Blair's decision to go to war on Iraq 'based on God'

[Max]

I must be mishearing Sky news in the background. Apparently when he has to make difficult decisions like going to war, Tony Blair relies on Christian values for his decisions. He says that God will be his final judge on Iraq.

Are all world leaders going mad? Is this a way to run serious governments in the 21st century?

[Janet W]

Tony Blair relies on Christian values for his decisions. He says that God will be his final judge on Iraq.

I don't see anything to upset me in either of those statements. We all make decisions which are informed by our moral values. And perhaps Christians believe that one day, after death, they will see things as they really are, and understand their actions and their consequences.

People are interpreting him as saying that God told him to go to war, or that God is on his side, neither of which he actually said. In fact, given all the hysteria, I can see why Alistair Campbell was so keen to suppress all mention of God.

The actual problem, which is only tangentially related to Blair's Christianity, is highlighted in a later quote:

The only way you can take a decision like this is to try to do the right thing, accoroding to your conscience

No, that is not the only thing you can do. You can get together with experts and well-informed colleagues and thrash out the best possible pragmatic compromise.

There was a really good article about this a few months ago, but I can't remember the name of the columnist or even the newspaper. I wish I could quote it accurately, but I can't.

It was roughly along these lines...Blair's particular combination of Christianity, idealism and egoism means that he is more inclined to search within himself for an answer, and more likely to think there is a "The Answer" which a you can discover in this way.

[Max]

Hi Janet

That highlights an important point. I don't believe that the world can be run on faith-based doctrines. It should be run where possible on evidence-based policy as outlined in the second half of your post.

One reason for this is that people seem to agree less about non evidence-based (NEB) doctrines than they do about what constitutes evidence.

Potentially, one might have Tony relying on his Christian values for moral direction, Sayyid Ali Khamenei relying on Islam, and Manmohan Singh relying on Hinduism. Each could end up claiming that their political and military consciences are driven by their religion leading to significant differences.

While differences are be a good thing for debate (even social policy debate), they are less good when used in military contexts.

I believe that government policy - and especially as it applies to military policy although I cannot see how it can be singled out - should be based on the evidence-based expert research.

Cheers

Max

[Janet W]

The distinction I was trying to draw in the above post was not one between evidence-based and non-evidence-based (and I still need to have that argument with you about your definition of religion as invariably NEB... I'll save it up for later..)... but between idealism and pragmatism; the Right Answer, which I can square with my conscience, or the best compromise.

Odd really, given that in other respects Blair comes over as the arch-pragmatist.

I suspect a Christian, Moslem or indeed Humanist moral approach to politics would actually be very similar, emphasising honesty, equity etc. Am hoping for a contribution from RufusRuff later.

[Max]

Janet, I am the last one you need to convince that religion is inevitably NEB. The BS argument that you recommended Tristan not use suggests that religious argument e.g. ID shares the same research paradigm as evolutionary theory (ET). Both are examples of primarily correlational research. Because experimental conditions cannot be controlled in correlational research (or non-experimental research), its conclusions are necessarily weaker. Miss Prism argued that there is experimental research in ET. Yes, there is, but not nearly enough to make it the rule and no matter how much there is, they would need to reproduce the conditions of the universe on day zero to be non-correlational.

Therefore one can argue that they differ not so much by the type of evidence-based argument, but by the amount of evidence available for each. While both are going to argue that there is more evidence for their respective sides, the arguments will differ primarily in quantity rather than quality.

And if one applies Occam's Razor (or should that be Taser here?), I am not sure which argument will come out tops. Scientists would say that ID loses because it is complicated by the addition of the "God" construct which is not required by ET. However, the IDers will argue that the ETers must be kidding because ALL they need is an intelligent designer whereas ET requires the right conditions, random mutation, punctuated equilibria, selection for fitness, gaps in the theory, etc. Complicated they would say! They would have a point wouldn't they?

Anyway, there is definitely evidence for theistic arguments. The question is whether there more for ET. I think there is more for ET, but evidence changes.

