by Scott Birch

Created on: June 16, 2009   Last Updated: June 18, 2009

It is rare among sophisticated theologians to believe in the virgin birth and the various miracles of Christ, rather, they subscribe to the Bible as a metaphorical reference, one which should be used as a loose guideline in the formation of a moral life (they of course tread very lightly on the pages of the Old Testament, which is perhaps the most violent text ever to be put into mass circulation). They do believe in the existence of a divine creator, but rather than make the case for his existence, they argue for the usefulness of the belief when it's applied to a society. It would seem that their favorite point on the subject is this: If there was no belief in God, in heaven or hell-fire, why then would we behave morally? Would the world not plummet into an abyss of chaos, violence and depravity? If there is no God, everything is permissible.

When squaring up to meet this argument, one must realize that an argument for somethings usefulness is in no way an argument for its existence. One might say that it is useful for a society to fear eternal damnation, but that says nothing as to whether or not that fear is a rational one.

I would argue that our morality has evolved, along with every advanced life form or concept on this planet, and that many of the modern moral advancements in society have not been on account of religion, but in spite of it (women's rights, animal rights, gay rights, the abolition of slavery etc.).

It would seem that even those triumphs, although they are extremely significant, have not convinced us that an idea that runs against the grain of popular opinion, which in our case is the Christian right, can be relevant and even helpful if they aren't met by the brick wall of the religious mass-psyche.

Consider the three main moral issues of our time: stem cell research, abortion and contraception.

In reverse order, starting with the most obvious. Take a glance at the news and there's a good chance you will see something about the Pope preaching to Sub-Saharan Africans that condom use is immoral and that abstinence is the answer to the AIDS epidemic. I concede his point, if people discontinue all sexual activity, AIDS will be abolished. The inevitable follow-up question being, how are you going to stop millions of impoverished, starving people from having sex when you can't even keep your own clergy members off the alter boys?

I do recognize that abortion is a subject which divides even Atheists, but for the most part, it isn't them who

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>