Just Because You Didnt Eat The Lion

David A Tizzard

Just Because You Didnt Eat the Lion, Dont Expect Him Not to Eat You
A Critical Response to A Secular Age by Charles Taylor Knowledge, morality, art, government and the economy should become religious, but freely and from the inside, not by compulsion from the outside. In any case, we are just at the beginning of a new age of religious searching, whose outcome no one can foresee. On the other side, what tells against forms of unbelief is the series of nagging satisfactions with the modern moral order, and its attendant disciplines, the rapid wearing out of its Utopian versions, the continuing sense that there is something more.1 This is Charles Taylors view of unbelief and the position religion should hold in the modern world. He contends that people that hold no religious affiliation are dissatisfied with the modern world. He also asserts that religious thought should no longer be secular but instead find its way back into governmental and economical practices.In other works he has also denounced Naturalism as a concept. He has, furthermore, discredited himself from many rational and thoughtful societies by accepting the Templeton Prize - awarded for helping the progress of religion (an oxymoron if ever there were one) - and is a practicing Roman Catholic. Charles Taylor is a relic. He is a relic of an age of superstition, fantasy, fear and desire. Let us not forget that Taylor has titled his work A Secular Age. Take one more look at the quote at the top of the page and then the title of his work. There is no room for either him, or his insidious moralizing unto people, when he continues to believe in the tenets of Catholicism. Catholicism has been a proven force of evil unto the world for more than two thousand years and anyone that fails to see this is not looking at it with
1

A Secular Age page 533

Just Because You Didnt Eat The Lion

David A Tizzard

either objective eyes or a rational mind. Or, they are neglecting to be aware that whilst babies are born with AIDS in Africa, the Catholic Church is still growing in that part of the world and still prohibiting the use of contraception. He asserts that unbelievers are dissatisfied with the modern world. Well, taking the Naturalist position myself, let me state that I am not. I am fully content with being a product of causes that had no awareness of the result they were bringing into actuality. My origin, my hopes, fears, growth, loved-ones are simply the outcomes of accidental collocations of atoms. No positive thought, no meditation nor belief, no acts of moral uprightness will prolong my existence on this earth beyond the grave. Furthermore, all the people I love and all the works on man, from everything that has ever been done in the name of worship, in the name of science, in the name of belief, in the name of art and in the name of reason are all destined for extinction. This is a quite simple law of physics and can be begun to be learnt through an understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. The cold windows of science may be cold and unappealing to some at first, especially considering the previous existence included the warmth of a personal, divine God to look after us, but this does not mean it is wrong. It is foolish and unwise to attempt to warp the rules and laws of nature to make our small insignificant lives on this tiny rock seem more fulfilling. We should face our situation bravely and with the virtue and intelligence that has evolved in us and learn how to make the best of it. Taylor talks of unbelievers experiencing the rapid wearing out of its Utopian versions. Who has the Utopian version of life, the naturalist or the religious person? He simply cannot claim that someone, like me, has a Utopian view of life whilst he maintains a
2

Just Because You Didnt Eat The Lion

David A Tizzard

position that he and all his loved ones are going to be united after death in a heaven. There is no utopian life; there is only what we achieve ourselves. Taylor is again misrepresenting the truth and reality of the situation. He is, in a sense, a perfect Catholic. Look at Marlowes Dr. Faustus, which was first published in 1604, to see that Taylor is far behind the times. Just to repeat that date once more: 1604. The arguments that Taylor presents are fatuous and dated yet cloaked insidiously with the words of modernity and secularism. Marlowe has beaten him to the punch and in a much more concise and more beautiful literary fashion. In the extract below, Mephistopheles is explaining the creation of the world and universe to Dr. Faustus: Man was born, with the power of thought, the knowledge of good and evil, and the cruel thirst for worship. And Man saw that all is passing in this mad, monstrous world, that all is struggling to snatch, at any cost, a few brief moments of life before Deaths inexorable decree. And Man said, There is a hidden purpose, could we but fathom it, and the purpose is good; for we must reverence something, and in the visible world there is nothing worthy of reverence. And Man stood aside from the struggle, resolving that God intended harmony to come out of chaos by human efforts. And when he followed the instincts which God had transmitted to him from his ancestry of beasts of prey, he called it Sin, and asked God to forgive him. But he doubted whether he could be justly forgiven, until he invented a divine Plan by which Gods wrath was to have been appeased. And seeing the present was bad, he made it yet worse, that thereby the future might be better. And he gave God thanks for the strength that enabled him to forgo even the joys that were possible. And God smiled; and when he saw that Man had

