Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Anjam Khursheed, Religion in the Modem World, bahai-library.com.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Religion in the Modern World
Anjam Khursheed

Abstract

This paper examines some aspects of the Western secular rebellion
against theocracy that has occurred over the last 500 years. Amongst other
things, it traces the rise of free enquiry and freedom of conscience, and.
describes how they challenge religion in the modem world. It argues that
the roots of secularism are in fact religious and are not opposed to the
fundamental truths of religion. It brings out these points by considering
several historical events that were important to the development of
modem secularism, such as the European Reformation and Galileo’s
conflict with the Papacy. The paper discusses the implications of the
modem Western secular challenge to traditional religious cultures around
the world in general, and to the Bahá'í community in particular. It
concludes that alongside the need for religions to incorporate secular
values, there is also a need for religions to return to their traditional role
of strengthening family unity and building up united communities that
serve mankind.

1. Introduction

Religion in the Western world has been on the retreat for many centuries
now. Sacred values, in the name of science, freedom and democracy, have
progressively diminished their influence. Religious freedom today means
that no spiritual leader or institution can pressure us into accepting
anything any longer. All of us have the duty to think for ourselves and
arrive at our own opinions. Religious beliefs can no longer be simply
determined by cultural identity, by tradition or ancestral heritage.
Religious beliefs are our own personal responsibility and no one has the
right of interference. Religious freedom also means that morality and
168 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁT STUDIES REVIEW

ethics is largely a matter of personal choice, and not something that can be
imposed upon us by religious authorities.

Free enquiry demands that religious beliefs be in accord with science.
There is nothing so sacrosanct that it cannot be investigated. In matters of
truth, nothing can be accepted simply on the weight of authority. If
religious beliefs are to be credible, they must first pass the test of
scientific scrutiny. In matters of truth, it is no longer possible to hide
behind the cover of infallible authority.

Modem democracy demands that religion be more open about its beliefs.
Everyone has the right to be heard. Everyone’s opinion from the outset
has equal weight. Community affairs can no longer be run by edicts issued
by a single individual spiritual leader or an elect council. Community
affairs should be grounded in consultation and mutual respect, where each
individual is free to express his or her opinions.

It is misleading to think of science, freedom and democracy as secular
alternatives to religion in Western culture. “Secular” does not necessarily
entail disbelief in God, or the giving up of many fundamental Christian
values. In opinion polls taken in the USA, Germany, and the UK in the
latter half of the 20th century, the majority of people interviewed believed
in God and still identified themselves as basically Christian1. It is more
accurate to think of secularisation as a process leading to the privatisation
of religious faith and the decline of institutional religion. In the modem
Western world, very few people still attend Church regularly, or respect
the authority of its clergy.

Just how the modem Western secular outlook is affecting traditional
religion around the world is complicated. Consider immigrants living in
the West who come from traditionally strong religious communities, like
Eastern European Jews and Pakistani Muslims living in Britain. On the
one hand, the process of secularisation has been so profound that it has
created a generation of immigrants who suffer from cultural alienation.2

1 quoted by H. Kung in Does God Exist? pp. 576-7.
2 Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi Elect o f the United Hebrew Congregations o f the British
Commonwealth, describes these immigrants as being in “that psychologically devastating
no man’s land between an excluded past and an excluding present,” J. Sacks, The
Persistence o f Faith, p. 62.
Religion in the Modern World 169

Although these immigrants are more intellectually and morally
independent than their fellow immigrants, their “education” seems to have
come at the price of them having to step outside their own respective
religious communities. On the other hand, in recent decades, a new
generation of immigrants has been involved with a revival of traditional
community identity, paralleled by a rise in religious fundamentalism.3
Many of today’s religious fundamentalist groups pitch their beliefs
directly against modem Western secularism. Groups, for instance, like the
Taliban in Afghanistan, while attempting to create an Islamic theocratic
state, also provided a home to anti-Western militant groups. Each culture
must, of course, find its own balance. This paper will attempt to outline in
broad terms how a balance between traditional religion and modem
secularism may be found.

It is also pertinent to ask how the Bahá'í Faith faces the challenges of
modem Western secularism. Although the Bahá'í Faith is a relatively
young world religion, having its roots in the modem era, it is also
committed to the building of religious institutions. How the Bahá'í Faith
aims to build up religious institutions in a world in which there is
widespread opposition to organised religion will also be discussed in this
paper.

It should be noted from the outset that the opinions expressed in this paper
do not represent authoritative Bahá'í belief, but are my own personal
reflections. They are not only based upon my reading of Western history
and the Bahá'í writings, but come from my experience as a second
generation Pakistani immigrant growing up in Britain who embraced the
Bahá’í Faith at the age of 20.

2. The Freedom of Conscience Challenge

Today the word “secular” is synonymous with religious scepticism.
Secular humanists for instance, consider the rejection of religious truths to
be one of their founding principles4 and at the same time, they see

3 Jonathan Sacks, The Persistence o f Faith, pp. 71-83.
4 In “A Secular Humanist Declaration” published in 1980, religious scepticism appears as
one o f ten principles. Part o f the text reads, “Secular humanists may be agnostics, atheists,
rationalists, or skeptics, but they find insufficient evidence for the claim that some divine
170 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁT STUDIES REVIEW

themselves as guardians of “reason, democracy and freedom.’0
Historically, the situation was quite different. Secularism, as it emerged
out of medieval Christendom, was concerned with affirming religious
truths, not rejecting them. It was aimed at purging religion from man­
made dogmas, and it appealed to scripture for its inspiration. With the
mass dissemination of the Bible in the latter half of the 15th century—the
first book to be printed in the Western world, followed by the printing of
many ancient classical books—the scene was set for revolt. Some decades
later, early in the 16th century, two movements that challenged the
foundations of medieval Christendom were bom: the European
Reformation and the European Renaissance. Both movements were
inseparable from the impact of Islam on medieval Europe.* *56 Both
movements aimed at by-passing medieval clerical authority, and looked to
ancient texts for their inspiration: the Bible in the case of the Reformation,
and the classical works of Greece and Rome in the case of the
Renaissance.

The 16th century Christian Reformation, initiated by the German
theologian Martin Luther, was an important historical landmark for
religious freedom and was inseparable from challenging the moral
authority of the Pope. At a conference in 1537 AD, a group of Lutheran
leaders met to formulate their doctrine. There, a statement entitled, “Of
the Power and Primacy of the Pope,” which directly challenged Papal
authority, was made. This statement was later incorporated into the
Lutheran Confession of Faith, the Book o f Concord. The statement starts
out by listing three areas on which it challenges the Pope: his spiritual
leadership, his dealings with “secular dominions”, and his authority in
matters of personal salvation

“The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place]
that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and

purpose exists for the universe. They reject that God has intervened miraculously in
history or revealed himself to a chosen few, or that he can save or redeem sinners.. ..We
reject the divinity o f Jesus, the divine mission o f Moses, Mohammed, and other latter-day
prophets and saints o f the various sects and denominations,” Paul Kurtz, In Defense o f
Secular Humanism, pp. 18-19.
5 Ibid., p. 15.
6 see A. Khursheed, “Medieval Islam: The influence o f Islam on Judaism and
Christianity,” The Singapore Baha’i Studies Review, Vol. 2, pp 175-229.
p
Religion in the Modern World 171

pastors [in all Christendom].
Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both
swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms
[enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular
dominions etc.].
And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for
salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls
himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.
These three articles we hold to be false, godless,
tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.
Now, in order that our proof [reason and opinion] may
be [better] understood, we shall first define what they
call being above all [what it means that he boasts of
being supreme] by divine right. For they mean that he is
universal [that the Pope is the general bishop over the
entire Christian Church], or, as they say, ecumenical
bishop, i.e., from whom all bishops and pastors
throughout the entire world ought to seek ordination and
[confirmation, who [alone] is to have the right of
electing, ordaining, confirming, deposing all bishops
[and pastors]. Besides this, he arrogates to himself the
authority to make [all kinds of] laws concerning acts of
worship, concerning changing the Sacraments [and]
concerning doctrine, and wishes his articles, his decrees,
his laws [his statutes and ordinances] to be considered
equal to the divine laws [to other articles of the Christian
Creed and the Holy Scriptures], i.e., he holds that by the
papal laws the consciences of men are so bound that
those who neglect them, even without public offense, sin
mortally [that they cannot be omitted without sin. For he
wishes to found this power upon divine right and the
Holy Scriptures; yea, he wishes to have it preferred to
the Holy Scriptures and God’s commands]. And what he
adds is still more horrible, namely, that it is necessary to
believe all these things in order to be saved [all these
172 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁŤ STUDIES REVIEW

things shall and must be believed at the peril of
forfeiting salvation].”7

The statement goes on to reject the attitude of allowing for superiority
amongst Bishops, and cites Biblical text to suggest that a more Christian
approach is one of humble service:

