In the essay "The Ethics of Belief," by Peter Singer, Singer's argument is that "a person who believes what he is told and is unreflecting and unquestioning should not be allowed to hold great political power." .
Singer's premise deals with the very broad topic of underserved suffering in the world. The existence of undeserved suffering and the cultural relativism of religious belief are serious grounds of doubt about the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. Yet none of this seems to trouble Bush in the least. Bush is not inclined to reflect on the philosophical problems of religious belief; he is equally trustful about the Christian Scriptures. It never crosses his mind that, since the Gospel according to Matthew was written several decades after Jesus died, it might not be a reliable historical document. I also agree with this argument. We are often left to wonder how a God who is supposed to love us so much could allow such violence and evil to exist in the world without doing anything to stop it. Also, I can understand him questioning the authenticity certain books of the bible due to the time period they are written because there was no one around to make sure it was historically accurate.
Singer's third premise is concise with his first, which is that it is irrational to have someone with such dogmatic beliefs in a position of power. This is the point he is trying to lay across to the readers of his essay. Most American do not see a problem with this because they share the same faith as Bush and that makes them all the more willing to vote for him. But even if most Americans share his beliefs we need to consider what we are to think ethically of someone who bases there life completely on unquestioning faith. In other words, what are we left to think of someone who talks and writes frequently of his religious beliefs but has never shows no signs of having struggled with the question at all because their faith is based on a "foundation that will not shift?" The philosopher Karl Popper once said, "The difference between science and dogma is that a scientific theory must always be open to falsification, on the basis of evidence.
