This is my speech from a debate at the Cambridge Union on November 18th. The proposing team won by 22 votes (if I remember correctly), although I’d say that was pretty good going considering the East of England Faith Council was organising the event as part of inter-faith week, and they had a large variety of reverends, bishops, and other religious leaders present. I pretty much read this verbatim, with a bit of ad libbing where appropriate. Apologies if some of my notes are still in there… it’s been a long week!
At the Cambridge Union
The nature of faith
Faith, by its very nature, is not grounded in fact. In fact, it is very often a stubborn adherence to a belief in spite of the facts. Yet, to a person of faith, it is seen as a virtue, to believe in something in spite of absence of evidence. It is a celebration: there is no challenge in believing in something with the proof staring you in the face after all. In a free and liberal society, it is of course absolutely someone’s right to believe whatever they choose. But should we allow any belief which professes faith an equal airing in democratic debates? And more than that, should we consider it an essential part of the debate, that cannot be got rid of?
There are many truth claims of religion that can be tested. Whether or not this or that prophet actually existed, and various other claims of religion, are things that with scholarship and evidence, can be conclusively proven one way or another. Either Jesus existed or he did not. Or perhaps what was recorded as Jesus in the Bible was actually many different people. Either way, these questions can be answered. However, the central tenets of, at least, the Abrahamic religions, require something more. They require a profession of faith that concerns itself with the unknown and potentially the unknowable. To take Christianity as an example, Christians start by taking for granted that Jesus existed as a historical figure, but the added element of faith was that he was the son of God. How is that testable? By finding the Holy Grail and searching for haploid DNA?
Each religion has its own mythologies and pseudohistories. Each religion requires an element of “faith” to believe in things which cannot be tested for, which usually fall back on relying on the existence of a god or gods. Those religions which claim the one true God cannot all be right. Therefore even in the most optimistic situation where one of them is actually right, that still leaves the majority of the world horribly wrong.
Imagine that here tonight arguing opposite me were a representative from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And he professes belief in a supernatural creator, which closely resembles spaghetti and meatballs. You may laugh and think that it is ridiculous, even though it is his right to believe whatever nonsense he wants. But suppose that he began to say that the “Pastafarian” theory of creation should be taught in science classrooms alongside the theory of evolution?
This is just one example of a belief that may seem ridiculous. But there are plenty of deeply held beliefs which may seem just as ridiculous to everyone but those who believe them. Should we have a serious discussion about including the Pastafarian theory of creation on the science syllabus? And if not, why should we then have a serious discussion about including intelligent design on the syllabus?
So why is it a problem in a democratic debate?
You may be beginning to see that including faith in democratic debates may be so far from essential that it can actually be a hindrance. Faith is about leaving facts behind. Faith embraces rhetoric. Faith is not knowledge. If faith must be employed to make your argument, your argument is stricken with a fatal flaw. Relying on faith to support an argument, is like relying on a house of cards to support an anvil. It will all eventually come crashing down around you.
In a democratic debate, the aim is to further knowledge and understanding by means of an exchange of ideas so that the body as a whole can make a more informed decision on an issue. Many faiths rely on a doctrine, and they believe that what has been revealed to their prophet, written in their holy book, is the “truth”. There is no amendment of the truth, merely the need to find a way to fit their truth around the increasing demands of modern society. Therefore they can have very little constructive debate to add, from this passive position. Narrow mindedness and an inability to engage with alternative viewpoints is the biggest hindrance to democratic deliberation.
On public issues that may overlap with their faith, a person of faith will go into a debate with their mind made up. It is then no longer a process of learning and exploration. If we are debating the issue of abortion, a Catholic might say “I oppose abortion on all grounds and in all circumstances because my holy book told me that it’s wrong”. Religions are committed to preserving their dogmas, they are not interested in trying to improve society if it threatens their beliefs. To use the abortion example again, banning abortion does not stop women attempting abortion. It means that they will seek other means, usually horrific ones. But because it overlaps so strongly with their faith, they don’t see it as choosing the lesser of several evils. They see all options but theirs as evil. It’s unrealistic, naïve and harmful.
