In Whose ‘God’ We Trust?

When people play the ‘god’ card and confront others for daring to disrespect their faith, it can leave one feeling defensive or even apologetic.  But where the issue is about the legitimacy of someone’s claim that can have harmful consequences, the focus must remain on the basis for the claim in question. 

Consider the following claims: “Anyone who questions the holy Book of X should be stoned to death”, “All people born outside this country should be deported immediately”, “Anyone who does not agree with the absolute truths I possess about human sexuality must be locked up”, “No one – adult or child – should receive any medical treatment not specifically approved in the ancient sacred text of Y”, “Everyone should commit suicide at the end of the year to ascend to the divine plane of blessed life”, or “Women must submit to men’s decisions always”.

Can the rejection of these claims be brushed aside by a simple “But these are my religious beliefs”, backed a little elaboration: “They are the words of God – they cannot be doubted”?

Of course, where an infallible and eternally honest and caring deity issues a statement, by definition its veracity is guaranteed.  However, what evidence has anyone got that the claim they are making is indeed authorised by such a deity?  They can insist that they have read it somewhere and their interpretation of what they read is perfect; they have been told by someone who unquestionably knows these things; or even they have been informed directly by ‘God’. Since they are palpably not an infallible and eternally honest and caring deity themselves, they could be wrong. “Are you calling me a liar?!” is a favourite retort, but apart from charlatans, people making flawed claims might be sincerely mistaken, unwittingly misled, or sadly delusional.

People united under one sect or cult may well feel that their version of ‘god’ is supreme and everyone else must accept whatever they claim in the name of their ‘god’.  In reality, there are countless sects, cults, denominations, religions, and each is cocooned by its own inner certainty.  Society can either leave them to clash in vicious conflicts until/unless one crushes the others to secure theocratic hegemony over everyone, or it ensures that religious faiths are private matters which will not dictate public policies, and individuals and groups can act on such faiths so long as it would not cause mental, physical or financial harm to anyone.

The assessment and resolution of disputes about what claims are warranted and what actions ought to be promoted or prohibited (because of the likely impact on people’s lives), are to be carried out through objective evidence-based examination.  No one’s testimony can carry any special weight solely on the grounds that it is derived from their ‘faith’.  No finding or query is to be excluded whenever someone raises an objection in the name of ‘god’.

Ultimately, though some have tried to misrepresent these observations as an attack by secularism on religion, it is about keeping the door open to reasoned, civil discourse, as the alternative would be to allow multiple self-styled unquestionable proclaimers to contradict one another ad nauseam without ever referring to facts that are accessible to all.  Indeed the problematic matter at hand is not religion as such, but any outlook which seeks to position itself as absolute and self-justifying.  Any indubitable ideology about the necessity of totalitarian control or racist supremacy, conspiracy theory which cannot be disproven by any conceivable evidence, or defence of ‘traditional’ values that translates into intimidation and oppression – these all rest on faith that defies all scrutiny, and far from trusting them, they must likewise be held back from influencing any action that may cause harm.