Rite and Reason: Science has no power to destroy the moral universe and it has yet to show how any ethical code can be derived from the truths it can verify, writes Seán O'Conaill.
Canon Hilary Wakeman suggests (Rite and Reason, December 22nd) that we cannot honestly say we believe the Creed in anything other than a poetical sense, and that dishonesty on this is "laying the hand of death on the church". From the rest of her article it appears that her argument rests upon the fact that the material cosmos of the Christian creeds has been dismantled by modern science.
What she, and all modern intellectuals, need to grasp is that the universe of the creeds is a moral as well as a material universe.
That is to say the vertical spatial dimension represents not merely what is physically supposed to be above and below a flat or disc-shaped earth, but what is good and what is evil. This is why God and heaven are placed "above" and hell is placed "below". Heaven is therefore the "place" of glory, while hell is the "place" of disgrace and shame.
The creedal narrative is therefore telling us that the Christian God is on a moral trajectory that is unexpected - towards shame and disgrace, the lot of the "losers" of the ancient world. (The "winners" were people like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar.)
Incarnation is the beginning of this narrative, crucifixion and resurrection the dramatic centre, and glorification the end. But Jesus's glorification was the reward for his acceptance of disgrace and defeat. The "meaning" of the story is therefore that "glory" does not await those who seek to move only "upward" (i.e., those who set out egotistically to "reach the top") - as "the world" has always thought.
Humility, compassion and service - the centre of the Christian ethic - point in the opposite direction.
Empirical science has no power to destroy the moral universe of the creeds, because it has yet to show how any ethical code can be derived from the truths it can verify. I suspect that most people who say the creeds have no sense of suppressed dishonesty, because they intuitively know that they are not primarily describing a physical cosmos.
Curiously, it is only the one-dimensional empirical mind that has problems with the notion of a moral universe. The millions who read and watch the Tolkien stories - or the Star Wars and Star Trek sagas for that matter - have no such problem.
It's no accident that Canon Wakeman's chosen empiricist is Richard Dawkins, who epitomises Enlightenment envy of the Christian clergy's role in the field that he would wish his own priesthood, the scientists, to dominate: education.
Dawkins supposes (and Wakeman seems to agree) that the Catholic dogma of the Assumption of Mary, both body and soul, is "irrational" - because heaven can't be a physical place that contains bodies. But precisely the same objection has been raised to the Ascension - the event related in Acts 1, when the apostles saw Jesus ascend bodily to the Father. In fact, Christian theology has never been definitive on the non-materiality of heaven.
It emphasises rather that heaven is essentially a relationship of full reconciliation and unity with God. A relationship need not be, but obviously may be, something that occurs in some space somewhere.
How may a moral/spiritual universe (if such a thing exists) interact with our material/physical universe? We simply don't know.
But to begin with the Dawkins position that it simply can't exist, and therefore cannot interact, is surely in itself hubristic and unscientific - especially in an era when physicists themselves declare the possibility of multiple dimensions that we have no normal access to, and when the consequences of supposing the universe to be morally and spiritually empty lie all around us. It is not empiricism that will invalidate Christianity in the long run, but the failure of Christians themselves to grasp and realise the purpose of a God who challenges "the world" of our own time - the "meritocracy" that tries to make science itself the slave of commerce and the armaments industry, and looks down from towers of glass on losers in the meritocratic race.
This notion that society must always have a "top" in the meritocratic sense is based upon a human frailty identified in the Decalogue - the desire never to be outdone by our neighbour. Scientists are, alas, as prone to it as the rest of us - as Dawkins's contempt for all religious believers illustrates.
Why should we not live in a moral universe on Sundays, and try to make its values real in the secular moral vacuum through the week? Until science can finally disprove the value of the concepts of good and evil, and derive virtues such as love and compassion from an equation or a drug, we will need great beliefs that leap beyond science. That is why there will always be Christians entranced with the idea of a God who stoops.
Seán O'Conaill is a commentator on religious and moral matters