Why ENGAGE Australia?

Prophets of Doom or Social Realists?

For centuries, the warnings have resounded of the impending breakdown of societies - for example, Saul of Tarsus wrote to his companion Timothy in the first century, warning him

…there will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power.

Recently, the American social commentator Dr Miles Munroe astutely observed

A brief look at our modern, sophisticated, technocratic, cyberspace-age world of today can be the source of fear, depression, discouragement, insecurity and uncertainty. From the archaic world of the cave men and bush hunters through the progressive succession of the agrarian cultures, to the advent of the industrial revolution leading to the scientific age of post-modernism and the computer age, we are still no better than nor different from our ancestors of old.

The only difference seems to be the sophistication of our tools and weapons. We are smarter but not wiser; we live longer but not healthier; we have more but enjoy less; we can go to the moon, but we cannot go home to a good family; we have access to more information but know less about life. Tragically, we protect whales but kill our children; we improve the quality of our food but produce less healthy strains for our consumption; we have more religion but less love; and we blame others for our choices as we look to ourselves for the solutions to the problems we create.

Various systems and social structures have attempted to make life better and more “humane” – demigods, dictatorships, monarchies, tyrannies, socialism, democracy, communism, imperialism. However, wars have increased and weapons of mass destruction become more available. We now face problems of climate change and world pollution on a scale never before seen. Disintegration of family and community generate personal angst, psychological and social problems that seem to have no solutions. We are caught in moral-ethical dilemmas which leave many gasping at their consequences.

Closer to home, in his book “Advance Australia Where?” the Australian social researcher Hugh Mackay writes

While we enjoy unprecedented levels of prosperity and the promise of more to come, we are still battling an epidemic of anxiety and depression, taking on record levels of debt and yearning for a deeper sense of meaning in our lives.

Despite the abundance of education and media campaign warnings, ongoing enquiries, discussions, forums and research papers, each suggesting supposedly better and more appropriate ways either to legislate or educate our growing society, the cry seems to go unheeded – “Is education alone, enough?” Are we now experiencing the consequences of ignoring the deeper issues that are underpinning the heart of society’s woes, as the ever increasing symptoms of disharmony and disfunctionalism continue to manifest to the detriment of our community?

Recently, the Anglican archbishop, Dr Philip Freier called for a national inquiry into the state of childhood in Australia, as he believes depression among young people is now so bad that many have effectively had their childhood stolen from them.1 In a recent speech at the Screen Producers Association of Australia, former children’s’ show presenter Noni Hazelhurst said children are currently being fed an imbalanced diet of information, images and concepts that are overloading and overwhelming their brains.

In my view (it) constitutes nothing less than child abuse.2

Expanding the warning to include every age group, this call is further emphasised by psychologist Dr Archibald Hart, whose book entitled “Thrilled to Death: How the Endless Pursuit of Pleasure is Leaving us Numb” addresses the consequences of our increasingly self-centred pleasure seeking societies, and the detrimental effects on our children’s physical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing.

A smorgasbord of worldviews, religions and philosophies exist in our multicultural nation, some of which are benign, others more aggressive and militant. Freedom of voice and freedom of choice has become the catch cry of the 21st century. However within that freedom our younger generation is often left to make their own choices unaware of the consequences and being denied the necessary foundations on which to base their decisions.

How should we to react to these forecasts of a further deterioration of our society and if their warnings continue to remain unheeded, what will be the consequences? How can we respond to these calls for social change that would radically alter our lifestyle, individually and collectively?

Worldview – the Key to Our Behaviour?

Every person has a philosophical worldview, which will ultimately determine their behavioural patterns toward others - both within and without the family. Nationally and internationally, philosophical worldviews have determined how nations interact.

At various times throughout history, the effect of even one philosopher has determined the course of history, for instance, Aristotle on Alexander the Great, Nietzsche on Hitler and Marx on Lenin - the latter resulting in the subsequent bloodbath of millions of Russians in the cause of egalitarianism.

Western worldviews appear to be in a state of flux, ever changing to encompass minority views in an effort to express tolerance and encourage peace between people of mixed cultures living in our society. In many countries today, the previous Christian worldview has been largely replaced by the philosophy of secular humanism. Perhaps one could ask whether or not this shift in philosophical thought is rational or simply a means to facilitate man’s independence from any moral restraint to enable a greater expression of his own self- interest.

If we seek to remedy the perceive maladies within our society, of necessity, there needs be a change in worldview. However, on what basis do we evaluate any adjustments? How can we persuade our educators and legislators when even they do not agree as to the best way forward? How can the rebellious behaviour of man be changed through legislation without his willing participation?