“In the first place, therefore, let us show from the [holy]
Gospel that the Roman bishop is not by divine right
above [cannot arrogate to himself any supremacy
whatever over] other bishops and pastors.
Luke 22: 25. Christ expressly prohibits lordship among
the apostles [that no apostle should have any supremacy
over the rest]. For this was the very question, namely, that
when Christ spake of His passion, they were disputing
who should be at the head, and as it were the vicar of the
absent Christ. There Christ reproves this error of the
apostles and teaches that there shall not be lordship or
superiority among them, but that the apostles should be
sent forth as equals to the common ministry of the
Gospel. Accordingly, He says: The kings of the Gentiles
exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise
authority upon them are called benefactors, but ye shall
not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as
the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
The antithesis here shows [By holding these matters
against one another one sees] that lordship [among the
apostles] is disapproved.
II. Matt. 18: 2. The same is taught by the parable when
Christ in the same dispute concerning the kingdom places
a little child in the midst, signifying that among ministers
there is not to be sovereignty, just as a child neither takes
nor seeks sovereignty for himself.
III. John 20: 21. Christ sends forth His disciples on an
equality, without any distinction [so that no one of them
was to have more or less power than any other], when He

7 “Of the Power and Primacy o f the Pope,” The Book o f Concord.
Religion in the Modern World 173

says: As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you.
[These words are clear and plain:] He says that He sends
them individually in the same manner as He Himself was
sent; hence He grants to no one a prerogative or lordship
above the rest.”8

These passages make it clear that authoritarian institutions cannot claim to
be truly Christian. The Christian spirit does not reside in leadership, but
lies in humble service and fellowship. Lutherans in the 16th century judged
Papal attempts at regulating matters such as Bishop ordination and acts of
worship to be intrusions into the politics of leadership, rather than
something concerned with serving the spiritual mission of Christ. The
Lutheran movement was not sceptical about religion, but it was secular in
the sense that it opposed the political ambitions of religious authorities.
This is even more clearly evident in its opposition to the Papacy laying
claim to the rule of various Kingdoms. The Lutheran movement believed
in a strict separation between the spiritual mission of the Church and the
political affairs of the State. Again, they cited biblical passages to support
their view:

“The second article is still clearer, that Christ gave to the
apostles only spiritual power, i.e., the command to teach
the Gospel, to announce the forgiveness of sins, to
administer the Sacraments, to excommunicate the godless
without bodily force [by the Word], and that He did not
give the power of the sword, or the right to establish,
occupy or confer kingdoms of the world [to set up or
depose kings]. For Christ says, Matt. 28, 19. 20: Go ye,
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you; also John 20, 21: As My Father hath
sent Me, even so send I you.
Now, it is manifest that Christ was not sent to bear the
sword or possess a worldly kingdom [rule in a worldly
fashion], as He Himself says, John 18, 36: My kingdom is
not of this world. And Paul says, 2 Cor. 1, 24: Not for
that we have dominion over your faith; and 2 Cor. 10, 4:

8 Ibid.
174 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁŤ STUDIES REVIEW

The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, etc.”9

The Lutheran statement goes on to describe some of the undesirable
historical consequences of the Papacy laying claim to the rule of “worldly
Kingdoms”:

“Accordingly, that Christ in His passion is crowned with
thorns and led forth to be derided in royal purple, this
signified that in the future, after His spiritual kingdom
was despised, i.e., the Gospel was suppressed, another
kingdom of a worldly kind would be set up [in its place]
with the pretext of ecclesiastical power. Therefore the
Constitution of Boniface VIII and the chapter Omnes,
Dist. 22 and similar opinions which contend that the Pope
is by divine right the ruler of the kingdoms of the world,
are [utterly] false and godless. From this persuasion
horrible darkness has been brought into the Church, and
after that also great commotions have arisen in Europe.
For the ministry of the Gospel was neglected, the
knowledge of faith and the spiritual kingdom became
extinct, Christian righteousness was supposed to be that
external government which the Pope had established.
Next, the Popes began to seize upon kingdoms for
themselves; they transferred kingdoms, they vexed with
unjust excommunications and wars the kings of almost all
nations in Europe, but especially the German emperors,
sometimes for the purpose of occupying cities of Italy, at
other times for the purpose of reducing to subjection the
bishops of Germany, and wresting from the emperors the
conferring of episcopates. Yea, in the Clementines it is
even written: When the empire is vacant, the Pope is the
legitimate successor.
Thus the Pope has not only usurped dominion, contrary to
Christ's command, but has also tyrannically exalted
himself above all kings. And in this matter the deed itself
is not to be reprehended as much as it is to be detested,
Religion in the Modern World 175

that he assigns as a pretext the authority of Christ; that he
transfers the keys to a worldly government; that he binds
salvation to these godless and execrable opinions, when
he says it is necessary to salvation for men to believe that
this dominion belongs to him by divine right.
Since these great errors obscure [the doctrine of] faith and
[of] the kingdom of Christ they are in no way to be
concealed. For the result shows that they have been great
pests to the Church.”10
The separation of Church and State is now of course, a fundamental ethic
of the modem Western world. It is one of the defining features of
secularism. But to insist that there be such a separation does not mean one
is being sceptical about religion. In fact, being secular in this sense is
arguably being more true to the spiritual mission of Christianity. Building
a theocracy ruled by religious leaders is not the founding aim of
Christianity. Christians are called upon to build a spiritual domain on
earth, the “Kingdom of God.”
Dissent against unjust and cruel institutions on the basis of freedom of
conscience, another sacred value of the modem Western world, was also
articulated in the Reformation. This was also invoked by the Lutherans on
Biblical authority:

“In the third place, this must be added: Even though the
bishop of Rome had the primacy and superiority by
divine right nevertheless obedience would not be due
those pontiffs who defend godless services, idolatry, and
doctrine conflicting with the Gospel. Nay; such pontiffs
and such a government ought to be held accursed, as Paul
clearly teaches, Gal. 1,8: Though an angel from heaven
preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have
preached unto you, let him be accursed. And in Acts 5,
29: We ought to obey God rather than men. Likewise the
canons also clearly teach that a heretical Pope is not to be
obeyed....
.. ..To dissent from the agreement of so many nations and
to be called schismatics is a grave matter. But divine

Ibid.
176 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁ’Í STUDIES REVIEW

authority commands all not to be allies and defenders of
impiety and unjust cruelty.
On this account our consciences are sufficiently excused;
for the errors of the kingdom of the Pope are manifest.
And Scripture with its entire voice exclaims that these
errors are a teaching of demons and of Antichrist. The
idolatry in the profanation of the masses is manifest,
which, besides other faults [besides being altogether
useless] are shamelessly applied to most shameful gain
[and trafficking]. The doctrine of repentance has been
utterly corrupted by the Pope and his adherents. For they
teach that sins are remitted because of the worth of our
works. Then they bid us doubt whether the remission
takes place. They nowhere teach that sins are remitted
freely for Christ's sake, and that by this faith we obtain
remission of sins.
Thus they obscure the glory of Christ, and deprive
consciences of firm consolation, and abolish true divine
services, namely, the exercises of faith struggling with
[unbelief and] despair [concerning the promise of the
Gospel].
They have obscured the doctrine concerning sin, and have
invented a tradition concerning the enumeration of
offenses, producing many errors and despair. They have
devised, in addition, satisfactions, whereby they have also
obscured the benefit [and merit] of Christ. From these,
indulgences have been bom, which are pure lies,
fabricated for the sake of gain. Then, how many abuses
and what horrible idolatry the invocation of saints has
produced! What shameful acts háve arisen from the
tradition concerning celibacy!”11

Dissent based upon Freedom of Conscience is not a principle that
necessarily undermines religious authority. It merely means that religious
institutions, just like individuals, must be held responsible for their
actions. Religious institutions cannot place themselves beyond justice.

Ibid.
Religion in the Modern World 177

This is precisely what the Lutherans thought the Papacy was doing. The
Papacy took on the role of administering justice and exempted itself from
being subjected to any independent judicial inquiry. This also led to
censure of public debate and discussion. The Lutherans called on Kings to
curb “the license of the Popes”:

“Then to these errors two great sins are added: The first,
that he defends these errors by unjust cruelty and death-
penalties. The second, that he wrests the decision from
the Church, and does not permit ecclesiastical
controversies [such matters of religion] to be judged
according to the prescribed mode; yea he contends that he
is above the Council, and can rescind the decrees of
Councils, as the canons sometimes impudently speak. But
that this was much more impudently done by the pontiffs,
examples testify.
Quest. 9, canon 3, says: No one shall judge the first seat;
for the judge is judged neither by the emperor, nor by all
the clergy, nor by the kings, nor by the people.
The Pope exercises a twofold tyranny: he defends his
errors by force and by murders, and forbids judicial
examination. The latter does even more injury than any
executions because, when the true judgment of the
Church is removed, godless dogmas and godless services
cannot be removed, and for many ages they destroy
innumerable souls.
Therefore let the godly consider the great errors of the
kingdom of the Pope and his tyranny, and let them
ponder, first, that the errors must be rejected and the true
doctrine embraced, for the glory of God and to the
salvation of souls. Then let them ponder also how great a
crime it is to aid unjust cruelty in killing saints, whose
blood God will undoubtedly avenge....
....And even though the Pope should hold Synods [a
Council], how can the Church be healed if the Pope
suffers nothing to be decreed contrary to his will, if he
allows no one to express his opinion except his adherents
whom he has bound by dreadful oaths and curses to the
178 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁŤ STUDIES REVIEW

defense of his tyranny and wickedness without any
exception concerning God's Word [not even the Word of
God being excepted]....
... .But since the decisions of Synods are the decisions of
the Church, and not of the Popes, it is especially
incumbent on kings to check the license of the Popes [not
allow such wantonness], and to act so that the power of
judging and decreeing from the Word of God is not
wrested from the Church. And as the rest of the
Christians must censure all other errors of the Pope, so
they must also rebuke the Pope when he evades and
impedes the true investigation and true decision of the
Church.”'2

These themes—spiritual equality, the necessity of having an independent
judiciary and the need to have open public debate and inquiry—are, of
course, now commonplace in the modem Western world.1213 At the time of
the Reformation in Christian Europe, their public support often led to
death. The basic premiss on which they are founded is that there is no
institution, religious or otherwise, which can place itself above justice.
This principle need not undermine the authority of the Church or any
other religious institution, providing, that is, they act justly.

