Bishop of London Excited as Britain Heads Toward 'Post Secular Age'

The Bishop of London, the Right Reverend Dr Richard Chartres, is apparently rubbing his little Christian hands together with glee at the potential prospect of Britain entering what he called a 'post secular age.' A sort of enlightenment in reverse, if you like.

His little show of excitement, expressed at a meeting of the Christian Fellowship in east London last Wednesday, was inspired at least in part by a recent speech by President of the British Science Association, Lord May.
Images: The Bishop of London the Right Reverend Dr Richard Chatres; Lord May, President of the British Science Association.












Speaking about the threat of climate change, and our difficulty in organising any kind of coherent global response to it, Lord May suggested that in the past, religious authority - by invoking an all-knowing, all-powerful deity - was a very effective method of ensuring the cohesion of society or, to simplify, the threat of divine punishment - if believed - is a very good way of getting people to do what they're told.

He also said that the rise of fundamentalism could hamper and threaten a unified response.

I've not been able to find a full transcript of his comments, which is unfortunate, because his speech has been lept upon by those with a religious agenda as evidence that Lord May, who is an atheist, is supportive of the power that religious authority could wield in our efforts to combat climate change, whilst those leaning toward my side of the fence have stressed that he was speaking out against religion's rejection of evidence. I should very much like to read his comments for myself, so if any of you know of a website that has a full transcript, please send me the URL.

As an example of how his comments have been interpreted by both sides, please take a look at the following links, one from the left-leaning Independent and one from the (moderately!) more right wing Daily Telegraph:

The Independent

The Torygraph

As you can see, these reporters could almost have been listening to a different speech.

To return to Dicky Chartres and his evident happiness about this, here is what he said:

“He suggested that only God was capable of evoking an appropriate response to the ecological challenges currently facing humanity. While this country may not be described as religious, we may be entering a period that is post-secular. For those of us who are believers, this is a huge opportunity. It is a very exciting time to be a servant of Jesus Christ.

“Lord May opens yet another opportunity for us because the view of the world that has held sway until comparatively recently is one summed up in a conversation between Napoleon and one of his leading scientists. Napoleon said, ‘Well, what about God’? And the scientist says, ‘Well, your majesty, I have seen no need for that hypothesis’. ”


He also said that:

“The ‘collapse’ gurus who are operating on so many websites are largely not people of faith. Many intelligent people are looking at what they believe is a god-forsaken world.

“So Lord May’s comments point to an extremely significant moment in which our perspective on the world is being refashioned in response to contemporary economic and environmental challenges. And in which a search for a more holistic understanding of reality is rendering the rather flatland, mechanistic, reductionist descriptions of the recent past increasingly unsatisfying.

“Because if the reference to God is edited out, then the world simply becomes a theatre for the human will. We come to regard ourselves as little gods and our will as sovereign.”


This seems to me nothing more than a classical, cynical attempt to capitalise on people's fears. Religion feeds on your fear and ignorance, and could not survive without it. Only God is capable of saving you from the man-made disaster we're walking in to. It is indeed "a very exciting time to be a servant of Jesus Christ." Or Allah. Or any god you like, so long as people are scared and ignorant, organised religion will be there to ease their pain.

The Bishop highlights his own considerable ignorance (or at least panders to that of his audience) by referring to the mathemetician Laplace's report to Napoleon. Indeed he had no need to invoke a divine controller, as had Newton, when he calculated the movements of the planets and their orbits, but to say that somehow since then belief in God has been irrelevant is to neglect history in the extreme.

And what does Dicky boy mean by saying that this view has "held sway until comparitively recently"? At what point in our recent history has the scientific establishment thrown up it's arms and said something like 'you know, we just can't figure out how any of this universe business and life here on Earth could possibly have come about without being designed. Laplace was wrong, we do have need of that hypothesis. We therefore declare that God is responsible, and, furthermore, that we should worship his son the Lord Jesus Christ as our only true saviour'?

To turn to his comments about 'collapse gurus', IE those who think we've already gone too far and a catastrophic (to humans) re-adjustment of the Earth's climate is inevitable; of what consequence to anything is their belief or lack of it in a god? We are (or should be!) only concerned by their evaluation of evidence, and interpretations of models. Whether they believe in the tooth fairy, or are looking forward to an eternity spent feasting in Valhalla is entirely their own concern, PROVIDING WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THE HERE-AFTER DOES NOT INFLUENCE THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE.