Perhaps we should look at issues of the heart, and why people behave the way they do. Do the symptoms mask the cause? Have we missed the ache of the human heart that yearns to be satisfied and which is being exacerbated by the lack of love exhibited within the family and community? The question remains to be answered – on what information should we form our worldview?

Morals and Values – Rights and Responsibilities

In a multicultural / pluralistic society, how should we regulate personal and group behaviour? Empirical evidence of behavioural aberrations3 would suggest the need for a restraint structure under which societal interaction is governed. The key issue is the type or form of the behavioural restraint.

As Dr. John Patrick explains, all societies share some fundamental ideas about what is acceptable behaviour, good and bad, unless they are in the terminal stages of decay. “A healthy society prefers truth to lies, love to hatred, honour to dishonour and justice to injustice.”4 It is the translation of the ideals into the ethics of daily life wherein we appear to have considerable difficulties - for instance, what happens when a society places greater emphasis on loyalty than truth?

Australia was founded on Christian principles, where morality was intrinsically linked to the God of creation, and behaviour was assessed in the light of the biblical text. Morality was the standard against which behavioural patterns were measured and controlled. Today, however, the word morality appears to have been increasingly and deliberately excluded from non-Christian education curricula, and the term values substituted in its place.

Whereas “morals” appear to carry the weight of personal responsibility where there is a concrete / absolute godly standard against which actions are judged, the definition of values appears to be more ethereal.

By definition “values” are the beliefs people have about what is right or wrong and what is most important in life – today, values are used as the ‘modern’ standard which is intended to regulate behaviour. Values are developed by individuals or groups of individuals within individual cultures – their assessment and implementation, however, relates primarily only to those who agree with their selection.

The use of the words right, wrong, good, bad or justice inherently contains within themselves value judgements. On what basis do we decide what is right or wrong, good or bad, or how do we punish behaviour society agrees is unacceptable? Should we tolerate everything, including cultural, philosophical or religious intolerance? Somewhere, in order to regulate behavioural patterns in society, there appears a need to define these terms? But on what basis do we start – from the evolutionary or creationalist viewpoint? Is it possible that the answer to this question could determine the basis for the health of our society.

Today, it would seem we live in a society without an ontic referent for the values purportedly established to govern behaviour - raising the question as to who will set the values and why will people desire to keep them when they are at best relative? Can one fairly question whether “values clarification” has become the modern euphemism for obscuring or attacking an absolute moral imperative?5

Over a decade ago, addressing a society that had become increasingly self-absorbed, the former deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, expressed the view that Australians should stop demanding their rights and accept their responsibilities in life. For example, employers agree there has been a dramatic shift in the work ethic of employees. The catch cry “everyone has a right to a job” has resounded in the corridors of unionism. However, there appears to have been very little said as to whether the employee is a suitable candidate to fulfil his responsibilities in the maintenance of a proficient and profitable workforce. What happens to a society where people refuse to take responsibility for their actions and blame others for their own “misdemeanours”?

Is the ultimate consequence of an unwillingness to accept personal responsibility for our actions reflected in the daily newspaper reports of road carnage, drunken assault, and even unethical behaviour in business? Does the individual have an obligation to others within society, and how should this be defined and expressed in life? If there is unwillingness to accept the morals, values and ethics within our society, will the result be anarchy – perhaps the ultimate consequence of the “me-first” syndrome?

The Paradox of Tolerance, Freedom and Judgement

Author Ryan Dobson writes

In our culture, tolerance is king. We don’t want anybody to feel bad about themselves. Everybody gets to do whatever they want, and we’re cool with that, so long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else. And we get to do whatever we want, and it’s nobody’s business but our own.6

The concept of tolerance involves a willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs which are different from our own, although we might not agree with or approve of them. Intrinsically, tolerance involves both judgement of behaviour and the giving of freedom to another (autonomy). This however should not lead to license on the part of the recipient to behave in a manner that is “intolerable.”

When deciding whether to accept or reject the specific behaviour or attitude, there is a paradox as to how this is realised in real life scenarios - especially when it directly affects one personally. On one level, tolerance can be given on an emotional level, on another level tolerance relates to a commitment to moral values.

