Do we need more religion?

In last Sunday's Telegraph, Naill Ferguson wrote an article entitled:

Heaven knows how we'll rekindle our religion, but I believe we must.

After describing himself as a hard-shelled materialist, Ferguson went on to say why he believes that a revival of Christianity is so important:

I do not deny that sermons are sometimes dull and that British congregations often sing out of tune. But, if nothing else, a weekly dose of Christian doctrine will help to provide an ethical framework for your life. And I certainly do not know where else you are going to get one.

Over the past few weeks we have all read a great deal about the threat posed to our way of life; by Muslim extremists like Muktar Said-Ibrahim. But how far has our own loss of religious faith turned this country into a soft target?

This is the latest example of a trend that I have noticed over the last year or so; conservative commentators calling for a return to Christianity.  Mark Steyn, for example:

There aren't many examples of successful post-religious societies.

I recently had a conversation with an EU official who, apropos a controversial proposal to tout the Continent's religious heritage in the new constitution, kept using the phrase Europe's post-Christian future. The evidence suggests that, once you reach the post-Christian stage, you don't have much of a future.

Recently; the Cornerstone group of Conservative MPs called for a renewed emphasis on religion for its positive effects on morality, behaviour, order and social justice:

Even if one discounts the arguments in favour of religion from a theoretical and traditional perspective, it has important practical benefits.

This sentence sums up the position of a lot of the recent conservative commentators on religion. From many of them, I don't get the impression that they actually believe in God. Ferguson admits to being a materialist and Steyn hardly mentions God at all. This discussion among the lads at Once More has the same feel to it. I reckon most of them are agnostics but they still reckon that religion is a Good Thing.

The new emphasis on religion by conservative thinkers is instrumental. It is driven by a desire for social cohesion, self-discipline, morality and order. Religion is simply the means to an end. Who cares if there is a God, just as long as most people believe that there is and behave accordingly.

Some of the impetus for this has come from the challenge of Islam. If we are uncertain in our beliefs but we are confronted by a group of people with a clear set of religious principles, then we will eventually lose - or so the story goes.

There is an interesting parallel with medieval Islam here.  As Bernard Lewis points out in his excellent book "What Went Wrong?" , Islamic fundamentalism began to reassert itself in the later middle ages, after the Arabs began to lose wars, first to their Iranian and Berber vassals and later, to Turkish and Mongol invaders from central Asia. Religious conservatives explained these defeats as punishment for abandoning traditional Islam. As a result, the Muslim world retreated from modernity and abandoned its pursuit of scientific knowledge. Thus began Islam's decline into the medieval ignorance and superstition that still holds it back today.

A reassertion of religion as a way of revitalising society and recapturing the glories of the past did not work for the Arabs. It is unlikely to work for us either, for the simple reason that our glorious past wasn't as religious as we think. Here is Naill Ferguson again:

The dechristianisation of Britain is in fact a relatively recent phenomenon. For most of the first half of the 20th century, Anglican Easter Day communicants accounted for around 5 to 6 per cent of the population of England; it was only after 1960 that the proportion slumped to 2 per cent.

Two per cent is low but five per cent isn't exactly high. If Ferguson's figures are correct, between 1900 and 1950, nine out of ten people still found something better to do on Easter Sunday than go to church. A lot of the men who charged up the beaches on D-Day would not have been to church the previous Easter. Some historians have argued that the English were never particularly religious, even before the Reformation, which accounts for the relatively small scale religious wars in this country, compared to those in continental Europe.  Jeremy Paxman, in his book  "The English", comments:

The English were not in any meaningful sense religious, the Church of England being a political invention which had elevated being 'a good chap' to something akin to canonization. On the occasions when bureaucracy demanded they admit an allegiance, they could write 'C of E' in the box and know that they wouldn't be bothered by demands that they attend church.

The level of Church attendance has fluctuated throughout the modern period. The eighteenth century saw a decline in religious observance during which many churches were closed. A religious revival during the nineteenth century took church attendance back up to seventeenth century levels. Nevertheless, it was during the relatively un-religious eighteenth century that Britain rose to world power status. Many of those who fought in the Seven Years War, or who conquered and settled our first overseas colonies,  were probably not regular church-goers.

The widespread belief that religion and national greatness are somehow linked is probably due to recent memories of high levels of religious observance.  By a number of measures, such as baptisms, confirmations and membership of the electoral role,  the Church of England peaked somewhere around 1930.  It is this pre-war society, in which religion and empire were still strong,  that gives us our psychological reference point.

