Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Religious Studies – Anthology
21
as assert ions t hen many religious ac t ivit ies would bec ome fraudulent , or merely
silly. If 'Y ou ought bec ause it is God's will' assert s no more than 'You ought', then
the person who prefers the former phraseology is not really giving a reason, but a
fraudulent substitution for one, a dialec tic al dud c heque. If 'My soul must be
immo rt a l bec ause God loves his c hildren, etc .' asserts no more than 'My soul must
be immortal', then the man who reassures himself with theologic al arguments for
immort alit y is being as silly as t he man who t ries t o c lear his overdraft by writ ing
his bank a c heque on the same amount. (Of c ourse neither of these utteranc es
would be dist inc t ively Christ ian: but t his disc ussion never pret ended t o be so
confined.) Religious utterances may indeed express false or even bogus assertions:
but I simply do not believe that they are not both intended and interpreted to be or
at any rate to presuppose assertions, at least in the context of religious practice;
whatever shifts may be demanded, in another context, by the exigencies of
t heologic al apologet ic.
One final suggest ion. T he philosophers of religion might well draw upon George
Orwell's last appalling night mare 1984 for the concept of doublethink. 'Doublethink
means the power of holding two c ontradic tory beliefs simultaneously, and ac c epting
bot h of t hem. T he part y int ellec t ual knows t hat he is playing t ric ks wit h realit y, but
by the exerc ise of doublet hink he also sat isfies himself t hat realit y is not violat ed'
( 1984 , p. 220). Perhaps religious int ellec t uals t oo are somet imes driven t o
doublet hink in order t o ret ain t heir fait h in a loving God in fac e of t he realit y of a
heartless and indifferent world. But of this more another time, perhaps.