I use abortion as an example because it appears to be one where, in a governmental discussion on whether we should lower the maximum term of an abortion, many faith organisations are consulted and listened to with equal regard as, say, a body of medical doctors are. The reason that this is so, is that these faith leaders are deemed to represent the hundreds of thousands (or millions) of followers they profess to have.
But faith organisations themselves tend to be undemocratic and hierarchical. They do not always represent the views of their members and tend to be predominantly male in their positions of power. They claim to speak for everyone. Indeed, the pope even claims infallibility. If only I could claim such infallibility here tonight, my job would be much easier! Faith leaders do not and cannot take into account the full spectrum of beliefs held by all those who label themselves by a certain religion. Their concern is to push the “official” doctrine in order to preserve the institution. They are undemocratic.
The practicalities of including faith groups in democratic debate
As we can see here tonight, what is broadly categorised as “faith” is very often shorthand for the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Preferential treatment is nearly always given to those who claim the largest numbers, or make the most fuss about not being consulted, or who have claimed some historical privilege. Where are the zoroastrians, the druids, the confucian representatives? 390,000 people put down Jedi Knight on the last UK census, making it more represented than Jews, Sikhs and Buddhists. When you include faith groups in democratic debate, you are usually dealing with the ones who claim to speak for a large amount of people, yet actually speak for very few, and you are also dealing with the religions which have an agenda to push. Only 10% of the UK population regularly go to weekly worship, be it at church, temple, or mosque. Why don’t the other 90% of the population have their philosophical and moral beliefs represented?
The answer is they do. By participating in a debate, everyone brings their own personal beliefs and backgrounds to the table already. It can’t be helped – we are all the product of all the experiences and thoughts we’ve ever had. But by giving faith a privileged position of representation, certain small groups of people become doubly represented.
Everyone has multiple identities. Depending on my company, I am a daughter, sister, girlfriend, student, camp director, atheist, white female of Jewish and Danish descent. This debate may as well be entitled “This House believes that Football clubs have an essential role in democratic debate”. The individuals within the clubs may certainly have an essential role, but it is because of their status as citizens and not because of their religiously held support for one particular team. Imagine if Sir Alex Ferguson was asked to comment on Manchester United’s position on abortion. Or if the government was committed to supporting “team communities”. Imagine if every time we were defined by the government in terms of our “faith” we were instead defined by which football team we support. Imagine if the football teams consulted were only ever Premier League teams? I can imagine that those of you who don’t support football at all would very soon be pretty fed up.
By including faith in democratic debates it propagates a dangerous idea that everyone is and should be defined by their faith, and makes the fallacy of inventing “faith communities” when we should instead be working together for the greater good. This promotes divisiveness when we should be striving for community cohesion. To quote the Dalai Lama: “I am talking to you not as a Tibetan or a Buddhist but as a human being having a friendly discussion and sharing my experiences on the benefits of cultivating basic human values”.
If faith did indeed have an essential role in democratic debate, then it follows that a society of atheists could not engage in such as they would be missing that essential role. In fact, the only true prerequisite to democratic debate is critical analysis, that is often best honed by those who carry critical analysis right into their personal belief systems: the faithless.
Having faith is believing in something either that has not been proven to exist or has been proven not to exist. Therefore, anyone can make any claim they like and use the word faith to trump all reasonable argument. This isn’t helpful or useful, and including such imaginings adds nothing to a democratic debate. Acting as if there is some ideal order in the world or rightness in the universe is awfully naïve, as anyone who turns on the news can attest. Life is difficult and human beings can be cruel and selfish. Our main efforts as a society should be focussed on finding solutions for maximising happiness and minimising suffering for all. Since the Abrahamic God seems to be doing a spectacularly bad job of helping on either count, there is no reason to grant faith any role in democratic debate. A secular society is a fair society, with a lack of bias, rather than being an active attack on faith. While faith organisations may certainly have something worthwhile to contribute to specific debates, their presence in the grander scheme of things is far from essential, and is more often than not: unfair, undemocratic and divisive.
ess people. Robin Ince was a terrific host – much improved since last year I thought – and as well as some hilarious links, he performed his “Magic Man done it” creationist routine, this time with a 27 piece orchestra behind him.