I am sceptical about the extent to which religion made Britain strong and stable.  I also need a lot more convincing that a lack of religion will hasten our country’s decline. This move towards seeing belief in God as a panacea for our social problems and as a way of fighting back against our enemies, is a knee-jerk reaction.  The last thing that we need now is a retreat into religious dogma.  It didn't work for the medieval Caliphate and it won’t work for us either.

Comments

[Joe90]

Well said.

It is not necessary to believe in an invisible primate alpha male armed with a large stick to get people to behave well.

As with the acquisition of language, there is probably a 'sensitive period' during which moral instruction has its biggest impact on children. The acquisition of moral standards (or ethics, if you prefer) should therefore by an integral and unceasing part of early education.

The idea that we should oppose home-grown supernatural obscurantism to that of Islam is ridiculous. What a dismal prospect for the 21st century: a planet over-run by superstitious rantings and the hypocrisy of religious in-group favouritism.

[Blimpish]

As Edward Gibbon put it: "The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful."

There's a very great difference between religious practice and religious belief. As you say, religious practice was never that high in England, but belief certainly was - the English were notorious for their Puritanical Christianity only fifty years back.

Will come back with more on this, but got to go now. Suffice to say, it isn't about seeing belief in God as a panacea, but as a firmer foundation for society.

[Blimpish]

Enough time for Joe90, though: it isn't necessary to condescend and insult in order to disagree with other peoples' religious beliefs, either.

[Joe90]

Why not, Blimpish?

Like me, you don't seem to have a problem with people mocking elements of Islam here.

Or is it just your particular set of beliefs that are to be quarantined from adverse comment?

[Jacob]

Excellent post. This blog is continuously improving.

Two things i'd like to say.
1) Ferguson's call for a revival of Christianity is absurd. People cannot choose to revive Christinaity. We do not choose what to believe and you can't fabricate or revive a new view of the world because you think it is socio-politically expedient or proper to do so.

2) The idea that there is no such thing as a sucessful post-religious society is clearly nonsense. Anyone who wants to make such a claim would have to show me some sort of correlation between empiricaly irreligiosity (proportion of population regularly attending church etc) and underdevelopment. In fact, the countries with the highest per capita GDP tend to be the least religious.

[Joe90]

The USA is the exception to that, a wealthy, technological powerhouse with high levels of supernatural belief among large swathes of its population. You'd have to look very hard in Europe, maybe among old ladies in Sicily, to find such a high proportion giving credence to notions such as the Devil or 'personal angels'.

Conversely, Russia has a low level of supernatural belief - even less than that of Britain - but a low GDP as well.

But the general pattern holds true. You don't need high levels of religious belief to have a relatively orderly and prosperous society. For poorer countries, literalist forms of such beliefs pose fundamental barriers to progress and well-being.

[David Vance]

Sorry guys but I can't agree. I'm with Steyn on this one, and as a Christian I passionately believe that as our country has turned away from God, God turns away from us. I do understand the argument that we don't want to be a medievel caliphate like Ossie and the gang want - but Christianity accompanied the rise of the UK and it's rejection has seen the UK fall into the mire. I admire the US for holding to some beliefs and wish it were the same here. Sadly, I know it is not.

[Blimpish]

Joe90: there's a difference between doctrinal criticism, and hurling around stuff like "believe in an invisible primate alpha male armed with a large stick" and "home-grown supernatural obscurantism." Subtle.

"You don't need high levels of religious belief to have a relatively orderly and prosperous society. For poorer countries, literalist forms of such beliefs pose fundamental barriers to progress and well-being."

Where'd the industrial revolution happen? England. Where were the powerhouses of the second industrial revolution? Germany and the US. What's the common religious background? A leading role for Protestant Christianity (hardly a new insight, think of Weber). That literalist religion's a surefire killer for economic development, ain't it?

As for social order, you've obviously got the edge over pretty much every great political philosopher, many of them atheists, to live before the 19th century. The US Founding Fathers were in no doubt on the need for a strong religious backdrop; so too was that well known friend of the ancien regime, Robespierre.

And anyway, you (and Steve) are making an assumption that the decline of a living Christian belief means a wholesale embrace of atheism (yay for the rational guys!, you think). The success of Jonathan Cainer suggests a different story. But another time.