3. The Scientific Challenge

The second major secular blow to Papal authority came in the name of
scientific free enquiry, around a century after the Reformation started.

12 Ibid.
13 They appear for instance in the famous Declaration o f the Rights o f Man and o f the
Citizen, approved by the National Assembly o f France, August 26, 1789, which is taken to
be the charter for modem democracy: “ 1. .Men are bom and remain free and equal in
rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.... 10. No one shall
be disquieted on account o f his opinions, including his religious views, provided their
manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law. 11 .The free
communication o f ideas and opinions is one o f the most precious o f the rights o f man.
Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be
responsible for such abuses o f this freedom as shall be defined by law.” Gerald Murphy,
The Cleveland Free-Net.
*
Religion in the Modern World 179

This secular scientific challenge has had many repercussions for religion
in modem times. The dispute not only continued to undermine Papal
authority, but also raised important questions concerning the relationship
of scientific facts and theories to sacred religious text. It has contributed
greatly to the widespread belief today that modem science is
fundamentally opposed to religion, that religious scepticism is an inherent
part of the modem scientific world view.

The infamous episode that most clearly brings out these issues is the
conflict between the Italian physicist Galileo Galilei with the Papacy in
the 17th century. Galileo, of course, needs no introduction. His scientific
achievements include: discovering the properties of the pendulum;
inventing the thermometer; formulating the laws that govern the motion of
falling bodies; and using the telescope to make observations of the Moon,
Sun, planets and stars.

It is particularly with respect to the way Galileo went about verifying
scientific hypotheses that he is best remembered. He devised and carried
out his own experiments, rather than relying on second-hand information
through tradition. His experimental demonstrations, such as dropping
metal objects from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, or of rolling
balls down an incline plane, are well-known even to many who have
never studied science. For Galileo, free enquiry in the pursuit of truth was
also an essential part of the scientific method:

“It appears to me that they who in proof of anything rely
simply on the weight of authority, without adducing any
argument in support of it, act very absurdly. I, on the
contrary, wish to be allowed to raise questions freely and
to answer without any adulation [of authorities] as
becomes those who are truly in search of the truth.”14

It should be pointed out that although Galileo is frequently cited as being
the first to use the modem experimental approach, he was in fact preceded
by the English physician William Gilbert. Gilbert carried out original
experiments in the field of electricity and magnetism. In 1600 AD, Gilbert
published his book, De ,M
agnet which laid the foundations

14 S. Drake, Galileo, p. 23.
180 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁ’Í STUDIES REVIEW

electricity and magnetism. Galileo was a great admirer of Gilbert’s work.
Gilbert, like Galileo, found it necessary to emphasise the importance of
carrying out one’s own experiments in scientific investigation first hand,
rather than relying on the words of traditional authorities:

“Many modem authors have written about amber and jet
attracting chaff and other facts unknown to the generality:
with the results of their labors booksellers’ shops are
crammed full. Our generation has produced many
volumes about recondite, abstruse and occult causes and
wonders, and in all of them amber and jet are represented
as attracting chaff; but never a proof from experiment,
never a demonstration do you find in them. The writers
deal only in words that involve in thicker darkness
subject-matter; they treat the subject esoterically, miracle-
mongeringly, abstrusely, reconditely, mystically. Hence
such philosophy bears no fruit; for it rests simply on a
few Greek or unusual terms—just as our barbers toss off
a few Latin words in the hearing of the ignorant rabble in
token of their learning, and thus win reputation—bears no
fruit, because few of the philosophers are themselves
investigators, or have any first-hand acquaintance with
things.”15

At the time of Galileo, two traditional sources of authority were used to
block or stifle scientific free enquiry: the Catholic Church, and the science
of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotelian learning had been
synthesised into Christian doctrine by many theologians and philosophers
during the medieval period, and their tradition of scholasticism dominated
university education. Galileo was brought into conflict with both these
authorities with his support for the Copemican theory in astronomy. The
medieval belief of the Sun and planets moving around a stationary Earth
rested on the authority of ancient Greek texts from Aristotle and Ptolemy,
and on the common interpretations of scripture. The relevant passages in
the Bible that appear to describe a stationary Earth and moving Sun are as
follows:

15 W. Gilbert, De , p. 77.
Religion in the Modern World 181

“The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is
clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the
world also is established, that it cannot be moved. Thy
throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting” (Ps
93: 1-2).

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament
sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and
night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor
language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone
out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the
world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is
as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth
as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the
end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and
there is nothing hid from the heat thereof’ (Ps 19: 1-6).

Galileo was summoned to Rome in 1616 AD and was obliged by the
Catholic Church to renounce his support for the Copemican system.
However, in 1623 AD, Cardinal Barberini, a friend of Galileo's, became
Pope Urban VIII. This gave Galileo a new sense of security and prompted
him to write his Dialogues on the Two Great Systems o f the World,
published in 1632 AD. This work, although purporting to give a neutral
comparison between the Copemican and Ptolemaic systems, in practice
contained many strong arguments in favour of the former. Once again
Galileo was summoned to Rome, this time in 1633 AD as an old man of
sixty-nine. His one-time friend and now bitter enemy, Pope Urban VIII,
allowed Galileo to be threatened with torture if he refused to recant. After
recanting, he was condemned to prison, but this was changed to a mild form
of house-arrest which lasted until the year of his death in 1642 AD.

Galileo was not a religious sceptic. He was a committed Catholic who
accepted the truth of divine revelation and the spiritual authority of the
Pope. This meant that Galileo accepted the truth of the Bible. How
Galileo reconciled the apparent clash of the Copemican theory and the
above passages from the Bible is insightful for the general relationship
between science and religion.
182 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁ’Í STUDIES REVIEW

Galileo’s basic approach was to propose that the main purpose of religious
scripture is to convey spiritual truths, and any reference to scientific
knowledge is incidental. To this end, scripture uses simple symbolic
language that everyone can understand. But because it deals with
complex subjects, like the nature of God or human nature, it can be
interpreted in many different ways, and for this reason, we must not be
dogmatic or too literal in our interpretations of it. Religious language is
like poetry, quite unlike the precise language of mathematics used to
describe the laws of physics. Galileo said that in scripture, there is much
more than “what its bare words signify.” This means that where scientific
knowledge conflicts with scripture, it forces us to reinterpret scripture.
This, according to Galileo, is not a problem since scripture in any case is
primarily about conveying spiritual truths and not scientific ones. Galileo
thought the realms of science and religion were quite separate: religion
deals with subjects such as the attributes of God and human salvation,
while science deals with the physical universe. Galileo describes it as:
“the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven,
not how heaven goes.” Both Nature and scripture are revealed by God, but
they deal with different realms of human experience. Galileo cites various
respected Christian saints to demonstrate that his view is already well
supported within the Christian tradition. These views are articulated in a
letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany in 1615 AD. Part of the
Galileo’s letter reads:

“The reason produced for condemning the opinion that
the earth moves and the sun stands still in many places in
the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth
stands still. Since the Bible cannot err; it follows as a
necessary consequence that anyone takes a erroneous and
heretical position who maintains that the sun is inherently
motionless and the earth movable.
With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that
it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy
Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning
is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is
often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite
different from what its bare words signify. Hence in
expounding the Bible if one were always to confine
oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one
Religion in the Modern World 183

might fall into error. Not only contradictions and
propositions far from true might thus be made to appear
in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it
would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands and eyes,
as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger,
repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting o f
things past and ignorance of those to come. These
propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in
that manner by the sacred scribes in order to
accommodate them to the capacities of the common
people, who are rude and unlearned. For the sake of those
who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary
that wise expositors should produce the true senses of
such passages, together with the special reasons for which
they were set down in these words. This doctrine is so
widespread and so definite with all theologians that it
would be superfluous to adduce evidence for it.
Hence I think that I may reasonably conclude that
whenever the Bible has occasion to speak of any physical
conclusion (especially those which are very abstruse and
hard to understand), the rule has been observed of
avoiding confusion in the minds of the common people
which would render them contumacious toward the
higher mysteries. Now the Bible, merely to condescend to
popular capacity, has not hesitated to obscure some very
important pronouncements, attributing to God himself
some qualities extremely remote from (and even contrary
to) His essence. Who, then, would positively declare that
this principle has been set aside, and the Bible has
confined itself rigorously to the bare and restricted sense
of its words, when speaking but casually of the earth, of
water, of the sun, or of any other created thing?
Especially in view of the fact that these things in no way
concern the primary purpose of the sacred writings, which
is the service of God and the salvation of souls - matters
infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common
people.
This being granted, I think that in discussions of physical
184 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁŤ STUDIES REVIEW