[Janet W]

Need to think about that.

Meanwhile, the opposite of religious is not evidence-based, especially when it comes to politics. The recent "how you can receive large sums of money and not be corrupt" arguments are surely not evidence-based, and owe nothing to the ethics of any religion I've ever heard of.

[Nettles]

President Tone used to say that he would be judged by History.

As an historian I've always appreciated that power.

Now he's taken it away from us. How very disempowering.

[Max]

Janet, perhaps academics - and scientists in particular - feel that they are experts in the evaluation of evidence, and that it is difficult to imagine how differing paradigms like theism could also claim its use.

Many traditions use evidence including science, the legal profession, and theism. Perhaps the key is some kind of evidence to faith ratio in each of these. I would argue that science requires minimal faith to support its claims whereas religion may require more. However I can think of examples where science does rely on faith (e.g. we have faith in our process, in our peer reviewers, in evolutionary continuity) and where religion does rely on evidence (e.g. there is evidence that Jesus may have existed - though I am not sure what evidence is required to prove that he is son of God).

So, I don't believe anything is as black and white as scientists or IDers would have adherents believe. Sure, one may tend to toward a particular epistemology more than the other, but I don't think they're as far apart as either party would like to believe.

[Tessa K]

The problem with saying that God will be the judge of your actions is the implication that no one else has to right to do so.

The electorate might well disagree.

[rufusruff]

The problem with saying that God will be the judge of your actions is the implication that no one else has to right to do so.

The electorate might well disagree.

I do not see how that is implied at all by what Blair is reported to have said. "Final" judgement to my mind infers that intermediate judgement can also be expected. Perhaps he is saying only that political judgements should not necessarily be the only factors to bear in mind; policies can be expedient, popular and still wrong. Everyone loves a tax cut, for example, but if the price is poorer services for the disadvantaged, should political judgement be the chief guide?

A little late to this debate, but Janet W persuaded me :)

I think we need to distinguish between an action which springs principally from personal philosophical convictions and one which draws on both a sense of what is acceptable/moral/desirable and the evidence presented to one. Despite a few comments here, I think it unlikely that a PM with so many advisers and a proven reasonable sense of what is politically possible simply decided war was "right" without any supporting evidence at all. It is of course highly debatable what the reliability of some of that evidence was and whether all of it related to hard facts about the situation in Iraq itself. There might be a strong case, for example, for arguing that some of it included a perceived need to keep in the good graces of a certain superpower :wink:

Whether you think the evidence, together with a personal judgement (however formed) on the morality of a certain action, pointed one way rather than another, is another question. References to divine, or in some cases historical judgement, may be no more than admitting that it may not be obvious for a long time whether a choice was in fact correct. I, for one, find that preferable to arrogant certainty.

Just so we're clear, BTW, I am not a Blair supporter and believe that any intervention in Iraq should have happened years ago in support of internal insurgents after the Gulf War...

[Max]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1725799,00.html

[Tessa K]

Good old Terry Jones.

Can anyone explain what this means? : " "If you have faith about these things," he said, "then you realise that judgment is made by other people. If you believe in God, it's made by God as well."

[rufusruff]

Good old Terry Jones.

Can anyone explain what this means? : " "If you have faith about these things," he said, "then you realise that judgment is made by other people. If you believe in God, it's made by God as well."

I believe it is something along the lines of my reasoning above, i.e. that having faith means one expects both people and the divine (however understood) to judge the morality or otherwise of ones actions. It's a bit stammery in the usual Tony Blair manner, but seems to me consistent with the faith point of view.

[Tessa K]

Maybe that's what he intended but there's no logic to what he actually said. The 'If...if..' structure implies that the two sentences are alternatives, that 'having faith' and 'believing in God' are two different things.

[Killer Blob]

Surely the biggest problem with what the poodle said about God and Iraq is that it justifies the position of the bombers that he opposes. They prayed to their God first and they think they will be judged by their God later. Didn't he implicitly say that their actions were valid and justified by using the same line?