[Joe90]

"What's the common religious background? A leading role for Protestant Christianity (hardly a new insight, think of Weber)."

A leading role too for the Enlightenment and the development of the deductive model of scientific enquiry.

"That literalist religion's a surefire killer for economic development, ain't it?"

It certainly is for countries where doctrinal certainties keep women in place as compliant baby-producers, out of education and out of the workforce.

And particularly so where religious diktats forbid effective and humane forms of contraception, and so bring about misery, conflict and environmental degradation through overpopulation.

"As for social order, you've obviously got the edge over pretty much every great political philosopher, many of them atheists, to live before the 19th century."

I made a suggestion that there may be a biologically-based 'sensitive period' during child development for the acquisition of moral values, and this is what is critical for the successful indoctrination of pro-social values. You have responded to that with a sarcastic comment largely devoid of content.

"And anyway, you (and Steve) are making an assumption that the decline of a living Christian belief means a wholesale embrace of atheism (yay for the rational guys!, you think)."

I don't think that does follow automatically. The decline of organised Christianity may leave a vacuum that is slowly filled by disorganised superstitious beliefs with no moral dimension to them at all. They might be concerned solely with individual advantage, revenge and the relief of personal misfortune through spells, divination and other hocus-pocus.

[Blimpish]

"A leading role too for the Enlightenment and the development of the deductive model of scientific enquiry."

Doubtless - but you've conceded ("too") the point that the religious background was important. I'd go further, and say that Protestantism literalism must be seen in the context of that deductive model and the Method revolution - allowing the normal folk to read the Bible in their own language is a perfect example of this.

"It certainly is for countries where doctrinal certainties keep women in place as compliant baby-producers, out of education and out of the workforce.

"And particularly so where religious diktats forbid effective and humane forms of contraception, and so bring about misery, conflict and environmental degradation through overpopulation."

Not quite as simple as you might think. Population growth is a key driver of economic development, especially in early stages - where raw labour is a valuable resource, and the division of labour is an important motor for productivity gain.

Bear in mind that one of the high growth phases in English economic history came in after women were chased out of the factories in the early c.19th (for a variety of reasons).

At any rate, you're a bit close to classifying "everything bad" under the category of "religion." By the same logic, atheist societies played host to terror-famines and holocausts, and that alone is why we should oppose atheism - not exactly fair comment.

Yes, religious excess can be damaging to a society, but (so far as I'm aware) nobody's talking about a move to strict biblical rule here. And it might just be (my position) that a religious deficit can be damaging too. Public religion is like most things - good in moderation. Bearing in mind we now have less common religious belief than any society has traditionally had, the idea of a deficit doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me.

"I made a suggestion that there may be a biologically-based 'sensitive period' during child development for the acquisition of moral values, and this is what is critical for the successful indoctrination of pro-social values. You have responded to that with a sarcastic comment largely devoid of content."

(All comments made by me are devoid of useful content, so I obviously just went further that time. My apologies for the sarcasm.)

The problem with your suggestion is, what are these 'pro-social values'? Where do we derive these values from? Because they allow our society to be prosperous and orderly? Why is it better for society to be prosperous and orderly - by which values do we judge that? Why should our society continue, anyway? Why should we care? Perhaps pro-social values, by supporting the current structure of society, are themselves dehumanising (oh for the Noble Savage...)? This is the problem with solid atheism - it offers no grounds for setting those values except (ultimately) some arbitrary assertion of will.

"I don't think that does follow automatically. The decline of organised Christianity may leave a vacuum that is slowly filled by disorganised superstitious beliefs with no moral dimension to them at all. They might be concerned solely with individual advantage, revenge and the relief of personal misfortune through spells, divination and other hocus-pocus."

I'm with Tocqueville on this one - the tendency is towards a hazy Pantheism, practiced through the hocus-pocus type stuff or even secularised self-help notions. And I agree with him that "against it all who abide in their attachment to the true greatness of man should combine and struggle."

[Joe90]

"Doubtless - but you've conceded ("too") the point that the religious background was important."

Yes, it was. You can hardly dissociate a figure like Locke from Protestantism, for example. But the Enlightenment also saw the dissociation of religion, philosophy, science and politics from each other.

This process continues today but has also changed - science has recently integrated elements of philosophy, notably philosophy of mind, and corroded those aspects of religion which deal with origins (almost no educated person today believes in creationism). Various political movements have tried to claim scientific grounding, usually with dismal results.