Just Because You Didnt Eat The Lion

David A Tizzard

become perfect in renunciation and worship, he sent another sun through the sky, which crashed into Mans sun; and all returned again to nebula.2 The above passage sums up quite wonderfully a critique of Taylors thoughts. One would have hoped that society had progressed since then but still the grip of fear and tradition remain strong among some it would seem. This aforementioned grip remains strong because of the claim religion has over education. Organised religion likes to keep people stupid. It doesnt want the masses to be aware of the truths that the world has discovered. Our current morality could be said to be a mixture of two elements: superstition and utilitarianism. Unfortunately, since superstition is where these rules originated from, it is thus much harder to break. Let us look then, specifically at the idea of intelligence. It was mentioned above that anybody with even a passing knowledge of physics thermodynamics - understands that life after death is simply not a feasible stance to take. If people are not intelligent, they will more readily and easily believe what they have been told and, even with the best and most noble of intentions, do harm to others. But it is not through intelligence that one comes to take a stance against the fallacies of religion or theistic doctrine: it is through morality. Yes, morality, and not intelligence, should be the factor that helps one destroy god. From there, one uses intelligence and love to build a better life and world while one still can. How does morality destroy god? Again, I could use a variety of words or expressions but it should not be conceivable to anybody that a world full of so much evil could be created be a perfect omnipotent being. A world in which the good die young and the evil prosper, in which
2

Extract taken from Russells A Free Mans Worship

Just Because You Didnt Eat The Lion

David A Tizzard

Nazis kill millions and babies are born with incurable diseases. What was this supposed god doing during these and innumerable other times? Taylor no doubt prays to his god: If the world is controlled by god, and god can be moved by prayer, Taylor then acquires a share of his omnipotence. Taylor desires power. He refuses to accept his real position in the cosmos. People like Taylor accept religion on emotional grounds, not rational. They believe it makes men virtuous. However, it is clear to see from any glance at the annals of history that the more intense the religion of a period or geographic location, the worse society becomes: The Taliban, the state of Israel, the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are all fitting examples of this. Many claim that all this horrid injustice will be remedied in the afterlife so let us briefly refute this and move on: If one were to receive a box of books and, upon opening it, see that the top layer of books were all wet and soaked from incorrect wrapping, would you then assume that since the top layer is damaged, everything must be fine underneath? No, you would imagine that the next layer would be in the same condition as the first. If we see injustice in the world therefore, it goes against reason to imagine another world in which the situation is reversed. It would make much more sense to assume that the next layer is also wet. The desire of religious folk, as previously mentioned, is what has brought about the idea of the soul. The existence of the soul has been created through mans desire and, more specifically, mans desire to be immortal and reluctance to accept his death. The power of desire has blinded men to fallacies which would otherwise seem obvious: thus, the fear of nature gives rise to religion. This idea of the soul is connected to how Taylor speaks of individualism throughout his book and the need for plurality in the modern world. This is one of traditional religions main flaws. Briefly, let us compare Platos Republic with
5

