Aimee Howarth brings you an interview with The Yorker directors on the final day of the advent articles
Aimee Howarth speaks to YUSU's sabbatical officers about their Christmas Day routine for day 17 of the advent calendar
For the final time this term, Vicky Morris updates you on this weeks film news
50 years after the publication of 'James and the Giant Peach', the works of Roald Dahl continue to celebrate success.
Of course, the "do you believe" conversation will eventually be narrowed down to a basic discussion of belief; something the hard core atheist will say lacks evidence and the believer will defend with faith. Why is it then, that some of us have faith – which is inexplicable – whilst others refuse to believe anything that is not backed by logic?
When I set out to write an article about religions, I thought that by interviewing people on their beliefs I could prove that the core of all religions is the same, a bit like in Life of Pi.
Little did I know that to ask someone about their faith is to plunge into a world full of mysteries, a world which you can’t possibly understand unless you’re in that world too. So instead, I want to give you an outline of what three religious students (a Muslim, a Christian and a Jew) told me about their religions, why they believe, and especially how they can maintain these beliefs in a university environment.
Zeenath admitted that the reason she is religious is because she was born into the Muslim faith:
"Admittedly, I'm a Muslim through the joyful process of childhood indoctrination."
Marthe told a similar story:
"According to Jewish law, I am Jewish because my mother is and there is nothing I can do about that."
Admittedly, I'm a Muslim through the joyful process of childhood indoctrination.
Yet before you dismiss this, Zeenath explains:
"As I was growing up, I could have rebelled against it, and yet I didn't. I've had problems before with concepts like the headscarf and most recently, with God. But both of these have eventually been resolved with a positive outcome - I now have faith through my own personal journeys rather than just my mother's teachings."
Impressed? Laura, on the other hand, did not focus on her background but explained that she is Christian partly due to intellectual reasons:
"To my knowledge it fits perfectly into every academic field including the historical. The theological plane also fits in here: the Bible makes sense and is a complete explanation of humanity. It’s a satisfying picture of human behaviour and how humans relate to God."
However, she points out that much of her religion is simply based on faith, "having a living relationship and life in the freedom of forgiveness".
"My belief is not under question but there are times when living as a Christian can be challenging. This is true of many situations", said Laura.
“I find it really easy to follow my faith at university as I don't enjoy many of the things I'm not allowed to do anyway", Zeenath added.
Marthe explained that she lights a candle every Shabbat, and celebrates Pesach:
"Because I only do little things it is not a problem for me to maintain my religion in York. However, I know that people who are religious find things more difficult. If you keep kosher it's not always easy, because the nearest kosher shop is in Leeds and the same goes for attending synagogue."
So it is not always easy. Well, we could have guessed that, but it is important to point out that it is not the believing that is the challenge but how to follow the tradition that supports it.
Surprisingly, the girls answered this question very differently. Zeenath is lighthearted on the subject:
"People who don't see a point in religion are right; what I mean really is what’s the point unless you believe in the afterlife?!"
However, Laura argued:
"Usually people challenge me because they do not understand, so I try to explain and answer the questions they have honestly."
Whilst Marthe said:
"I don't have any patience with people who assume a superiority over others because of what they do or do not believe. For me, it's about faith and how anyone interprets that; it's up to them."
These answers struck me. Not because they affirmed these girls’ beliefs, but because they seemed so simple: if you don’t understand me then that’s OK, I’ll explain, and if you have no tolerance, then I’ll just let it go.
As Zeenath admitted:
"I see both sides of the argument perfectly well; sometimes I agree with the other side more than I should - I was never the most religiously motivated of people. I feel it's important to talk about it though, especially now that it's in the press so much.
"It affects everything in my life when you think about it. Even people who don't know me can form an opinion of me from a distance once they spot the headscarf. It affects what I eat, drink, wear, and do in my free time. The very structure of my day centres around my religion, because I have to stop what I'm doing five times a day in order to pray - that's the point of Islam, to be constantly remembering God."
