By Beth Richards
Student at Wellsway Sixth Form
Thursday 31st October 2013
Does religion still have any relevance in
the twenty-first century?
The relevance of religion has long since been a heavy debate, but how
will this debate fare in the modern twenty-first century?
As a second year A-level student I have studied various arguments for the
existence of God yet my studies, have not convinced me that these
arguments are central to religion at all, let alone in the twenty-first
century. Religious debates should not be based solely around the
existence of God, with evolutionary biologists and religious theologians
being unable to draw definite conclusions (McGrath, 2005). Religious
debates should not be based solely around the existence of God, and
religions that do not depend upon the existence of a god at all seem to
render a god’s existence irrelevant when discussing the relevance of
religion. To me, it seems as though science and philosophy have so far
been unable to answer the ultimate question about God’s existence, so
instead I am going to focus on something more concrete and tangible,
whether or not we need religion in the modern day, independent of a
belief in God/god. I believe that the focus should be on the relevance of
religion as a source of tradition and stability in our lives.
In 1991 a British sociologist, Anthony Giddens, argued that in the past,
tradition has provided us with limits and boundaries in which to go about
in the world (Giddens, 1991). In the past, beliefs about ourselves and our
actions have been constructed by a tradition which in turn resulted in
little debate as to how we live our lives, tradition had been shaped by
others and had been passed down unfailingly, leaving people very little
room to maneuver when faced with moral dilemmas. Giddens (2001)
states that in the post-modern world this is no longer the case and, as a
consequence, we are no longer informed as to how to act in the world.
Marriage is an example of this – the fact that there is no longer a single
understanding of the term, since the same-sex marriage bill was passed in
2013, shows just how “de-traditionalised” society has become, resulting,
Giddens argues, in a world where tradition no longer exists (1991) . We
can see, using the example of marriage, that there is no longer a definitive understanding of marriage;
it is changing and evolving.
Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim, a German sociologist, psychologist and philosopher argued that
“Freedom’s Children” are being brought up in a world where
“the future has become
multidimensional” and that “the patterns of explanation offered by older people are no longer
effective” (Sichtermann, commentary for North German Broadcasting (NGB) in 1995, quoted in Beck &
Beck-Gernsheim, 2001, p.161) – thus supporting Giddens’ point, that we no longer have a tradition in
which to keep fundamental guidelines alive throughout the generations. Lord Jonathan Sacks argued
that there was a ‘moral malaise’ that seemed to be working through society (Law, 2006). We have
become so relaxed and, in some sense, weak in our views that Lord Sacks argues that we need an
‘authority’ to provide us with structure in the modern world (Law, 2006). This argument is relevant as
religion currently provides the foundation for our laws. The book of Exodus contains the 10
Commandments, and it’s these moral laws that are still used today albeit through our secular laws
which underlie our entire justice system, and thus modern morality. Without these laws, which have
been provided for us by religion, we might have a very different society today.
However, it is obvious to see that not everyone adheres to the same religious authority due to the wide
range of religious practices throughout the world in the twenty-first century. The Census (2011)
showed that in England and Wales, only 59% of the population considered themselves to be
Christians, and even though this is a majority, it is a smaller majority than previous years. The other
41% of the population were made up of other religious groups and atheists. In this sense, having a
universal religious authority would not work practically in the twenty-first century, purely due to this
variety of different views, but it can be argued that this is unfair as Christianity, in Britain, underlies
twenty-first century society and does provide moral guidelines, which non-Christians follow.
Lord Sacks’ argument could allow for a secular authority, through a non-religious theory such as
Aristotle’s Virtue Theory. This would provide society with a guide of how to live their lives, focusing on
becoming a better person and attempting to act virtuously all of the time, replacing the need for
religion in the twenty-first century. Virtue Ethics is concerned with the moral character of the moral
agent; there is no absolute list of virtues, as they change as societies develop. One of the original sets of
virtues were the Homeric virtues, including physical strength and cunning – vital during times of war.
But when Aristotle developed his Athenian virtues, these virtues were no longer important, and were
replaced by modesty, temperance and patience and so on. This lack of absolute virtues shows just how
humanistic the theory is – it doesn’t rely upon religion to prescribe the virtues. Yet this also creates a
weakness as there is no absolute set of virtues and thus no way to confirm whether they are actually
right or wrong, moral or immoral, as they are culturally subjective to the society in which the moral
agents are acting; this would allow for change to occur as cultures modernise, but would leave us with
the possibility of a multi-dimensional future for freedom’s children. Whilst it could render the concept
of religion as irrelevant in the twenty-first century, as it offers a strong concept of morality with no
need for a universal affiliation to a religious belief system.
Another authority which could provide a full list of universalisable laws could be based upon a theory
such as St. Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law. In this case, if any moral action were to go against the ‘Five
Primary Precepts’, then it would be an immoral action and be banned. This could result in actions such
as abortion being made illegal, because it goes against the primary precept of the conservation of life,
creating a clear ethical guideline. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that Natural Law is
fundamental to the Catholic Church’s teachings, as it was written by Aquinas who is known as the
‘founder’ of the Catholic Church’s ideas and beliefs. Whilst Natural Law is arguably accessible to
everyone, regardless of their beliefs, non-religious theories such as Virtue Theory may provide us with
more ‘universalisable’ moral laws. Virtue Theory does not provide a foundation for a religious doctrine
making it, by default, more accessible, yet it also does not currently feature in our legal system, which
religious laws or commandments do; it lacks stability.
British philosopher, Stephen Law, argued that religious belief doesn’t really always match up to the
values and actions we expect from religious communities (Law, 2006). He gives the example of the
United States of America, which is a Christian country, yet has a high crime and deviance rates (Law,
2006). This suggests a lack of connection between a belief in God and moral decisions and actions;
supporting the idea of religion being irrelevant in the twenty-first century, as even those who claim to
follow the moral teachings of God act immorally and break secular laws as well as those of their
religion. Whilst we could easily dismiss religious authority based on Law’s observations, and most
probably, our own observations of religious people’s behaviour, other factors which result in deviance
have not been addressed. Law (2006) does not discuss the effects of other factors upon crime in
America, such as high levels of poverty and gun ownership. It is naïve to think that external factors to
religion would not have an effect upon behaviour in the twenty-first century; human nature is more
complex than that, we need tradition and stability in order to adequately address our behaviour.
Whilst Giddens (1991) argues that tradition is somewhat inaccessible I believe that religion is relevant
in the twenty-first century as it is arguably absolute in its foundations, and provides us with solid
guidelines and laws by which to aim our lives accordingly. Whilst they may, slowly, change, as may our
definition of marriage, it offers us traditions, whether these change or not, in which to pass down
moral guidelines, and provides us with not only theological, but rational explanations for the concept
of moral behaviour, as well as a prescribed list of rules to follow. Religion is relevant to the twentyfirst century despite the changes brought about by a post-modern world because, ultimately, we
recognise it as our foundation. The removal of this foundation, in a world where the future generations
are struggling with both what to believe and how to act, would pull the metaphorical, ethical rug from
underneath their feet.
Word count: 1,498
Bibliography (not included in the word count)
Beck, U. & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2000) Individualisation: Institutionalised Individualism and its Social
and Political Consequences. London: Sage Publications
Law, Stephen. (2006) The War for Children’s Minds. New York: Routledge
McGrath, A. (2005) Has Science Killed God? Richard Dawkins on Science and Religion. Dialogue - A
Journal of Religion and Philosophy. (Issue 25), pages 13-16