problems we ought to begin not from the authority of
scriptural passages but from sense and shy;experiences
and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the
phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word
the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter
as the observant executrix of God's commands. It is
necessary for the Bible, in order to be accommodated to
the understanding of every man, to speak many things
which appear to differ from the absolute truth so far as the
bare meaning of the words is concerned. But Nature, on
the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never
transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit
whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation
are understandable to men. For that reason it appears that
nothing physical which sense­experience sets before
our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us,
ought to be called in question (much less condemned)
upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have
some different meaning beneath their words. For the
Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as
strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is
God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than
in the sacred statements of the Bible. Perhaps this is what
Tertullian meant by these words: "We conclude that God
is known first through Nature, and then again, more
particularly, by doctrine, by Nature in His works, and by
doctrine in His revealed word."
From this I do not mean to infer that we need not have an
extraordinary esteem for the passages of holy Scripture.
On the contrary, having arrived at any certainties in
physics, we ought to utilize these as the most appropriate
aids in the true exposition of the Bible and in the
investigation of those meanings which are necessarily
contained therein, for these must be concordant with
demonstrated truths. I should judge that the authority of
the Bible was designed to persuade men of those articles
and propositions which, surpassing all human reasoning
could not be made credible by science, or by any other
means than through the very mouth of the Holy Spirit.
Religion in the Modern World 185

Yet even in those propositions which are not matters of
faith, this authority ought to be preferred over that of all
human writings which are supported only by bare
assertions or probable arguments, and not set forth in a
demonstrative way. This I hold to be necessary and
proper to the same extent that divine wisdom surpasses all
human judgment and conjecture.
But I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God
who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has
intended us to forego their use and by some other means
to give us knowledge which we can attain by them. He
would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical
matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct
experience or necessary demonstrations. This must be
especially true in those sciences of which but the faintest
trace (and that consisting of conclusions) is to be found in
the Bible. Of astronomy; for instance, so little is found
that none of the planets except Venus are so much as
mentioned, and this only once or twice under the name of
"Lucifer.” If the sacred scribes had had any intention of
teaching people certain arrangements and motions of the
heavenly bodies, or had they wished us to derive such
knowledge from the Bible, then in my opinion they would
not have spoken of these matters so sparingly in
comparison with the infinite number of admirable
conclusions which are demonstrated in that science. Far
from pretending to teach us the constitution and motions
of the heavens and other stars, with their shapes,
magnitudes, and distances, the authors of the Bible
intentionally forbore to speak of these things, though all
were quite well known to them. Such is the opinion of the
holiest and most learned Fathers, and in St. Augustine we
find the following words : "It is likewise commonly asked
what we may believe about the form and shape of the
heavens according to the Scriptures, for many contend
much about these matters. But with superior prudence our
authors have forborne to speak of this, as in no way
furthering the student with respect to a blessed life-and,
186 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁ1 STUDIES REVIEW

more important still, as taking up much of that time which
should be spent in holy exercises. What is it to me
whether heaven, like a sphere surrounds the earth on all
sides as a mass balanced in the center of the universe, or
whether like a dish it merely covers and overcasts the
earth? Belief in Scripture is urged rather for the reason we
have often mentioned; that is, in order that no one,
through ignorance of divine passages, finding anything in
our Bibles or hearing anything cited from them of such a
nature as may seem to oppose manifest conclusions,
should be induced to suspect their truth when they teach,
relate, and deliver more profitable matters. Hence let it be
said briefly, touching the form of heaven, that our authors
knew the truth but the Holy Spirit did not desire that men
should learn things that are useful to no one for
salvation."
The same disregard of these sacred authors toward beliefs
about the phenomena of the celestial bodies is repeated to
us by St. Augustine in his next chapter. On the question
whether we are to believe that the heaven moves or stands
still, he writes thus: "Some of the brethren raise a
question concerning the motion of heaven, whether it is
fixed or moved. If it is moved, they say, how is it a
firmament? If it stands still, how do these stars which are
held fixed in it go round from east to west, the more
northerly performing shorter circuits near the pole, so that
the heaven (if there is another pole unknown to us) may
seem to revolve upon some axis, or (if theré is no other
pole) may be thought to move as a discus? To these men 1
reply that it would require many subtle and profound
reasonings to find out which of these things is actually so;
but to undertake this and discuss it is consistent neither
with my leisure nor with the duty of those whom I desire
to instruct in essential matters more directly conducing to
their salvation and to the benefit of the holy Church."
From these things it follows as a necessary consequence
that, since the Holy Ghost did not intend to teach us
whether heaven moves or stands still, whether its shape is
Religion in the Modern World 187

spherical or like a discus or extended in a plane, nor
whether the earth is located at its center or off to one side,
then so much the less was it intended to settle for us any
other conclusion of the same kind. And the motion or rest
of the earth and the sun is so closely linked with the
things just named, that without a determination of the
one, neither side can be taken in the other matters. Now if
the Holy Spirit has purposely neglected to teach us
propositions of this sort as irrelevant to the highest goal
(that is, to our salvation), how can anyone affirm that it is
obligatory to take sides on them, that one belief is
required by faith, while the other side is erroneous? Can
an opinion be heretical and yet have no concern with the
salvation of souls? Can the Holy Ghost be asserted not to
have intended teaching us something that does concern
our salvation? I would say here something that was heard
from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: "That
the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one
goes to heaven not how heaven goes."
But let us again consider the degree to which necessary
demonstrations and sense experiences ought to be
respected in physical conclusions, and the authority they
have enjoyed at the hands of holy and learned
theologians. From among a hundred attestations I have
selected the following: "We must also take heed, in
handling the doctrine of Moses that we altogether avoid
saying positively and confidently anything which
contradicts manifest experiences and the reasoning of
philosophy or the other sciences. For since every truth is
in agreement with all other truth, the truth of Holy Writ
cannot be contrary to the solid reasons and experiences of
human knowledge." And in St. Augustine we read: "If
anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear
and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he
has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the
meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his
comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not
what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and
imagines to be there."
188 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁ’Í STUDIES REVIEW

This granted, and it being true that two truths cannot
contradict one another, it is the function of expositors to
seek out the true senses of scriptural texts. These will
unquestionably accord with the physical conclusions
which manifest sense and necessary demonstrations have
previously made certain to us.”16

Ironically, Galileo’s well-reasoned theology was quoted by the Pope in
1992 in his Apology to Galileo. Galileo’s theology is the basis of the
Catholic Church’s present position. The Pope in 1992 stated:

“Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom
of research which they implied, obliged theologians to
examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation.
Most of them did not know how to do so. Paradoxically,
Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more
perceptive in this regard than the theologians who
opposed him. "If Scripture cannot err," he wrote to
Benedetto Castelli, "certain of its interpreters and
commentators can and do so in many ways." We also
know of his letter to Christine de Lorraine (1615) which
is like a short treatise on biblical hermeneutics.”17

Galileo’s conflict with the Pope is liable to give the impression that
religion in the 17th century opposed science, but this would be untrue.
There were other scientific pioneers of the 17th century who did not
receive religious opposition for their support of the Copemican theory.
Take for example German-bom Johan Kepler (1571-1630 AD), a
contemporary of Galileo. Kepler was the first professional astronomer to
publicly support the Copemican theory of the universe, and his three
planetary laws of motion laid the foundations of modem astronomy.
Kepler’s achievements in modem science rival Galileo’s contributions to
modem physics. Like Galileo, Kepler carried out his own scientific
investigations first hand, and did not rely on tradition. But Germany was
under the influence of the Protestant Reformation, which was rapidly

16 Galileo Galilei: “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina o f Tuscany, \6 \5 "Internet
Modern History Sourcebook.
17 L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - 4 November 1992.
Religion in the Modern World 189

spreading to other countries in Northern Europe. Although Protestant clerics
spoke out against the Copemican theory on the basis of it contradicting
scripture, religious interpretation for Protestants was a private matter, and
Kepler did not receive any clerical opposition. The Protestant rebellion had
been based precisely on the point of achieving greater freedom of thought,
and in the 17th century, Catholic philosophers often fled to the more liberal
Protestant countries of the North.

The Copemican System, far from undermining religious belief, did precisely
the opposite for Kepler. He thought the Sun in the Copemican astronomical
system took its rightful place at the centre of the universe, vindicating the
power of God throughout the universe, driving the planets around it. In his
mind, the Sun was not only a power of light and heat, but a source of Divine
power reflecting God's dominion over the universe:

"The sun in the middle of the moving stars, himself at rest
and yet the source of motion, carries the image of God the
Father and .Creator....He distributes his motive power
through a medium which contains the moving bodies even
as the Father creates through the Holy Ghost."18

Preceding both Galileo and Kepler, William Gilbert’s De Magnete,
published in London, not only stated its support for the Copemican
theory, but also provided the same type of theological observations later
made by Galileo: that scripture is primarily about human spiritual themes
put in simple symbolic language, and therefore, it cannot conflict with
scientific truth:

"Nor do those things which are adduced from the sacred
scriptures seem to be specially adverse to the doctrine of
the mobility of the Earth; nor does it seem to have been
the intention of Moses or of the Prophets to promulgate
any mathematical or physical niceties, but to adapt
themselves to the understanding of the common people
and their manner of speech, just as nurses are accustomed

A. Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, p. 264.
190 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁT STUDIES REVIEW

to adapt themselves to infants, and not to go into every
unnecessary detail....”19

De Magnete was published in the same year (1600 AD) that the Italian
philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his heterodox
beliefs that included an espousal of the Copemican theory, and the
assertion that the stars were an infinity of suns like our own, each circled
by worlds inhabited by intelligent beings like ourselves.