Similarly Laura explained:
"My faith has a massive impact on every area of my life. I believe that my life is to glorify God and that this is ultimate joy! The gospel means God is with us and unconditionally loves us."
Marthe’s answer revealed that her faith is firm, and that, for her, religion is more than anything a tradition.
"One thing that does affect my life, which certainly is a Jewish thing, is family. Again, this is part of the religion, but it has come down to me as a traditional, cultural thing, rather than as a religious requirement."
So for Marthe religion centres around culture and customs, while Laura had pointed to faith itself, without focusing too much on tradition. On the other hand, Zeenath discussed how tradition was part of reaffirming her faith.
This article is not about coming to a conclusion about all religions. As the students gave their answers it became clear that, although all of us are at university and we heatedly fight over our point of view, we often do not really stop and listen to what each of these beliefs entail. We usually want to prove that our own point of view is the right one. So next time you have a kitchen debate on faith with fellow students, it’s a good idea to listen to what belief means to someone else.
Great, interesting article! 
I second that, good article! I would however, argue with the fact that "the Bible makes sense" - its many contradictions (even relating to the creation story), and the fact that there is zero historical evidence for the town of Nazareth (See "The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus") and very little historical evidence for the existence of Jesus himself. Add that to the fact that the bible was compiled centuries after he supposedly lived... (Have a look at the excellent documentary "The God who wasn't there")
Not that I'm trying to start an argument (me? never!). Not all atheists are intolerant, some of us just like a good debate 
Interesting article, but it really highlights how religion seems to be a lifestyle choice as opposed to a true belief in the message of each respective text.
I'm 100% certain god couldn't give a damn about which direction you pray in and how many times a day, whether you understand latin or hebrew, whether you dress differently, whether you eat certain foods or whether you drink alcohol or circumcize etc.... I'm pretty sure there's more important lessons that religion can teach us as opposed to personal lifestyle choices.
It is these superficial things which have taken the benevolence away from religion. People use religion as an identity, as a way of standing out in some cases, as opposed to using religion to a positive effect.
The most important pillar of islam is zakat. Jesus told the man who had everything to give to the poor. All religions assert that people should be just and forgiving.
It astounds me that while people suffer over the world, while wars are waged between faiths and when religious tensions are at boiling point, people are still so concerened with mere customs.
Speaketh a troubled atheist.
I have to agree with #3 and I'm not an atheist myself, rather a theist who also thinks that the undue emphasis on customs involved in much organised religion borders on the pharisaic and is precisely what the figureheads of most world religions warned against.
To quote J-J Rousseau:
“Do not let us confuse the outward forms of religion with religion itself. The service God requires is of the heart; and when the heart is sincere that is ever the same. It is a strange sort of conceit which fancies that God takes such an interest in the shape of the priest’s vestments, the form of words he utters, the gestures he makes before the altar and all his genuflections.”
I accept that customs are important to many religious believers and that they are not in themselves a bad thing but I think that ethics should always be at the forefront of religion (as in secular matters as well) and that the practice of customs should not distract anyone from their moral duties. This is a general point, I don’t believe that anything the three people interviewed said implies that they believe otherwise.
I personally have most experience of the Christian church and I believe that a neurotic and unquestioning preservation of some traditions and customs has led to the church getting its priorities mixed up in some cases. In particular, the church’s current obsession with homosexuality and its prioritisation of this ‘issue’ at a time when it could, for example, be working with other religions to unite people and strengthen the worldwide response to the suffering cause by famine and treatable diseases, is unjustifiable and results from a preservation of a homophobic strand that unfortunately existed in the early church.
Interesting article.
Its really about worldviews which I define as the core presuppositions (fundamental assumptions) on which entire belief systems are based. Misunderstandings and disagreements often stem from having different worldviews and hence disagreeing on the logical conclusion.