If "Many intelligent people are looking at what they believe is a god-forsaken world" then I sincerely hope that many more intelligent people are looking at a world where the existence or non-existence of a god has absolutely no bearing WHATSOEVER on whether we've got our maths right.

If we really do need organised religion to make people behave, then we're absolutely fucked aren't we?

Enjoy this post? Then why not subscribe in a reader, or subscribe by email (top right of the page) for updates?


View blog reactions

Materialism is the New Colonialism, Says Pope


"I hate materialism; I'm keeping all this gold so that it doesn't corrupt you."

I'm getting a bit fed up of writing about the Pope and his worldwide fan club of delusional psychopaths. I'm beginning to wish he'd shut up for a while and give another religious leader an opportunity to show the World how ignorant and hypocritical they are, but it seems that Mr Ratzinger is just so brim-full of poison that he simply can't contain himself.

Opening a three week synod of African bishops in Rome - organised to discuss how the Church can help to ease problems of social injustice and conflict - his holiness apparently said that political colonialism is over, but the developed world continues to export materialism - which he called "toxic spiritual rubbish" - to the continent.

Toxic spiritual rubbish. I had to read that a couple of times, then stop laughing, and then calm down a bit. Just roll that phrase around your tongue for a bit, and imagine the Pope saying it in his gentle German accent, and no doubt really believing himself.

Toxic. Spiritual. Rubbish.

What could he mean by this phrase?

Does he mean teaching people that they are all descended from one man and one woman, created by a God who then punished them for being curious, and who continues to punish us today?

Perhaps he means the necessity of despising yourself and surpressing almost every natural urge you may have as 'ungodly', and then whenever you succumb to such an urge, having to tell a (sin-free!) priest who can 'forgive' you on God's behalf?

Or could he mean throwing yourself at the feet of one of the most disgustingly jealous and capricious gods ever invented, begging for mercy as the unforgivable sinner you are?

It could be that he means loving the man/god who saved you from the sins he gave you (except he didn't really, because any one with even a fraction of sanity knows that Adam and Eve didn't really exist) by having himself brutally tortured and executed, with all of your heart?

Perhaps he means telling people that if they waver in this ultimate goal, they will burn for ever and ever, without possible hope of reprieve, in unimaginable torment?

Does he perhaps refer to your God-given duty to prove your love for him by drinking his blood and eating his flesh?

Or could he possibly mean submitting completely to the whims of a hyper-rich, worldwide organisation, bound by no earthly laws, that has spent close on 1800 years burning, torturing, imprisoning or otherwise ruining the lives of, quite literally, countless numbers of people? An organisation that today ensures the continued misery of millions of it's followers, whether by beating and violating children, teaching the same children that they are worthless sinners, or actively promoting - for no other phrase can describe the Church's effect on this issue - the spread of HIV.

No, of course he doesn't, for all of the above are, of course, ways to achieve spirtual enlightenment, peace, harmony, and to be loved and recieved by the wonderful, loving, gentle God who created you.

So what exactly would count as toxic spiritual rubbish? Anything even vaguely smacking of humanism for a start. Educating people about the real world, and where we come from, for another thing. Teaching people that, actually, they are not so bad and don't need to grovel at the feet of a god that 'exists' purely to perpetuate the comfort of a group of ignorant men. And - how could I almost forget? - allowing people to use a contraceptive device so that they aren't playing Russian roulette every time they have sex.

All of these things are indeed appalling and abhorrent - if you happen to be one of those men who live in extreme comfort and only do so because of the ignorance and servitude of your 'children'.

Let's turn briefly to colonialism, of the good old-fashioned sort, first. Perhaps you can find an example in history of the Church speaking out against such evils? Or perhaps even an example of them not being entirely supportive of any Catholic nation setting out on the noble task of Christianising the heathens, by depriving them of their land, treasures, freedom and often their lives?

Good luck with that.

Now to turn briefly to the many wars that blight Africa and so hold back her progress; how many of these are religious wars? Fought by and between religions?

How many priests, accused of child abuse, have been moved to 'safe' parishes in Africa?

A convocation of African Bishops, brought together to discuss how they can alleviate Africa's problems, is, to my mind, on a par with a convocation of Irish priests discussing how best to reduce levels of child abuse.

If you'll forgive my rather hard-line stance on this issue, I think about the best thing the Catholic clergy in Africa could do to ease that continent's troubles would be to quietly line up against the nearest wall.

Enjoy this post? Then why not subscribe in a reader, or subscribe by email (top right of the page) for updates?


View blog reactions