# Religion in the Modem World

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-19 — 1 clipping.*

---

> 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.
>
> — *Religion in the Modem World (Used by permission of the curator)*