Although John Patrick acknowledges that no one likes to be called intolerant, he also asserts it can be demonstrated that intolerance in certain things is essential. He believes there are some basic behavioural patterns that should rightfully be suppressed, for instance, unloving, unjust, untruthful, and dishonourable behaviour - further he states

Love, truth, justice and honour cannot even share a sentence with the verb to tolerate. You do not tolerate love, you embrace it, you seek it; you do not tolerate truth or justice, you demand them and honour is admired not tolerated. Tolerance and compromise are not the stuff from which great societies, great stories or even great professions are made. But tolerance is important. It is the oil which lubricates so many human interactions; but often its strength is to overlook error or wrong-doing, to have compassion on the human frailties which beset us all. Unlike truth, love, justice which brook no rivals, the proper use of tolerance involves wise judgement. To lack the necessary skills of prudent judgement will lead the defective into either bigoted narrow-mindedness or libertarian excess.

Therefore, when there is a genuine conflict in regard to moral commitments, that is, when the tolerant commitment to autonomy runs up against an intolerant rejection of autonomy, is there then, no need for tolerance? In other words, is the paradox resolved when we realize that tolerance is not a commitment to relativism but, rather, that it is a commitment to the value of autonomy and to the distinction between emotional judgments and moral commitments? Or, another way of looking at the problem, on what parameters do we assess the acceptability or otherwise of behaviour, and when do we bestow tolerance?

Evolution and Science– Is God Dead?

The rise of modern science from the 1500s up to the 1800s saw an alliance between science and religion - many scientists were typically Christian who saw no conflict between their science and their faith.7 Until the time of Darwin’s hypothesis on natural selection, belief in God was inextricably woven within the fabric of Western society – wherein the God who created all things provided a moral framework in which mankind should abide in harmony. However, as people began to question the origins of mankind, science and religion appeared headed for confrontation.

Commentating on the role of science and the restriction it should observe, Mary Hesse reminds us that the knowledge of science “does not yield truth about the essential nature of things, the significance of its own place in the universe, or how it should conduct its life.”8

Sadly this warning has often gone unheeded. Describing how Sir Charles Lyle influenced Charles Darwin, the writer notes

It is critical to remember that an explanation may be logical, comprehensive, and have supporting data, yet still be wrong. The back-and-forth swing between these theories, as with other major discoveries throughout history, emphasizes that human beings have a tendency to believe first and find facts to fit their beliefs later. The enabling aspect of Sir Charles Lyell's work in relationship to Charles Darwin highlights the tendency for human beings, even scientists, to accept reasons and explanations based on preference, more than merit.9

With the advent of the philosophy of ‘evolution’, the seedbed of moral decay was sown, as the validity of a universal moral blueprint was brought into question - until finally the fruit of existentialism blossomed and Nietzsche declared “God is dead”. Further, Nietzsche postulated that because God had died in the nineteenth century, the twentieth century would become the bloodiest century in history.10

The philosophy of atheism led to naturalism, whereby everything was explained in terms of natural causes, to the exclusion of any metaphysical reality. On reflection, it seems when science becomes the sole authority and control on philosophical thought, to the exclusion of an absolute Creator, the possible life scenarios do not appear encouraging for the future wellbeing of our society. With the exclusion of metaphysical truth, how are we able to provide any universal standard for conduct and on what basis is man responsible to even seek the wellbeing of others? Are we left with a kind of moral relativism whereby each person can determine their own behaviour irrespective of the wishes of others – can such ideals as moral restraints be enforced?

During a debate entitled “Is the Basis for Morality Natural or Supernatural?” William Lane Craig commented

If naturalism is true, there is no moral accountability for one’s actions. Even if there were objective moral values under naturalism, they’re irrelevant because there is no moral accountability. If life ends at the grave, then it makes no difference whether one has lived as a Stalin or as a saint. As the Russian writer Dostoyevsky rightly said, "If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted."11 Given the finality of death, it really doesn’t matter how you live. So what do you say to someone that concludes that we may as well just live for self–interest, live just as we please, for pleasure? Perhaps Professor Taylor would say to him that it’s in his best self–interest to adopt a moral lifestyle. But clearly that’s not always true. We all know of situations in which morality runs smack in the face of self–interest. That’s called temptation, right? Moreover, if one is sufficiently powerful, like a Ferdinand Marcos, or a Papa Doc Duvalier, or even a Donald Trump, one can pretty much ignore the dictates of conscience and live in pure self–indulgence. Acts of self–sacrifice become particularly inept in a naturalistic worldview………….. Sacrifice for another person would just be stupid. Thus the absence of moral accountability in the philosophy of naturalism makes the virtues of compassion and self–sacrifice hollow abstractions. Naturalism therefore fails to match supernaturalism in supplying the elements necessary for any sound moral foundation.12

Likewise, in his book, “River out of Eden”, the secular humanist Richard Dawkins describes the consequences of his materialistic (atheistic)13 viewpoint.

