Dr Williams faces reality

The Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Easter sermon, admitted at last that the idea of God is imaginary, unnecessary, degrading and dangerous.  Oh, all right then, he didn't.  But to do so would have been an act of honesty and integrity.

The Archbishop of Canterbury's Easter sermon can be read in full here.

Once again, Dr Williams has underlined two colossally important points. The first is the utterly obscene, unbridled immorality of the central doctrine of Christianity. The second (and more breathtaking) is the social acceptability of the pernicious rot that he and his kind regularly visit upon us.

The Archbishop cites the resurrection of Jesus as evidence that Christianity is true. Truth, he says, is more important than usefulness. Modern vernacular is eloquent enough in response: he is wrong on so many levels. Firstly, and irrefutably, the so-called 'evidence' for the resurrection comes from Christian literature, and so it is circular to use it as proof. Secondly, even if the resurrection were proven to have occurred, that fact alone would tell us nothing about who or what occasioned it, or whether or not we should work on Sundays, or whether any of Jesus's alleged ravings should be taken seriously.

The Archbishop's assertion is pure wish thinking. There is no logical path from 'actuality of resurrection' to 'truth of everything in Christianity'. That is so obvious as to be hardly worth saying. But what risks going unnoticed is the real nub of the issue. Why would the Archbishop, or anyone with an ounce of humanity, wish such a sordid collection of filth to be the truth?

God, claims the Archbishop, created the universe and maintains its existence, second by second, through his purposive action. Thus, everything that happens can be accounted for by God, and everything that doesn't happen can be accounted for by God's choosing not to make it happen. Let's not go down the road of examining man's supposed fall in the light of this claim, for the outcome is plain enough before we even start. Instead, let's look at what really happened, according to the Williams model.

This line of reasoning has been expounded before by the late Christopher Hitchens, so I don't claim originality. (Note that the Archbishop's assertions aren't original either.) Recognisable humans are reckoned to have existed on Earth for one or two hundred thousand years. Dr Williams asserts that the omnipotent creator of the universe watched, with (presumably purposive) passive detachment, while the struggling wretches starved and died, often after brief lives of tormented agony, for between ninety-eight and a hundred and ninety-eight thousand years, after which he decided it was time to intervene. And how did the almighty choose to carry out this intervention? By appearing to the Chinese, who had an organised civilization and written language? No, he chose to interact with unlettered peasants in an obscure part of the Middle East, making sure there were as few reliable witnesses as possible, and carried out a filthy and demeaning human sacrifice, thereafter claiming that we, who had no say in the matter, were and still are responsible. This disgusting act of murder, which any of us, if present at the time and in a position of influence, would have been duty bound to try to prevent, was supposedly necessary in order to atone for an earlier misdemeanour in which we also had no part. The grisly details aside, the very idea of vicarious redemption is a deeply unethical one. If you have been caught speeding, I can pay your fixed penalty for you, or serve your jail term in your place if you are a repeat offender, but there is nothing I or anyone else can do to absolve you of the responsibility for what you did. The responsiblity comes bundled with the fact that you did it. The suggestion that one can load one's responsibility onto a hapless individual who is then tortured to death is hardly an honourable one.

I would have a good deal more respect for Dr Williams if his speech had gone something like this.

My dear fellow Christians, it is high time we faced up to a fact which, if we are honest, we have long known in our hearts to be true. While many of the teachings of the Christian Church are admirable, resulting in help for the needy, support for our neighbours, and succour in times of strife, we must at last recognise that these things come from humankind alone, and not from any invisible celestial deity. The evidence for God as an all-powerful being, who created and manages the universe, is precisely nil. The idea of eternal bliss in heaven arose from cynical exploitation of our innate and childish fear of death. The spiteful and complacent corollary, that of eternal torture of the damned, was added later (see the New Testament) as a further incentive to follow the directions of the clergy. We should look back with pride on the achievements of human civilization, and with humility upon our own mistakes and those of our forbears. We should learn from such mistakes and do our utmost to avoid repeating them. The State of Israel exists, thanks to a series of such mistakes, and the best we can now do is try to avert a nuclear exchange in the Middle East, by striving for an equitable, two-state solution. We have nothing to gain by clinging to ancient, divisive dogmas that would have died out long ago if they had not been drilled into children before they were old enough to think. So, take a deep breath, go forth, divest yourself of the enervating chains of totalitarian serfdom, be assured that you will not be called upon to sing the praises of the Dear Leader throughout eternity, make the most of your one finite life, and leave the place as you would expect to find it for your children and those who follow them. Amen.