You ask some pertinent questions on deciding how we are to live and how we are to treat each other. I think science can play a role in this, but it is sharply circumscribed. It can (and does) generate hypotheses about both distal and proximate mechanisms underlying human morality.

On what the content of that morality should be, I don't think it can say much at all. Moral reasoning must surely involve some assumption that people are agents endowed with choice or free will. Scientific enquiry can't work on such assumptions: things have to have causes, they can't just happen. So the two spheres of inquiry are in that sense quite separate, and the methodology of one is irrelevant to the other.

To get to the point, I think religious thinkers should certainly contribute to the debate on what our morals should consist of. But others can take part too. It should not be a necessary entrance requirement that you put your reference point outside the human species, or indeed outside space and time.

But what I would most like to see more of is sceptical thinking. I would like children in schools to be taught how to think critically,
to be presented with the basics of philosophy and logic, of what is and isn't a valid argument, as well as a simple understanding of the biases and decision-making processes of the human mind.

You made a couple of other points. The first concerned population growth. Yes, it has spurred economic development in the past.

An obvious example is where a new frontier or land-mass has been discovered, and a scattered aboriginal population, if present, can be pushed out of the way. But there are no new frontiers in the world. Everywhere's taken.

Today, high rates of population growth are nearly always synonymous with conflict, political instability, spread of infectious diseases, loss of arable land, and so on. Religious doctrines and religiously-sanctioned traditions which exacerbate the problem must be challenged. (Bad joke: What do you call people who practice the withdrawal method? 'Parents'.)

On the point of the women being turfed out of factories in early 19th century Britain, that's an interesting bit of history, which I'll need to educate myself about. But how can keeping women out of school and out work, which in some parts of the world amounts to claustration and all the horrors that go with it, ever be justified? It can't. It's got to go.

[Blimpish]

On the very last bit, yes - but it should be said that religion has empowered women in many cases, compared to their role in tribal societies. As I said, that's part of the problem with discussions about 'religion' - it's such a broad category that meaningful generalisations are fraught with danger.

I'd agree with a lot of what you say around the role of science, and especially the limits to its claims. I'm sure you'd agree that the lesson of the 20th century is that the notion of science as an autonomous form of knowledge, beyond all politics, had lethal consequences at some times and places.

There is, though a bigger issue, which cuts to the heart of my issue with Steve's post. My point is not that only religious people can reason on moral issues, but that a materialist-atheist (one whose references are wholly within this world) has no solid ground on which to make authoritative moral statements. Unless said atheist can prove himself as Nietzschean Overman, why do his moral arguments matter any more than anybody else's? Or is the best sophist to set our moral standards? (And, post-Nietzsche, post-Heidegger, it's a bit difficult to do anything more than smile at the notion of objective liberal reason as our guide.)

That is not to say that I expect such people to bow down before the superiority of 'my' Christian morality; but to get back to Steve's post, if we're to have a common moral code, then it needs to have a solid foundation. And at least a religious morality has a logical coherence for obedience.

2 other completely off-topic points:

First, you'd be surprised at how many educated people believe in Creationism. The average hardcore evangelical in the US tends to have a significantly better-than-average education (many are grad or post-grad), and still believe it. But then think how many educated people believed in Marxism..!

Second, I'm glad you said about the connection between Locke and Protestantism, as I argued this very point only last week here:

http://considerphlebas.blogspot.com/2005/07/various-things.html

You'll also see there, by the way, that despite what was said above, my theological tastes are very much against literalist religion.

[Andrew Duffin]

Quote from the linked article:

"a weekly dose of Christian doctrine will help to provide an ethical framework for your life. And I certainly do not know where else you are going to get one."

Note that last sentence - it's a line of thought often trotted out by religious types. It equates to "we won't know we ought to be nice to other people unless we believe in some big old guy with a white beard who lives up in the sky, and who will tell us how to behave."

If you have that low an opinion of humanity, I suppose it's only a short step to blowing people up on trains and buses.

Feh.

[Blimpish]

Andrew: why should we be nice to other people? How far should that go? Is niceness the reigning principle? Or should we be allowed to be nasty sometimes? If so, when? And why does your opinion on these things matter more than anybody else's? If it doesn't, then why not follow BNP morality rather than Duffin's morality?

People with a high opinion of humanity brought us the Gulag.