In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good - nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.14

Ravi Zacharias quotes the scenario envisaged by Malcolm Muggeridge

If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Heffner.

Muggeridge’s conclusion, that either a power-monger or sex peddler would take the reign in the place of God, appears very much in keeping with the disarray of society today.15

In his book “A Brief History of Time”, the theoretical physicist, and atheist, Stephen Hawking brilliantly lays out his view of the universe, yet humbly concludes that science, with all its strident gains, must remain contented to describe the “what” of human observations – only God can answer the “why”.16

To summarise, in terms of a philosophy that will provide a universal foundation for the development of a stable society, according to many philosophers, the belief or disbelief in God appears as the single greatest determining factor on the moral choices made by individuals or the purposes pursued by society – the dividing line between morality and immorality, order and anarchy.

In his article “What is the Relationship between Science and Religion”, William Craig Lane notes how

… “some people acknowledge that science and religion should not be regarded as foes, but nonetheless they do not think that they should be considered friends either. They say that science and religion are mutually irrelevant, that they represent two non-over-lapping domains. Sometimes you hear slogans like “Science deals with facts and religion deals with faith.” But this is a gross caricature of both science and religion. As science probes the universe, she encounters problems and questions which are philosophical in character and therefore cannot be resolved scientifically, but which can be illuminated by a theological perspective. By the same token, it is simply false that religion makes no factual claims about the world. The world religions make various and conflicting claims about the origin and nature of the universe and humanity, and they cannot all be true. Science and religion are thus like two circles which intersect or partially overlap. It is in the area of intersection that the dialogue takes place.”

Metaphysics, Christian Values & the Health of our Society

If we accept the hypothesis there is no metaphysical God, the corollary would seem to be mankind evolved. If we evolved, and intelligence evolved from nothing, how do we evaluate societal values without an ontic referent? On what basis then are values determined – do they also evolve alongside the evolution of man – and how do we assess the relationship between values and the health of society?

In light of the current philosophical debate as to the validity of Christianity in today’s world, perhaps an examination of the relationship between Christianity and the Australian culture would appear appropriate if we are to truly ENGAGE with every influence within our society.

Firstly, history reveals Australia’s Constitution was founded on Christian values. When the colonists came to Australia in 1788, they brought with them the law of England. The Australian Courts Act of 25 July 1828 put into effect the same governmental system in the Australian colonies (and later the states), that had operated in England for centuries. Both governors and their parliaments "exercised their authority under God".

Sir Henry Parkes, Father of Federation, whose well known call for Australians to be "One people, One destiny" stated:

As we are a British people… are preeminently a Christian people as our laws, our whole system of jurisprudence, our Constitution... are based upon and interwoven with our Christian belief, and as we are immensely in the majority, we have a fair claim to be spoken of at all times with respect and deference. (Sydney Morning Herald 26th August, 1885).17

Similar words were expressed years before by John West, a Congregational minister and the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald on 26th May 1854.

The people of Australia are one people; they speak one language; their views are substantially the same; they worship one God; their moral standard is formed by one rule and beyond this life they hope for one destiny.

In his paper, "Origins of the Australian System",18 Australian High Court barrister, David Mitchell, affirms that Australia is a Christian country because its government and law are based on the Bible. He points out that historically the English monarch and the parliament are both subject to "the law", as embodied in the Bible. Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, swore allegiance to the Laws of God in the Coronation service. While parliament acts in an advisory capacity to the Queen of Australia or to the governor-general as her representative, she is not bound to follow parliament's advice. In the event of a conflict of interest, it is assumed the Queen will obey God's Law, as she promised in her Coronation service. Christianity was "parcel of the common law of England". It was believed that any attack on Christianity was also an assault on civil government itself, because civil government had its origins in Christianity.19

The second reason to examine the influence of Christianity in today’s society is that 70% of the Australian population reported they were affiliated with Christianity in the 2001 census.20 Christianity appears to be an integral part of the Australian culture - also seen by the national acknowledgement of the Christian celebrations of Christmas and Easter and the use of the Christian calendar.

Finally, the third reason to address the influence of Christian values in society is that Christianity is purported to not only address the current realities and concerns of life, but also that it provides answers that form the most consistent and sustainable basis for our society not only in previous generations, but for today and in the future.