Even within Italy, the Catholic Church was not so blind to the "New
Science” as often supposed. Jesuit astronomers such as Father Clavius
confirmed Galileo’s early telescope discoveries and even improved on them.-
Leading clerics in the Catholic Order had no qualms about the Copemican
system being a "working hypothesis.” In fact, Cardinal Bellarmine, advisor
to the Holy Office, when asked to comment on Galileo’s support of the new
heliocentric theory, stated that to support the Copemican system made
"excellent sense”:

"For to say that the assumption that the Earth moves and the
Sun stands still saves all the celestial appearances better
than do eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent
sense and to run no risk whatever. Such a manner of
speaking suffices for a mathematician....”20

The Cardinal did however stress that to insist that the Copemican theory was
more than a theoretical proposition and represented the true state of affairs
was likely to "injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures.” He also
stated in the same letter that:

"..if there were real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the
uni verse.... then we should have to proceed with great
circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which
appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to
say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion
to be false which is proved to be true..”21

19 William Gilbert, De Magnete, foreword.
20A. Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, p. 454.
21 Ibid., pp. 454-5.
Religion in the Modern World 191

This latter point is a very important one, and highlights an aspect of the
dispute which is not generally well known. Had Galileo presented
convincing proof in favour of the Copemican theory, the Catholic Church
was ready to revise its interpretations of the Biblical passages in question
rather than declare an "opinion to be false which is proved to be true."
Galileo had however, apart from the ascetic and mathematical simplicity of
the Copemican system, only one piece of experimental data that was directly
in its favour: namely his observations of the different phases on the planet
Venus. To counter this, there were compelling scientific objections against
the Copemican theory. One such objection was that if the Copemican theory
were correct, the fixed stars ought to reveal an annual parallax caused by the
Earth's motion. But no such apparent displacement in the position of these
stars was observed at the time. In fact confirmation of this effect had to await
the development of more accurate telescopes, and only came in 1838 AD. In
addition to this, the version of the Copemican system popularised by Galileo
offered no advantages of accuracy over the Ptolemaic theory and the former
ancient theory had the advantage that it could be directly affirmed by
looking up into the sky. In general, the choice between whether or not to
accept the Copemican system in Galileo's day was not so clear cut as often
imagined. The historian of science Professor E. A. Burtt in his book, The
Metaphysical Foundations o f Modern Science, states that:

"..it is safe to say that even had there been no religious
scruples whatever against the Copemican astronomy,
sensible men all over Europe, especially the most
empirically minded, would have pronounced it a wild
appeal to accept the premature fruits of an uncontrolled
imagination, in preference to the solid inductions, built up
gradually through the ages, of men's confirmed sense
experience. In the strong sense of empiricism, so
characteristic of present-day philosophy, it is well to remind
ourselves of this fact. Contemporary empiricists, had they
lived in the sixteenth century, would have been first to scoff
out of court the new philosophy of the universe."22

E. A. Burtt, The Metaphyiscal Foundations o f Science, p. 38.
192 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁŤ STUDIES REVIEW

The Catholic Church did not dogmatically reject the Copemican theory. As
shown in Cardinal Bellamine's letter, which was a representative view taken
by the Catholic Church as a whole, had Galileo been in the position of
presenting stronger evidence to support the Copemican system, the church
would have been prepared to revise its understanding of Scripture from a
literal sense to a more symbolic one. When the decree banning Copernicus's
Book o f the Revolutions was finally issued in 1616 by the Catholic Order, the
word heresy did not appear in it. The decree was issued "in order that this
opinion may not insinuate itself any further to the prejudice of Catholic
truth."23 While individual accusations of heresy were certainly made by
members of the Inquisition, they were not officially endorsed by the Papacy.

Towards the end of the 16th century, the Jesuit Order, the intellectual
spearhead of the Catholic Church, began all over Europe to accept the Tycho
Brahe astronomical model of the universe in favour of the Ptolemaic one.
This scheme placed both the sun and earth at the centre of the universe, and
thus can be thought of as a compromise between the Copemican and
Ptolemaic system. Again, the Jesuits were prepared to treat the Copemican
system as a "working hypothesis" in the first instance, until definitive proof
was offered to the contrary: this was not an unreasonable position to take at
the time. There were even some Jesuit priests who openly advocated the
Copemican system not long after Galileo's conflict with the church had
taken place. At the end of the 17th century, for example, Jesuit missionaries
in China and Japan taught the heliocentric theory and made significant
contributions in the spread of the new astronomy in the Far East.24

Given all this support for the Copemican theory from within the European
Christian community, it is clear that Galileo’s conflict with the Church
was not one based upon modem science opposing religion. It was, rather,
modem science opposing the authority of religious leaders or institutions
for the right of free enquiry. The Papacy had made excursions into
domains that lay beyond its jurisdiction, and the conflict, in the long run,
placed limits on the Papacy’s claim to infallibility. It also helped define
the kinds of truth conveyed in religious scripture. It forced Christians to
accept what many of them already knew to be true: namely that the Bible

*
2>A. Koestler, The Sl, p. 462.
2* Ibid.,p. 503.
Religion in the Modern World 193

is a book primarily concerned with themes of spiritual progress and
enlightenment, and not a book about scientific knowledge.

Galileo is remembered as a prophet of freedom in the cause of scientific
free enquiry. Galileo’s imprisonment is now widely used in the West to
warn us of the dangers of following tradition and not thinking for oneself.
It is taught to children at primary school level as a historical conflict
between science and tradition. The secular challenge of free scientific
enquiry has brought about a profound humbling experience for
Christianity, and in that sense, it has helped religion. Modem scientific
enquiry has liberated religion from blindly relying on authority or
tradition.

Modem science has helped religion become less literal about its beliefs.
The Copemican revolution forced Christians to realise that a geocentric
view of the universe was not essential to a Christian world-view. Later,
modem science helped them understand that the age of the Earth was not
measured in thousands of years, but billions of years. Again, the lesson
here was that Christians should not put their faith into literal
interpretations of scripture, but seek to understand the underlying spiritual
meanings behind it. In this way, modem science has greatly helped
religion be less superstitious about its beliefs. Rather than working against
religion, it has rendered religion a great service.

There is another sense in which modem science has purified Christian
belief, and that is with respect to its age-old tendency to be
anthropomorphic. Anthropomorphism is another kind of literalism. It
comes from a loss of humility, in which Christians can forget the inherent
mystery of God. This is most clearly apparent on the subject of divine
intervention and miracles. In medieval times, divine intervention was
invoked for all sorts of events that we now ascribe to natural causes, such
as earthquakes, plagues etc. Scientific enquiry showed that events in
Nature followed exact mathematical laws and principles. Physical events
that were previously attributed to miraculous causes were in time given a
scientific description based upon Natural Laws. Now, this did not mean
science opposed religion. The 17th century pioneers of science described
the “Book of Nature” in terms of God revealing his presence through
Natural Laws, alongside the Book of Revelation. Kepler, for instance,
thought human beings were empowered by God to decipher the divine
194 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁ’Í STUDIES REVIEW

script in Nature, to uncover the eternal geometrical harmonies that existed
before Creation: to share in timeless truths for which human beings were
created, in God's likeness. These divine harmonies in Nature are much more
powerful signs of God's likeness than anything which can be transmitted
directly through the senses. In Kepler's words:

"Why waste words? Geometry existed before the Creation,
is co-etemal with the mind of God....geometry provided
God with a model for the Creation and was implanted into
man, together with God's own likeness—and not merely
conveyed to his mind through the eyes."25

The 17th century Jewish philosopher Benedict (Baruch) de Spinoza based
much of his philosophy on purging Christian belief from its traditional
anthropomorphism. He provided a description of God in terms of Natural
Law rather than the miracle of divine intervention:

“From these conclusions - that nothing happens in nature
which does not follow from its laws, that its laws extend
to all things conceived by the divine intellect itself, and
finally, that nature maintains a fixed and immutable order
- it clearly follows that the term “miracle” cannot be
understood except in relation to men’s opinions, and
means nothing but a work whose natural cause we cannot
explain by the example of another customary thing, or at
least which cannot be so explained by the one who writes
or relates the miracle.”26

For Spinoza, the source of the problem lay in an overly literal theology, in
which religious people interpreted everything in terms of their own
capricious wishes:

“that men commonly suppose that all natural things act,
as men do, on account of an end; indeed they maintain as
certain that God himself directs all things to some certain

25 Ibid , p. 264.
26 Benedict de Spinoza, Spinoza , p. 36.
Religion in the Modern World 195

All this does not mean God cannot act through divine intervention, or that
God does not answer people’s prayers, or that there is not a divine
purpose for human beings. But it should remind religious people who
believe in God that God’s ways are a great mystery, and anything human
beings ascribe to God or God’s purpose has no ultimate importance.
Objective knowledge of God is by definition impossible. In the words of
St Paul, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit
which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us
of God. Which things we also speak, not in the words which man’s
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual
things with spiritual” (1 Cor. 1:12-13).