One persons beliefs may seem illogical to another person if they are being viewed from a different worldview, even though those beliefs may be perfectly logical deductions from that person's worldviews.
Its interesting that the author separates those who "have faith" from those who "refuse to believe anything that is not backed by logic", clearly showing her own bias! She even calls it "inexplicable" - from her worldview such faith cannot be logically deduced. She is either failing to understand these people's worldviews first to see how they came to their conclusion (analysing the conclusion from her own worldview), or she understands their worldview and can see a flaw in the logic (I suspect it's the former).
So how do you tell which worldview is correct? Not easy, although we can be sure that if a worldview logically leads to a conclusion that is inconsistent with reality or itself (a contradiction), then it is as a whole flawed.
Of course a contradiction with reality is basically a contradiction with the popular presuppositions about what we observe being real.
For example if you assume that the earth is flat (after all it looks like it is from its surface), then you fly into space and see it from space, you have 3 choices:
In conclusion I don't think you can ever understand another person's beliefs unless you can put down your own worldview and try to understand theirs, otherwise you'll simply be trying to understand them in the wrong context and the chances are it will seem illogical to you.
#5 I disagree with your criticism of the article in paragraph 3. The definition of faith is to believe something without proof, i think it is not unreasonable for the writer to separate the two groups.
If someone has a view about anything backed by valid logic then it stops being a matter of faith. It is then a discussion on the validity of the logic, which this article doesn't try to talk about.
#6: i can see what you're getting at, but my point was that all views are based on core beliefs, including atheist's. Every proof has a set of presuppositions without which the proof becomes invalid (unless its a circular proof in which case it is meaningless anyway).
Therefore the latter group of people is empty. There is nobody that refuses to believe everything that is not backed by logic, because their own core beliefs are by definition not backed by logic, yet they believe and put their faith in those. A person in this group would have to believe absolutely nothing in order to refuse to believe in their own core beliefs.
The only way a person can avoid having presuppositions based on faith is to base them on existing logic (which is itself based on the presuppositions). This makes the reasoning circular and meaningless.
In your second paragraph you say that a view backed by logic stops being a matter of faith, however since that logic is based on presuppositions which are believed to be true by faith, that view is indeed a matter of faith.
I hope this makes my point clearer.
I don't really understand what you mean by core beliefs outside a religious context. If you mean a person's outlook on the world, on their level of tolerance, liberalism, how sociable they want to be etc. then I can see what you mean about a lack of logic. But these attributes are not determined by religion; there are intolerant people with religious faith just as there are intolerant atheists, and liberal people with faith just as there are liberal atheists. Although your belief system, religious or nay, obviously has an effect on your outlook it does not, it appears, determine it.
These core beliefs, not, as you say, based on logic, are not determined by a person's religious beliefs.
Do you mean instead a person's judgements on the world around them? Here is where I feel the argument lies for this article.
On their judgements of the world a religious person has the base belief 'God is', with varying levels of non-logic based beliefs emanating out from that belief (with differences in ideas on creation etc.). An atheist has no base belief but logic, relying on what is proven to them by logic and demonstration.
Yes, these people have 'faith' in what is demonstrated to them, but this phenomenological faith is a very different beast to religious faith, and your confusion of the two is unhelpful. Faith (logic) is logic and faith (religious) is not logical. This is the distinction the article makes.
#8 Ben: Thanks for your response.
In essence i disagree with your implication that religious people's reasoning is always illogical/unreasonable, and that athiests don't have to rely on faith - which i think was the core of your 4th paragraph (sorry this is a fairly long response).
I'll demonstrate with some of my own beliefs (which if you still think are non-logic i'd be interested to hear where you think my logic is flawed):
I share that belief that "God exists", however I don't consider "God exists" to be one of my core beliefs, it is logically derived from several logical arguments, one of which is based on my belief that "The bible says God exists" and "The bible is entirely truthful".