As Peter Grice states:

… Christianity alone can satisfy the intellectual and existential quests. It explains the problem of evil's existence, the reason for suffering and its solution, and establishes ultimate justice.

It penetrates human behaviour to its depths, and describes the human condition with undeniable resonance. Its claims concerning the origin of the universe and of life provide the necessary foundation for a rational project of scientific discovery, and in turn predict the kinds of evidences being uncovered by science today.21

Similarly, Ravi Zacharias asserts, contemporary apologists have shown with remarkable persuasion, “the theistic framework to be not only credible, but also far more adept than atheism in dealing with the questions of philosophy.”22

If we are to find answers to the perplexing questions regarding the health of our society, from the above evidence, any examination of the root causes for the malfunction of our society would appear incomplete without a thorough examination of the place Christian values could play in bringing a healing to the nation’s ills.

A Time for Further Reflection and Discussion

The nation of Australia is currently experiencing a season of economic growth and prosperity. The resources boom places us among the wealthiest countries in the world. Unemployment is at an all time low and ‘Ozzie mateship’ is alive and well. Yet in spite of all the benefits of living in a land that is politically and economically stable, there appears to be a growing dissatisfaction among many that the quality of life experienced is neither what has been anticipated nor preferred. At a time when we have greater means to create a better society, we are seeing diminished values and unimproved social outcomes. People have begun to ask questions like “Why work hard at developing our economic base if families are fractured, and people disconnected from and disillusioned with our social system?” Why is this so?

A moment’s reflection on both history and the present time would remind us that humans are complex in their makeup - an integration of physical, emotional, social and spiritual components each with powerful needs. Meeting those needs is complex, and any system that purports to address our world’s needs should be economically viable, environmentally sustainable, a provider of social infrastructure, and promote spiritual formation. When any one or more of these elements is missing, failure on a grand scale seems likely to be the inevitable result.

In 1943, when France lay in ruins, Simone Weil wrote a report on the possibilities of bringing about the future regeneration of France.23 She passionately called upon her countrymen to set about recovering their spiritual roots before it was “too late” – her work was addressed to men of all nations who shared the spiritual heritage of the West. Rather than begin with an investigation as to the future financial or material needs of the country, Weil began her work with an examination of the “Needs of the Soul,” the inner yearnings she believed are common to every man.

The title of the 1992 song by R.E.M “Everybody Hurts” expresses the reality of life when men cry out from the depths of their hearts. When everything around fails and desperation leads to the brink of death where will we turn, and who will answer?

Can the cry of the human heart be answered by man himself, so often lost in his own feeling of insufficiency, or is it necessary to look beyond his own inadequacies to find the answers? Do we search for the latest philosophy, created by men of limited knowledge and understanding – born out of a desperate need to contain the ever increasing ills of society - or are we prepared to investigate the unlimited wisdom of the Creator of life – made available to heal a broken world?

When we stop to reflect on the magnitude of human suffering, even in so called wealthy countries, do we ask questions such as Why am I here? Is there meaning in life? How can I make sense of suffering? Can I believe in justice? What should I believe? How should I live? Why is it so? Where did we go wrong? or How do we fix it? No matter what the questions, there will always be differences of opinion as to the appropriate answers to the complex issues of life. However, when symptoms suggest a critical or even terminal illness, the sooner the patient is examined by a panel of specialists, the greater the chance for survival – likewise the health of our nation.

John Patrick concludes in his paper “The Myth of Moral Neutrality”

Life requires us to answer the age-old key questions or else spend immense psychological energy in denying their cogency and paying the price for such denial.

With the ever increasing influence of secular humanism and its effect - moral relativism - ENGAGE believes the time has come to discus these issues afresh by creating forums where the current issues of society can be re-addressed. Among the questions we propose to examine will be:

Have the solutions provided to date brought our society forward in its cohesion, or contributed to its malaise?

Are we able to find solutions for the maladies of society from within our own intellect and reason, or are there deeper issues that can only be resolved by a radical re-assessment of the current situation in light of metaphysical truth?

On what basis do we describe “wellbeing” – is it related to financial stability or character? Is it inextricably linked to a ‘happiness’ that is derived from materialism, or is it related to an inner peace and contentment of the soul, within the confines of a caring community?

ENGAGE seeks to discuss the issues that are plaguing our society in an atmosphere of mutual respect for others who may hold differing opinions – keeping in mind, the paramount reason for gathering – that is, the future welfare of both our children specifically, and society in general.

------------------------------------------