4. Family Unity and Community Identity

There are important aspects of human experience that are missed by
science, freedom and democracy, but which have traditionally been the
province of religion. Amongst them is the creation of family unity and
community identity. In most, if not all, the world’s religions, marriage is a
sacred bond, involving spiritual commitments and obligations: it is.
certainly not founded on individual rights and freedoms. Marriage is
about much more than the development of the individual, whether it is in
terms of thinking for oneself or standing up for one’s beliefs. In the
Abrahamic religions, the union of marriage in a religious context is
intimately related to creating a family, one that will serve both society and
God. Marriage is nourished by religion’s intention to create love and
unity.

Religion creates community identity. Religion provides a certain way of
life. Sacred places, whether temples, mosques or synagogues, are places
in which people gather together in worship, in fellowship, sharing a
common vision. They are places where births are announced, marriage
vows are made, and where the dead are honoured. Religion inspires
compassion and charity for the poor and needy. Community bonds, like
family ties, are based upon people having commitments and duties to one
another. Social order is dependent on us having respect for a higher
authority. The demands of community sometimes require self-sacrifice
and obedience. The rights and freedoms of secularism, although very
important on the individual level, cannot provide a sense of community.
196 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁ1 STUDIES REVIEW

another. Social order is dependent on us having respect for a higher
authority. The demands of community sometimes require self-sacrifice
and obedience. The rights and freedoms of secularism, although very
important on the individual level, cannot provide a sense of community.
Modem science encourages us to be more self-reliant, to think more for
ourselves and to depend less on others. In short, while science, freedom
and democracy strengthen the individual, it is religion that strengthens the
family and the community.

If these observations are correct, the clash of secularism with religion in
the modem world, or science with religion for that matter, is reflected in a
conflict between the individual and the community. In the Western world,
where secular values dominate, the sense of family unity and community
identity has been greatly eroded, and it is individual ethics that take
priority. The widespread breakdown of family unity is, for instance,
reflected in the rapid increase of divorces and single parent families. On
the level of community, there is a deep-rooted distrust of all forms of
authority, not just religious ones. This has led to an increase in violence
and social disorder. Take for instance, the anti-authoritarian attitudes that
Western teenagers have at school towards their teachers, and the resulting
problems of diminished school discipline. On the other hand, in countries
where traditional religion is strong, the rights and freedoms of the
individual are often subsumed by the dictates of family or community
authority figures. Restrictions of personal freedoms and rights are usually
justified by appealing to family and community stability.

Western democracy relies on its society having strong individual ethics,
such as freedom of conscience and free enquiry. Democracy requires quite
a high level of individual freedoms and rights before it can work. Each
individual must be free to express his or her opinion, and that opinion
must be taken seriously. Traditionally, most societies in the world have
been run by individual leaders. This may explain why many non-Westem
countries struggle with having a democratic form of government. In
addition, democracy does not address the issue of family unity and
community identity. In a non-Westem country where family unity and
community identity is the primary concern, secular democracy seems
individualistic and alien. It is wrong however, to think of the West as not
having any religious identity. Most Western people still identify
themselves to be Christian. But it is a privatised identity, one that only
Religion in the Modern World 197

comes to the surface occasionally, around Christmas time, or when it is
under the threat of attack.28 Jonathan Sacks makes the argument that
Western secular societies are more religious than they suppose.29

If there is to be a truly multi-cultural form of secularism, the modem West
needs to address family and community concerns, which inevitably take it
back to religion. But there is a problem in this regard, and that is: religions
do not always bring people together. In fact, it is the sectarian violence of
religion today that dominates its public image. Instead of bringing a
greater sense of spiritual equality and unity, religious people are often
exclusive, parochial and authoritarian. The unity of a religious group only
seems to exist for those believers within it. Outside the identity of the
group, amongst people of different religious groups, there is widespread
mistrust, prejudice and even hatred.

Religious corruption has been the driving inspiration for the rise of secular
humanism. In addition to the defiance of Papal power, there has been an
increasing disenchantment with the numerous wars waged in the name of
religion. Sectarian violence for instance between Catholics and Protestants
has been continuing now for nearly 500 years. Moral repulsion at all kinds
of injustices perpetrated in the name of religion has arguably been more
decisive in driving people towards secularism than any theological

28 On the day o f the Sept. 11th Islamic militant attacks on America in the year 2001, the
American President claimed that “Freedom had been attacked....” This was widely
reported in the media. But in the subsequent days, people gathered in churches to
remember their dead and try to come to terms with what had happened. In their hour o f
need, they came together as a community in churches. Their response to the crisis was
rooted in the belief that Good shall triumph over Evil, a familiar Christian theme.
29 In relation to marriage, he notes, “Overwhelmingly we do still marry, and hope that our
marriages will last. In a recent survey almost nine out o f ten o f those interviewed said they
valued faithfulness as the most important ingredient in marriage. We still believe in the
family, without quite knowing why. The family is a religious institution that survives in a
secular culture.” J. Sacks, The Persistence o f Faith, p. 57. On a more general theme, he
writes, “If someone invented a religion detector and passed it over the surface o f our
culture, the needle would swing when he came to our still strong convictions that
compassion and justice should be part o f social order, that human life is sacredvthat
marriage and the nurture o f children are not one lifestyle among many. When we lack
power, we still feel responsible. When we see others suffering, we can still feel pain.
These are traces that the Biblical tradition has left deep within our culture: signals o f
transcendence that can at times move us to otherwise unaccountable acts o f conscience and
courage.” J. Sacks, The Persistence o f Faith, pp. 92-3.
198 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁ1 STUDIES REVIEW

problems. This was evident even as far back as the 17th century. Take for
instance the philosophy of Spinoza, which set out to reform many aspects
of traditional Christian theology. Spinoza’s criticisms of theology were
first and foremost rooted in a moral protest: of all religions consisting of
“external ceremonies”; of religious people falling far short of their great
ideals; and how in a spirit of piety, they embrace superstitions which
oppose science and reason.30

As we move inexorably towards a multi-faith global village, traditional
religious rivalries seem more and more parochial. Religious people, now
more than ever, are challenged to come together in a spirit of fellowship
rather than competition. The very credibility of religion in the modem
world depends on it. One of the great successes of science lies in the
universality of its practice. It is an activity that transcends cultural
identity, customs and language. In comparison, religion in the modem
world seems to be fundamentally divided. Religions disputing amongst
themselves undermine their own respective truth claims. The more people
of different faiths vie with one another, the less likely it is that their faith
is based upon an infallible authority. As traditional religion in the modem

30 “I have often wondered that men who boast o f their allegiance to the Christian
religion— that is, to love, gladness, peace, continence, and honesty toward all— would
contend so unfairly against one another, and indulge daily in the bitterest hate toward one
another, so that each man’s faith is known more easily from the latter [i.e., his hate] than
from the former [i.e., his love, etc ] . For long ago things reached the point where you can
hardly know what anyone is, whether Christian, Turk, Jew, or Pagan, except by the
external grooming and dress o f his body, or because he frequents this or that place o f
worship, or because he is attached to this or that opinion, or because he is accustomed to
swear by the words o f some teacher. All lead the same kind o f life.” “What, then, is the
cause o f this evil? Doubtless that to ordinary people religion has consisted in regarding the
ministry o f a church as a position worthy o f respect, its offices as sources o f income, and
its clergy as deserving the highest honor. For as soon as this abuse began in the church, the
worst men acquired a great desire to administer the sacred offices; the love o f propagating
divine religion degenerated into sordid greed and ambition....From this, o f course, there
had to come great quarrels, envy, and hate, whose violence no passage o f time could
lesson.” “It is no wonder, then, that nothing has remained o f the religion that used to be,
beyond its external ceremony, by which the people seem more to flatter God than to
worship him, no wonder that faith is nothing now but credulity and prejudices. And what
prejudices! They turn men from rational beings into beasts, since they completely prevent
everyone from using his free judgement and from distinguishing the true from the false,
and seem deliberately designed to put out the light o f the intellect entirely. Piety - good
heavens! - and religion consist in absurd mysteries, and those who scorn reason
completely, and reject the intellect as corrupt.. B. Spinoza, A Spinoza Reader, pp. 8-9.
Religion in the Modern World 199

world comes to terms with secular challenges, it also needs a renewed
commitment to fellowship, love, compassion and unity.

5. Challenges for the Bahá*í Community

What are the challenges of secularism for the Bahá'í Faith? On the one
hand, the Bahá'í Faith gives strong support to all the major defining
features of a secular outlook: free enquiry and freedom of conscience,31
the necessity of all religious truths being open to scientific investigation,32
a free exchange of diverse opinions,33 and the free flow of information.