[Steve]

It will take me a while to pick up the thread of this but Blimpish, do you really think that Stalin had a high opinion of humanity?

[Andrew Duffin]

Blimpish - well "being nice to people" was a bit of a generalisation, but since you ask, it seems to me that we should be nice to other people because they are, like, other PEOPLE. Like us, you know. My point was that if you think we can't come to that conclusion by ourselves, without the help of (imaginary) superior beings, then you devalue humanity.

Gulags? Like Steve, I'd struggle to agree that Berman, Frenkel, Beria et al had a "high opinion" of humanity.

[chris]

What about the Islamic Renaissance? The great flowering of knowledge in Muslim countries was absolutely nothing to do with Protestantism, but rather more to do with Islam being at this time a rather more tolerant system (compare the treatment of Jews at this time) than that practiced elsewhere (particularly Europe under the Christian kosh). As the post points out this began to fail at exactly the same time as they began to take their religion more seriously. America is given as an example of a successful society that is highly religious, well for one thing compared with many countries it is not highly religious and they take the division of church and state quite seriously.

For another example look at the comparative successes within America. The most successful places are not in the bible belt, but on the coasts. Particularly San Francisco (with it's attendant Silicon Valley) which as the unofficial Gay capital of the world can hardly be the average god bothering bible belters most loved place.

The argument that superstition is the only thing that stops civilisation from collapsing is a canard as well. It is possible to construct a moral system without a god at the centre of it, such as Utilitarianism.

[Blimpish]

Andrew: your proposed ethical ground is derived from the Gospels - a decayed form of the Great Commandment, which is why I question your notion that all this is obvious from first principles. (Check out how the Romans used to treat their own kids, for example.)

Taken as an absolute value, though, it implies either retreat into a privatised quietism (be nice to everybody, regardless of their own actions) or a radical crusade (dividing humanity into 'people' and 'non-people'; the first category get niceness, the second category...?).

Further, what do you mean by niceness? Perhaps niceness might include killing people ("lives not worth living," say), or perhaps allowing people to make others' life a misery ("expressing their will," maybe). And don't even think about saying that the Harm Principle or some other logical formula solves this - it leaves unanswered the specifics of what constitutes 'Harm' that should limit the power to act.

But anyway, you say we should be nice, but (among others) Nietzsche says not. For him, niceness is the problem - a Christian holdover, after all. He says a bit of brutality can go a long way. Now, we know that the popularity of a belief says nothing for its value (look at state socialism), so why should we believe you over Nietzsche? After all, he's the one that was willing to think much more around the Judeo-Christian moral tradition into which he (like you and me) were raised. Maybe he's right and the truly moral way is to be nasty and domineering.

Chris:

1. "The most successful places are not in the bible belt, but on the coasts." Aside from the fact that one of the centres of the 1990s tech boom was Austin (in, erm, Texas), one of the fastest growing cities since 2000 has been Boise, Idaho. Other growth areas are in places like Wisconsin and Virginia. The "[G]od bothering bible belters" can be pretty industrious when they want to be (how'd you think they afford those big churches?). And anyway, Silicon Valley draws its workers from a much wider range of places than S.F. - it's a mistake to confuse the two centres of economic activity.

2. "It is possible to construct a moral system without a god at the centre of it, such as Utilitarianism." The number of societies existing now or in the past that have lived by a utilitarian 'moral system'? Zero. 'Moral systems' have to be more than logically consistent, they have to be practicable. At any rate, utilitarianism is not a 'moral' system; it depends on an assumed moral consensus through which value-judgements can be made. It then assumes that nobody will hold some values in absolute terms. A consistent utilitarian can be led to endorse some activities that most of us happily condemn - in Peter Singer's case, enfanticide and bestiality, for example. It's all great on the pages of a philosophy journal; most of us recoil in horror from the real implications.

[Andrew Duffin]

Blimpish: my ethical philosophy may appear to be derived from the Gospels but I believe you are confusing cause and effect.

You're right that we both grew up in the Christian tradition but I do not accept that that affects the issue at all.

"Being nice" is shorthand, of course, but perhaps we can agree life is better and society more successful when everyone accepts that you should not kill, steal, deceive, etc etc? Does realising that require a God? I don't think so, it seems maybe you do.

It is no co-incidence that the ancient Jewish people felt they had to create a legend to explain these self-evident truths. Many other groups have done the same, independently. The various legends bear a resemblance to each other. Well colour me surprised!

