To: Electronic Telegraph <et.letters@telegraph.co.uk>
Re: The soul of Britain
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000

Dear Sir,

It was with interest and some amusement that I read the report in today's Telegraph on the state of modern Britons' souls (Survey charts the Soul of Britain, 28 May 2000).

Some of the questions were well chosen, but others, with no attempt to define the use of terms, were quite meaningless. It reminded me of the sterile "debate" on GM crops and of how Prince Charles, neglecting - or
unable - to define his terms, lays himself wide open to misunderstanding.

In his Reith lecture the Prince does seem to express a preference for the biblical  version of creation as opposed to what he refers to as the "manmade theory of evolution, [which] explains the origin and continuance of life on this planet without reference to a Creator". Unfortunately, such an attitude does not enhance his credibility among scientists.

I do not think there can be any doubt that it wasn't God who created man in his own image, but the other way around. "God" is apparently a necessary concept in man's developing attempt to understand the world and his own nature. Unfortunately, we have often identified or confused the concept with the reality it can only represent.

When talking about atoms we quickly agree on the particular model we are using, thus avoiding misunderstandings what would otherwise arise. But when talking about God, we usually neglect to do this: everyone refers to his own model, and only those who happen to be share the same model really agree. Although for harmony's sake we often pretend to agree, or perhaps believe that we agree, when in fact we do not.

Most would agree that Jesus was a nice bloke who said a lot of wise things, but how many of us really believe what St. Paul and the New Testament would have us believe if we are to call ourselves Christians and followers of Christ, i.e. that he was the son of God, come to redeem us from our sins, born of a virgin, and a worker of miracles (including rising from the dead)?

Since actually reading the New Testament and some of the Old, while acknowledging its immense historical value, I can definitely say that I do not believe most of it. I cannot disprove it, of course, I wasn't there, but I see absolutely no reason to give any credence to the fantastic claims and stories it contains, especially when I can account for them in an all too human way.

From where does any member of society derive his moral authority? In primitive societies it is from traditions, "normal" patterns of behaviour that have been handed down from generation to generation. That is the meaning of the word stems from which the words "morals" and "ethics" are derived. Anyone wishing to radically change traditional behaviour - for better or worse - could only attempt to do so by force of arms, or by claiming to be the mouthpiece of a higher authority, i.e. God.

Thus men have also used the concept of God as an instrument for their own purposes. The Jewish prophets applied it with great effect; Jesus and his followers did so with even greater effect. 

The New Testament does not leave a lot of room for democratic argument or debate: it tells us the Truth and gives us the choice of either believing it or in going to hell. In that Jesus is very explicit. He may love sinners, but woe betide anyone who does not believe; eternal hellfire is their lot. That is a bullying tactic that has nothing to do with my concept of God, and which I reject in principle.

If Jesus was the son of God, who had performed miracles and been risen from the dead, who could argue with his appointed apostles or those who followed them?

The story of Jesus as the son of God gave his followers absolute moral authority over those who believed them. It was a clever tactic. But a lie, made up - perhaps with the best intentions - to give unquestionable moral authority to Jesus' followers.

I do not believe that Jesus was the son of God (as if God could have a son!!), or that his mother was a virgin, or that he performed any of the miracles that he is credited with. I think he was a Jewish prophet who said some pretty wise things, but who also had some pretty odd - Jewish - ideas about the world. I'm sure he would turn in his grave if he knew that 2000 years later people were still waiting for him to return.

Perhaps it is time for Christians - genuine or nominal - to accept that he is not coming back to save them; that, intentional or not, it was a hoax, and that if they want to be saved, they are going to have to do it themselves - with God's help. 2000 years of history bear witness to the fact that just believing is definitely not enough.

Having said all that, whether theist, atheist or agnostic, I still believe that we need guidance from a "higher authority" - call it God, reason, enlightened self-interest, or what you like. Otherwise, all be have to guide us are  traditions based on "normal", non-sustainable, often irrational, sometime insane, human behaviour.

The word "normal" is an ambiguous one, giving the expression "normal behaviour" a very significant double meaning: 1) behaviour that is usual and familiar, and 2) behaviour that is acceptable, correct or okay. Behaviour that is usual or familiar is thus automatically assumed to be correct and acceptable.

Today we are in greater need of guidance by a "higher authority" than ever before, because our knowledge and power over the material world has for the past 100 years been increasing exponentially. Our unguided or
misguided activities are destabilising Earth's life-supporting ecosystems and thus threatening our very survival, but because we are behaving "normally", following our scientific and technological traditions, we feel just as secure as those who boarded the Titanic on her maiden voyage.

The question is, how do you recognise the "higher authority" when you hear it, when there are so many claiming to know best?

I spent most of my life assuming that others knew better than I did: teachers, doctors, professors, experts, academics - anyone in a position of authority; it was how I was brought up. There was a certain logic to it as well; after all, they were all more experienced, more educated or simply more intelligent than I was; and if that wasn't enough, with majority opinion also behind them, who was "i" to question their authority?

But slowly, over the years, I have come to realise - or to delude myself - that although my sight is far from perfect, I can nevertheless see more clearly than most.  I think that Prince Charles, in his own way, does too.
 

P.S. I got a bit carried away, I'm afraid, but I thought I'd send it off to you anyway.