I recently read this article from The Punch and thought it was an interesting take on a topic. Their argument in a nutshell is: an atheist prime minister is better because he (or actually, she) is more rational. Of course, I don’t want to get started on the massive bias that it has, as you can tell by the way it’s worded (“myths” and “Chinese Whispers”* for one,) but I’ll let it slide, as I understand everyone, especially me, is bias to at least some extent.
I for one want to argue, from an attempted neutral standpoint, that a Christian Prime Minister would be better, and whether I were Christian or atheist, been a Christian politician would still be a plus in terms of deciding who to vote for.
Now, when I try to do a neutral standpoint, I’m going to not take the presumption that God does exist (as I would from a Christian standpoint,) nor am I going to take the presumption that God doesn’t exist (as an atheist would.) Now, I will be clear from the front that as a Christian, I do believe God exists, and I know that a little bit of bias will sneak into my argument even when I’m trying for it not to. I also want to make it clear that if I say something in an attempted neutral argument that suggests I may be varying from my stance that God definitely exists, it is because I am trying to be neutral. I will try to avoid language that affirms a view of God existing or God not existing.
From a onlookers viewpoint, it would seem as though there isn’t anything irrational with believing that there is a creator to this world. Just because you can’t see this creator doesn’t mean that it can’t be there. There are many things we can’t “see” but we trust are there regardless. It isn’t irrational to take a look at this world, see design, and consider the possibility of a designer.
Why do I say this? The original argument implied very heavily that a Christian Prime Minister would be an irrational person. I want to argue that this is not in fact the case. As described in the previous point, the idea of a creator isn’t all of a sudden irrational if we go by the true definition of irrationality and not the one promoted by anti-theists.
As it is possible to be Christian and rational, then trying to argue say that an atheist Prime Minister is more rational isn’t necessarily true. For the sake of neutrality, I’m going to presume that both ideas have some rationality behind them (and not try to dismiss atheism as irrational in this particular post), so for the sake of argument we can presume that either kind of Prime Minister would be rational.
Now that rationality isn’t really a concern with who we have as a Prime Minister, let’s take a look at the quite obvious differences between a Christian and an atheist.
- Christian: Believes in absolute morals, therefore has a moral grounding for
(Clash of cultures when it comes to the Chinese Whispers claim. If you want to know more, ask in the comments.)