But the truths came first and the legends came afterwards, usually to provide justification or power legitimisation for an aristocracy or a priesthood.

[Blimpish]

Andrew: you'd be surprised as to how much religious traditions can differ. Take just one example: the idea of human equality is pretty much a Christian notion. You say:

"But perhaps we can agree life is better and society more successful when everyone accepts that you should not kill, steal, deceive, etc etc?"

Note 'more successful' - so this is a business deal, a contract. Aside from the notorious problem of how you initiate a social contract (i.e., if there's no social contract in place, how do you have the trust and good faith to start one?), we've passed out of the realms of morality and into a question of costs and benefits.

In other words, killing people isn't wrong or unjust - it's just that we know society is more successful if we all refrain from doing so. That said (unless you're a pacifist, which I don't think you are), we allow Government to kill people, and those decisions again have to be taken on the basis of cost-benefit calculations, rather than moral rules. So if there's a consensus that it's socially beneficial to kill some people, then why not, eh? Thus, the Holocaust.

The word 'abyss' comes springing to mind here. The problem with non-religious ethical codes, as Irving Kristol once said, is that none of them can ever have a firm answer to the question "Why not?" That's because, as you say, it's about society being "successful," and not about people being "good."

My point, in the end, is that morality ultimately depends upon some metaphysical notion - some belief in the eternal, etc. It doesn't have to be a personal God, but there is always a subrational faith there. If you ask me, most atheists are really in this camp - they have a religious view, the only positive statement of which is that it hasn't got a God. You might say that's a grown-up view. I'd say (1) that it's a religion and therefore subject to every bit of the sceptic's critique of religion as Christianity, etc; and (2) why follow a morality which has no personal intelligence behind it? Surely we might know better than it?

But materialism and morality do not go together, if morality is properly so called.

[Andrew Duffin]

I think I am being misunderstood - probably my fault for being lax with language.

I definitely did not mean to conflate the meaning of "successful" with "rich". Of course this is not a business thing, of course a rich society is not necessarily a successful one - counter-examples are all around us.

What word can I use here? Perhaps I should say "a society you and I would like to live in"? Or would that bring us back to the fact that we were born into the Christian tradition and can't, whatever we do or think, escape from it - according to Mr. Blimpish.

I really don't believe that morality comes from a belief in the eternal; if it does, we're in trouble, because I don't believe in anything eternal (think what the word means, for a start). Morality comes from us, people, because we know how we like to be treated and we wish everyone would treat us that way, and we know that things work better (there I go again - this does NOT mean profits!) when they do, and we try as far as possible to treat others that way, especially (but not exclusively) if they are people close to us. Unless we're psychopaths or dictators.

As to the absence of religion being just another religion, well, circular argument or what?

[Blimpish]

Andrew, the last bit first - "most atheists," not all. It isn't that I think a non-religious position is impossible, but it is very difficult to sustain. Most atheists seem to ossify their skepticism into some doctrine of the transcendant, rather than being consistent materialists. Once they do so, their critique of theism is somewhat blunted.

As for the rest of it...

First, I think your trouble with language illustrates the point; the loss of a believed concept of the sacred and eternal (whether true or false) flattens our ability to talk on the Good Life; it becomes difficult to separate a good society from a materially useful/convenient society.

At any rate, my point wasn't that success=rich either; it could be defined in a range of goods, including peace and security, and perhaps equity too. Your alternative description, of a society we'd like to live in, is true to this - very much in keeping with the Rawlsian 'veil of ignorance' question.

But I think my point above - that this leaves no defence against "why not?" - holds up here. Moreover, the standard critique of the 'veil of ignorance' holds - that it can't handle the potential of some people cheating, to ensure they come out on top. Asking people to bear being a loser so that the random case gets on better doesn't look like being a winner.

I didn't mean to suggest we can't get out of the Christian tradition, only that we should be careful of overestimating the power of our individual reason, given the accumulated wisdom we live off. Even Nietzsche fell into the trap - saying love was beyond good and evil was giving into the slave cult Christianity. (The same applies to Greek philosophy, too - although a lot of that has already been absorbed by Western Christianity.)

And it's because I'm sceptical of that power of individual reason that I'm sceptical of your position, of man as values-creator, "because we know how we like to be treated and we wish everyone would treat us that way." After all, if I'm strong and successful, why do I give a shit about how other people treat me - and if so, why follow their rules?