Just Because You Didnt Eat The Lion

David A Tizzard

Christian precepts. Plato looked to describe goodness, virtue, justice, law and morality in the form of a community. He understood that no man is an island. He, many many years ago in Ancient Greece, started us down a suitable (though by no means perfect) path in order that we may create a better world for the people that inhabit it and for us to live harmoniously. Christianity, however, looked to the individual. To consider this from a historic perspective, Christianity arose during the time of the Roman Empire and thus it became advocated that it was possible for somebody to be a perfect person in an imperfect society. Christianity was built on a creed of individualism. It espoused notions of the soul, seen above to be merely desire and fear, and a persons conscience. We know though that ones conscience is simply a plethora of hazy and ambiguous memories and precepts learnt at an early age from those around us. The flaw of the conscience, therefore, being that we can never be smarter, better or more virtuous than those from whom we learnt. To do this, requires education. Thus, the metaphysical separation of the body and the soul which is so prevalent in Christian doctrine has had a lasting and disastrous effect on our world and the philosophy we study. Another way in which Christianity looks toward the individual and destroys society is through the break-up and destruction of the natural family. This is one of the reasons why I hold that Confucian values and Christian values can never be joined: the fundamental difference in approach to the family. In chapter ten of the gospel of Matthew, Jesus says, Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the Earth. I have come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in law against her mother-in law. A mans enemies will be the members of his own

Just Because You Didnt Eat The Lion

David A Tizzard

household.3 This diatribe against the family is something that doesnt receive enough attention and should be seen for the destructive nature it causes. For those who will say that this should be interpreted figuratively, think of the masses of people throughout the ages that have been told that this is the Gospel, think of the people that have not had the intellectual capability to decipher any metaphoric meaning from this text. Think of the harm that this caused and the hurt that this will continue to bring to society if not stopped. Furthermore, and this applies to the whole treatise here written, any advances in Christitanity such as a figurative interepretation of texts have been brought about by modern free thinkers and to which the church has simply reacted as best it can. To continue to highlight the fundamental differences between Confucianism and Christianity and the destructive social nature that the latter one has, let us again turn our attention to the topic of education. Confucius was a great believer in study and learning and the opening line of the Analects show us this clearly: . 4. Here Confucius states his love of learning and this is thread which repeats throughout his teachings and words. It also advocates the love of friends. Social relationships are not as readily discarded as they are in the gospel of Matthew and others. Jesus, on the other hand, told his disciples to be like little children. He wanted them to be stunted in the intellectual growth and instead espoused a spiritual development. Matthew 18 shows us this: And he said: Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore,
3 4

Gospel of Matthew, 10: 34-36 Translated variously into English as The Master "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application? "Is it not delightful to have friends coming from distant quarters? "Is he not a man of complete virtue, who feels no discomposure though men may take no note of him?"

Just Because You Didnt Eat The Lion

David A Tizzard

whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Young children, however, do not, nor are expected to know, the laws of thermodynamics. They will forever be the victims of superstition, fear and desire. It may seem to some that my piece is a negative construction and looks only to openly criticise. Let it be remembered here, however, that I want the same thing as Taylor. I want a world in which everyone on the planet is allowed to live a life of happiness and warmth. I just believe that the best way to do this is without the god that has already been killed. The title of my piece should now become clear to you if it was not before. Taylor may choose to accept a world of plurality and multiple religious denominations. He is willing to however because he has no other choice. When faced with a lion in the jungle, man can simply not eat it. Naturalism, science, reason and love is that lion and it is more than capable of eating man. I will close this piece with some words from Betrand Russell and will continue to fight the evil of religion in our modern society. The important point is that, in all that differentiates between a good life and a b ad one, the world is a unity, and the man who pretends to live independently is a conscious or unconscious parasite. With our present industrial technique we can, if we choose, provide a tolerable subsistence for everybodyThe knowledge exists by which universal happiness can be secured; the chief obstacle to its utilization for that purpose is the teaching of religion. Religion prevents our children from having a ration education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of war; religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific cooperation in place of the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment. It is possible that mankind

Just Because You Didnt Eat The Lion

David A Tizzard

is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion.5

Extracts taken from Russells Contribution to Civilization