31 “this is a house o f worship wherein conscientious opinion has free sway. Every
religion and every religious aspiration may be freely voiced and expressed here. Just as in
the world o f politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the world o f religion there
should be the right o f unrestricted individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists
between modern democracy and the old forms o f despotism. Under an autocratic
government the opinions o f men are not free, and development is stifled, whereas in
democracy, because thought and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is
witnessed. It is likewise true in the world o f religion. When freedom o f conscience,
liberty o f thought and right o f speech prevail - that is to say, when every man according to
his own idealization may give expression to his beliefs - development and growth are
inevitable. Therefore, this is a blessed church because its pulpit is open to every religion,
the ideals o f which may be set forth with openness and freedom.” ' Abdu'l-Baha,
Promulgation o f Universal Peace, p. 197.
32 “Consider what it is that singles man out from among created beings, and makes o f him
a creature apart. Is it not his reasoning power, his intelligence? Shall he not make use o f
these in his study o f religion? I say unto you: weigh carefully in the balance o f reason and
science everything that is presented to you as religion. If it passes this test, then accept it,
for it is truth! If, however, it does not so conform, then reject it, for it is ignorance! Look
around and see how the world o f today is drowned in superstition and outward forms! .....
It is impossible for religion to be contrary to science, even though some intellects are too
weak or too immature to understand truth. God made religion and science to be the
measure, as it were, o f our understanding. Take heed that you neglect not such a
wonderful power. Weigh all things in this balance. To him who has the power o f
comprehension religion is like an open book, but how can it be possible for a man devoid
o f reason and intellectuality to understand the Divine Realities o f God? Put all your beliefs
into harmony with science; there can be no opposition, for truth is one. When religion,
shorn o f its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with
science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep
before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles - and then will mankind be united
in the power o f the Love o f God.” 'Abdu'1-Bahá, Paris Talks, pp. 144-146.
33 A clash o f opinions during Bahá'í consultation is not only welcome, but it is a
fundamental prerequisite for arriving at truth: “The members thereof must take counsel
together in such wise that no occasion for ill-feeling or discord may arise. This can be
200 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁ’Í STUDIES REVIEW

On the other hand, there are elements of traditional religious theocracy in
the Bahá'í Faith. The individual Bahá'í has clear commitments and
responsibilities to the family and the community. Children must be
obedient to their parents, and all members of the Bahá’í community must
be obedient to their elected assemblies. Although there is no clergy within
the Bahá'í Faith, in every locality, members of the Bahá'í community
democratically elect nine people who serve on a “Local Spiritual
Assembly,” an institution that looks after community affairs. Local
communities elect the nine people who serve on a National Spiritual
Assembly, while national communities elect the nine people who serve on
the Universal House of Justice, the highest administrative body of the
Bahá'í international community. Bahá'í assemblies are invested with a
legislative as well as a moral authority. Bahá'í assemblies are not
answerable to the community that elects them.* 34 The goal of Bahá'í
assemblies is that in time, they will become “Houses of Justice,” which

attained when every member expresseth with absolute freedom his own opinion and setteth
forth his argument. Should anyone oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until
matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed. The shining spark o f truth
cometh forth only after the clash o f differing opinions.” ' Abdu'1-Bahá, Selections from the
Wrtings of'Abdu'1-Bahá, p. 87.
34 “The /Administrative Order o f the Faith o f Baha'u'llah must in no wise be regarded as
purely democratic in character inasmuch as the basic assumption which requires all
democracies to depend fundamentally upon getting their mandate from the people is
altogether lacking in this Dispensation. In the conduct o f the administrative affairs o f the
Faith, in the enactment o f the legislation necessary to supplement the laws o f the Kitab-i-
Aqdas, the members o f the Universal House o f Justice, it should be borne in mind, are not,
as Baha'u'llah's utterances clearly imply, responsible to those whom they represent, nor are
they allowed to be governed by the feelings, the general opinion, and even the convictions
o f the mass o f the faithful, or o f those who directly elect them. They are to follow, in a
prayerful attitude, the dictates and promptings o f their conscience.” Shoghi Effendi,
World Order o f B aháV lláh, pp. 153-154.
Religion in the Modern World 201

will serve both a political as well as a religious function.35 The decisions
of the Universal House of Justice are infallible and unchallengeable.36

In the modem western context, the combination of secular and theocratic
ideals of the Bahd’i Faith are not only difficult to understand, but appear
contradictory. After all, did modem secularism not arise out of a 500 year
history of rebellion against a theocratic institution? The early Protestant
reformers resorted to freedom of conscience to challenge the injustice of
an infallible authority, surely dissent against injustice is necessary. Has
history not shown that no religious institution can place itself beyond truth
and justice? Has history not shown that independent investigation,
independent enquiry and an independent judicial system are all required if
we are to protect ourselves against the all-too-frequent experience of
religious people falling far short of their high ideals? Has democracy not
replaced theocracy as a viable form of Government? Where in the world
is there an example of a successful theocracy? The most recent effort at
creating a theocracy was made by the Taliban government in Afghanistan,
and that exhibited all the dogmatic and intolerant aspects of religious
institutions that modem secularism rightly opposes. Has history not
shown that religious institutions are fallible and that they can easily be
corrupted? Has history not shown that religion and political power is a

35 “He has ordained and established the House o f Justice, which is endowed with a
political as well as a religious function, the consummate union and blending o f church and
state. This institution is under the protecting power o f Baha'u'llah H im self A universal,
or international, House o f Justice shall also be organized. Its rulings shall be in
accordance with the commands and teachings o f Baha'u'llah, and that which the Universal
House o f Justice ordains shall be obeyed by all mankind. This international House o f
Justice shall be appointed and organized from the Houses o f Justice o f the whole world,
and all the world shall come under its administration.” ' Abdu'1-Bahá, Promulgation o f
Universal P eace, p. 455.
36 “The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian o f the Cause o f God, as well as the
Universal House o f Justice to be universally elected and established, are both under the
care and protection o f the Abha Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance o f the
Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is o f
God. Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso
rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him
hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended with God; whoso
disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him hath denied God; whoso
disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God; whoso deviateth, separateth him self and
turneth aside from him hath in truth deviated, separated him self and turned aside from
God.” ' Abdu'1-Bahá, Will and Testament, p. 11.
202 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁT STUDIES REVIEW

dangerous mix? How can Bahá'ís be successful in building religious
institutions when the most influential forces in the modem world have
been busy tearing them down? Is it really possible to believe in freedom
of conscience and independent enquiry and still aim towards some sort of
theocracy?

These are big questions. Perhaps too big at this early stage in the growth
of the Bahá'í Faith to consider. The Bahá'í Faith is only some 150 years
old, and Bahd’i communities around the world are only just beginning to
address some of these issues. One key element in understanding a Bahá’í
approach at reconciling modem secular independent thought with
traditional religious obedience is the importance given to the act of
consultation. The task of building up Bahd’i administrative institutions can
only be combined with freedom of conscience and the individual right of
self-expression if assembly members serve in “humble fellowship” and
are imbued with a spirit of “frank and loving consultation”:

“It devolves upon us whose dearest wish is to see the
Cause enter upon that promised era of universal
recognition and world achievements, to do all in our
power to consolidate the foundations of these Assemblies,
promoting at the same time a fuller understanding of their
purpose and more harmonious cooperation for their
maintenance and success. Let us also remember that at
the very root of the Cause lies the principle of the
undoubted right of the individual to self-expression, his
freedom to declare his conscience and set forth his views.
If certain instructions of the Master are today particularly
emphasized and scrupulously adhered to, let us be sure
that they are but provisional measures designed to guard
and protect the Cause in its present state of infancy and
growth until the day when this tender and precious plant
shall have sufficiently grown to be able to withstand the
unwisdom of its friends and the attacks of its enemies.
Let us also bear in mind that the keynote of the Cause of
God is not dictatorial authority but humble fellowship,
not arbitrary power, but the spirit of frank and loving
consultation. Nothing short of the spirit of a true Baha'i
can hope to reconcile the principles of mercy and justice,
Religion in the Modern World 203

of freedom and submission, of the sanctity of the right of
the individual and of self-surrender, of vigilance,
discretion and prudence on the one hand, and fellowship,
candor, and courage on the other.”37

The “Bahá'í spirit” here is, of course, easy to state as an ideal, but difficult
to arrive at in practice. If total obedience is required on the part of the
community to their respective assembly, an obvious question is whether
Bahá'ís can question the decisions of their assemblies. Is criticism
allowable? The answer to this is a qualified yes: yes they can criticise—in
fact they have the duty to do so—but it must be done with respect and not
in a way that undermines the authority of the Assembly.38

What should an individual do if after having put forward his or her
criticisms in the spirit of “frank and loving consultation,” an Assembly
does not change its policy? Should the individual try to lobby support for
his or her views from the rest of the Bahá'í community? Should the
individual organize a protest? These forms of dissent are quite common in
modem secular society, but they are not the Bahá'í way of resolving
conflicts. Bahá'ís must give priority to the unity of the community. They,
are asked not to engage in protest and dissent against the decisions of their

