetry:

One the one side, a renowned Oxford chemist and author, and an adroit and successful philosopher.

On the other side, an archbishop and a druid.

Anonymous said…
You are assuming the Druid to be on the same side as the Archbishop?
Tony Lloyd said…
How can a society be Christian? You cannot baptise a society, a society cannot pray, a society has no soul.

It's difficult to see what could be meant by a Christian society apart from:
1. (As Kyle said) a society in which most people are Christian. Or
2. A Christian dominated society. Either:
2a. Domination by way of indoctrinating/forcing most to assume a Christian identity or
2b. A restrictions on the laws that can passed and actions undertaken set by Christian dogma.

Without 2a. it is pretty meaningless talking about 1., it's just not going to happen. Would life be better if Everton always won? Well...yes, but that just isn't going to happen (BTW anybody got a spare for the final?)

So we are looking at 2. and that seems to me to be obviously bad. Should we put away our freedoms and subject the rule of parliament to an Archbishop Carey over-ride? Should we limit our freedom of thought (and that of our children) and subject our very consciences to an Archbishop Carey over-ride?

No doubt the Carey and Atkins would reject this analysis. (A pint says Atkins would call it a "monstrous distortion"). But what can they say they actually mean? Absent a reasonable explanation of what a non-Christian-dominated "Christian society" would look like we're entitled to assume that it means that some decisions will be removed from their current location and given to the clerics.

There's also little doubt that their main thrust will be to try and “sell” the benefits. If we're all Christian then crime will be lower, teenage pregnancy will be down, families will be more likely to stay together etc. etc. All things we want, all laid out in front of you. All you have to do is give in, let us take over. Go on, is “freedom” such a big thing to give up?
qed said…
By now we have seen that this is a rather silly question.

Yet, the answer has to be recorded as emphatic no, because:

(1) such a society would be based on a christian perversion of morality

(2) such a society would be guided by irrationality and superstition
Unknown said…
I watched it and was severely annoyed, the question is insulting to non-theists like me. How could the audience even take that type of question seriously, it implies those without faith have some sort of flaw and have no morality. Plot a 'wellness graph' compared to a societies number of believers over time and I think you'd find the question should more likely be reversed..
Hugo said…
Crikey, I just watched it and was shocked by the extraordinarily bad quality of the arguments.

Stephen, you were an oasis of reason in a sea of crud. I heard very few decent arguments in the whole hour from anyone else - mostly just non sequiturs, anecdote, assertion, begging the question, and general lack of sound arguments.

A pity you were shouted down by that priest.

What a terrible programme. Nicky Campbell seems to destroy everything he touches.

I notice again with annoyance that the programme is filled under the BBC's "Religion & Ethics" category, as if they go together.
Dick said…
There's an assumption here that Christianity is a set of propositions - dogma - that individuals have to "believe in" (what that means is not straightforward); in which case they are Christian.

But what if Christianity is a set of interconnected stories (some 'historical', others 'legend'), and a vast tangle of conflicting interpretations of those stories - which is pretty much what Christianity seems to be in actuality? In that case it is more like a language which can be used quite regardless of personal "belief".

Christianity then becomes the language which a society speaks. It is sometimes pointed out that a lot of poetry and writing in this country - whether by "believers" or not - draws on Christian imagery and story, and without knowing these often assumed references the important cross-references to other ideas can be missed.

Drive the mythical language of Christianity out of the public sphere and a lot of the subtlety and connectedness of our culture - which is also European and worldwide - is lost.

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o