37 Shoghi Effendi, Bahd'i Administration, pp. 63-64.
38 “Now with reference to your last dear letter in which you had asked whether the
believers have the right to openly express their criticism o f any Assembly action or policy:
it is not only the right, but the vital responsibility o f every loyal and intelligent member o f
the Community to offer fully and frankly, but with due respect and consideration to the
authority o f the Assembly, any suggestion, recommendation or criticism he
conscientiously feels he should in order to improve and remedy certain existing conditions
or trends in his local Community, and it is the duty o f the Assembly also to give careful
consideration to any such views submitted to them by any one o f the believers. The best
occasion chosen for this purpose is the Nineteen Day Feast, which, besides its social and
spiritual aspects, fulfils various administrative needs and requirements o f the Community,
chief among them being the need for open and constructive criticism and deliberation
regarding the state o f affairs within the local Baha'i Community. But again it should be
stressed that all criticisms and discussions o f a negative character which may result in
undermining the authority o f the Assembly as a body should be strictly avoided. For
otherwise the order o f the Cause itself will be endangered, and confusion and discord will
reign in the Community.” Letter o f 13th December 1939 to an individual believer, Revised
November 1990, Shoghi Effendi, Compilation on the Nineteen Day Feast, p. 27.
204 THE SINGAPORE BAHÁ’Í STUDIES REVIEW

spiritual assemblies. If a mistake has been made, in time, the truth will
emerge. 39

Many details of Bahá'í administration have yet to be worked out in the
future,3
940 and there are many things that need to happen before a Bahá'í
theocracy can emerge. The world at present is struggling to arrive at some
form of multi-cultural secularism. If this new form of secularism is to
strengthen family unity and provide for community identity, as well as
preserve the rights and freedoms of the individual, religion in some form
or other is required. Whether the interfaith movement can rise up to this

39 “A believer can ask the Assembly why they made a certain decision and politely request
them to reconsider. But then he must leave it at that, and not go on disrupting local affairs
through insisting on his own views. This applies to an Assembly member as well. We all
have a right to our opinions, we are bound to think differently; but a Baha'i must accept the
majority decision o f his Assembly, realizing that acceptance and harmony - even if a
mistake has been made - are the really important things, and when we serve the Cause
properly, in the Baha'i way, God will right any wrongs done in the end.” From a letter
dated 19 October 1947 written on behalf o f Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer,
Shoghi Effendi, Compilation on The Local Spiritual Assemblies, p. 18.
40 The infallibility o f the Universal House o f Justice must be relative and not absolute. It
must be some form o f restricted infallibility. It cannot for instance extend to matters of
science, economics or history. The Guardian o f the Bahá'í Faith, who was appointed the
leader o f the Bahá"í Faith after the passing o f 'Abdu'1-Bahá in 1921, defined the scope o f
his authority: "The infallibility o f the Guardian is confined to matters which are related
strictly to the Cause and interpretation o f the teachings; he is not an infallible authority on
other subjects, such as economics, science, etc....” (Shoghi Effendi, Directives o f the
Guardian, p. 33-34). At some point in the future, it will also be necessary for the Universal
House o f Justice to do the same. But even within matters that relate to the application of
Bahá’í principles to the Bahá'í community, the Universal House o f Justice is referred to as
primarily a Legislative body. It is given the task o f legislating on laws that are not
specifically dealt with in the Bahá'í writings: “Those matters o f major importance which
constitute the foundation o f the Law o f God are explicitly recorded in the Text, but
subsidiary laws are left to the House o f Justice. The wisdom o f this is that the times never
remain the same, for change is a necessary quality and an essential attribute o f this world,
and o f time and pi ace” ('Abdu'1-Bahá, Compilation on the Establishment o f The Universal
House o f Justice, p. 11). The Universal House of Justice is not, for instance, infallible in its
interpretation o f the Bahá’í writings. It is inevitable that in its role as spiritual leader o f the
Bahá'í world international community, it will have to make some interpretation o f Bahá'í
writings, however, unlike the interpretations o f the Guardian (Shoghi Effendi), they are not
authoritative. There are many more aspects to the authority o f the Universal House o f
Justice that will need clarification in the future. This matter is discussed in a recent article
by Udo Schaeffer entitled, “Infallible Institutions?” The Bahd'i Studies Review, English
Speaking Europe, Vol. 9, 1999/2000, pp. 17-45.
Religion in the Modern World 205

challenge remains to be seen.41 Bahá'ís can play a significant role in this
process. The Bahá’í Faith has within it both elements of modem
secularism and traditional religion. It can in this way serve as a bridge or
mediator between the modem West and the world’s more traditional
religious communities. The Bahá'í writings consistently declare the main
purpose of religion to be the creation of love and unity: “the fundamental
purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the
interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit
of love and fellowship amongst men.”42 Bahd'is must demonstrate that
religion can be the cause of bringing together people of diverse
backgrounds in a spirit of unity, rather than in conflict. Bahá'ís must build
communities that can offer fellowship and love not only to Bahá'ís, but to
the world at large. No amount of science, freedom or democracy can do it.

6. Conclusion

This article has examined the secular challenges that religion faces in the
world today. It argues that the fundamental aims of secularism are not
against the fundamental truths of religion, but have historically derived
much of their inspiration from religious ideals. However, parallel to the
acquisition of secular values, religions need to regenerate family and
community bonds, something which secularism cannot provide. Religious
people in the modem day need to return to their age-old goal of bringing a
greater measure of peace, love and unity into the world.

41 A. Khursheed, “Crossing Religious Boundaries: Interfaith Challenges for the Future,”
The Singapore Baha'i Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1999, pp. 105-189.
42 Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, p. 215. Similarly from 'Abdu'1-Bahá: “All the divine
Manifestations have proclaimed the oneness o f God and the unity o f mankind. They have
taught that men should love and mutually help each other in order that they might
progress. Now if this conception o f religion be true, its essential principle is the oneness
o f humanity. The fundamental truth o f the Manifestations is peace. This underlies all
religion, all justice.” 'Abdu'1-Bahá, Promulgation o f Universal Peace, p. 32.
206 THE SINGAPORE BAHA’I STUDIES REVIEW

WORKS CITED

‘Abdu’l-Bahá

Paris Talks, Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1l lh edition, London, 1969.
The Promulgation o f Universal Peace, Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
Wilmette, Illinois, 2nd ed., 1982.
Selections from the Writings o f ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’í World Centre,
Haifa, 1978.
Will and Testament o f ‘Abdul-Bahá, Bahá'í Publishing Trust,
Wilmette. Illinois, 1971.

Bahá’u’Iláh, Gleanings from the Writings o f Bahd’u ’lldh, trans. S.
Effendi, Bahá’í Publishing Trust, London, UK, 1978.

Burtt, E. A., The Metaphysical Foundations o f Modern Science,
Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1932.

Drake, S., Galileo, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1980.

Effendi, Shoghi,

The World Order o f Baha'u'llah, Bahá'í Publishing Trust, Wilmette,
Illinois, 1st edition 1955, 2nd revised edition 1974.
Bahďí Administration, Bahá'í Publishing Trust, Wilmette, Illinois,
1974.
Directives o f the Guardian, Bahd'i Publishing Trust, India/Hawaii,
1973.
MARS for Windows by Crimson Publications (e-mail:
crimson@compuserve.com).

Gilbert, William, De Magnete, Dover publications, unabridged, 1991.

Koestler, Arthur, The Sleepwalkers, Penguin Books, Middlesex,
England, 1964.

Kurtz, Paul, In Defense o f Secular Humanism, Prometheus Books, New
York, 1983.
Religion in the Modern World 207

Kung, Hans, Does God Exist: An answer for Today, Collins Fount
Paperbacks, London, 1978.

Spinoza, Benedict, A Spinoza Reader, edited and translated by Edwin
Curley, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1994.

Sacks, Jonathan, The Persistence o f Faith, The Reith Lectures 1990,
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1991.

Journals, Compilations and Internet Resources

The Bahd’i Studies Review, Association for Bahd'i Studies (English
Speaking Europe), London, UK.

The Singapore Bahd’i Studies Review, Association for Bahd'i Studies of
Singapore, Singapore.

O f the Power and Primacy o f the Pope, Treatise Compiled by the
Theologians Assembled at Smalcald, in the Year 1537, Published in:
Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books o f the Ev. Lutheran Church.
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921), pp.503-529.

Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615, Galileo Galilei:
Modem History Sourcebook: Internet Modem History Sourcebook. ©
Paul Halsall Aug 1997, halsall@murray.fordham.edu

Series of Compilations issued by the Universal House of Justice,
Local Spiritual Assemblies, The Bahd'i Publishing Trust, UK, 1970.
The Nineteen Day Feast, The Bahd'i Publishing Trust, UK, 1989.
The Establishment o f the Universal House o f Justice, The Bahd'i
Publishing Trust, UK, 1984.

L ’Osservatore Romano, Editorial Office: Via del Pellegrino, 00120
Vatican City, Europe.
208 THE SINGAPORE BAHA’I STUDIES REVIEW

Declaration o f the Rights o f Man and o f the Citizen, Approved by the
National Assembly o f France, August 26, 1789, prepared by Gerald
Murphy, The Cleveland Free-Net - aa300.

Wählen Sie einen zweiten Text zum parallelen Lesen — eine Übersetzung oder einen beliebigen anderen Text.