I don't think anybody would seriously argue the bible didn't say God exists, so why do I believe that the bible is truthful? This could be considered a core belief of mine, I cannot prove that the bible is truthful, however it exhibits all the characteristics one would expect from a non-fictional work of truth, and none of the characteristics one would expect from a non-truthful work - which makes this belief not unreasonable. It is entirely self consistent, and consistent with what I observe of the universe (dispite what others may try to claim to the contrary). I do not believe that if the Bible was not inspired by God (i.e. if it came entirely from man) that it could have such a level of consistency.
One of my other logical arguments for the existence of God is based on what I know of information theory. There is clearly a massive amount of information in human DNA, however nobody has ever been able to explain how information can be increased without intelligence (evolution for example is unable to explain an increase in genetic information). If you think about the past, mandkind's genetic information can only have decreased as time passes. My core belief that it must have come from somewhere (which I also think is a reasonable belief) implies that something that always existed must have created us in the first place.
I strongly disagree that "an athiest has no belief but logic, relying on what is proven to them by logic and demonstration". Athiests can no more back up their belief that God does not exist than theists can back up their belief that God does exist, although I'd argue that to be an athiest takes a much greater leap of faith than to be a theist - its just much more socially acceptable and hence "easier".
I'll end with a quote from the (non-creationist) information theorist Hubert Yockey observed over 30 years ago (who hasn't changed his opinion since):
‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.
One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.’
You're welcome, it's good to have a debate and a welcome escape from Judith Bloody Butler.
In which case I admit that I didn't read the article closely enough, an athiest must believe that there is no God. But only, I suppose, in the same way that the debate at the athiest children's camp in the second article in this series requires athiests to belive that there are no invisible unicorns.
I would argue for a revised definition based on the idea of core beliefs where "an athiest has no core beliefs but logic, relying on what is proven to them by logic and demonstration."
The core beliefs of a theist are the existence of god and, for some, the incontrovertible truth of the Bible. These are beilefs based on faith (I don't accept your charge of consistency as proof of divine conference, there is no reason why a group of people over a large number of years couldn't produce something consistent with each other, long running series such as the Marvel Comics universe or the Archers have many writers and achieve consistency. Nor do I accept that just because the Bible bears marks consistent with a work of truth it is truth; it is part of the essence of literature and poetry that it can appear in forms other than its own.)
The core beliefs of an athiest do not concern God, as much as they concern invisible unicorns, instead concerning logic and reason.
That is not to say that a core belief in logic and reason is exclusive to athiests, quite the opposite, but it is the lack of a core belief based on faith that is the mark of the atheist.
The length of bargepole required for me to touch this conversation increases exponentially with each comment... :S
Yeh, I like debates that don't get swamped with ignorant name calling like some tend to.
The problem with this is that by definition an atheist is a person who believes that there is no God. To make atheism the default confuses definitions and simply makes the model biased towards atheism so that athiests don't have to do anything to be called logical (even though I have shown that the belief that God does not exist must be based on faith like all other beliefs). As it happens there are studies that show that children have abstract notions of a creator despite not having been influenced by concepts of God from organised religions or even being brought up in cultures where God as creator is not part of the philosophy.
Perhaps it's fairer to start with a belief system where the person hasn't looked into the evidence or made up their mind yet, i.e. they have no core beliefs, except perhaps relating to most of what they observe being an effect of "reality" and truth. From then on all core beliefs made (not logically based on another belief) must be backed by some evidence not depending on the new belief, be reasonable, and not conflict with existing beliefs.
For clarity, I wasn't trying to prove the bible's inerrancy by its consistency, merely pointing out that the belief was not in conflict with any other beliefs or observations and hence was a reasonable thing for me to believe (not illogical). I'd also like to point out that the long running comics you mention are obviously written as fiction: the reality is (obviously) that there aren't superpowered superheros in the 20th century. For a literature as extensive as the bible, between 2000 and 6000 years old to maintain consistency with itself and the many scientific discoveries made since is quite impressive in my opinion.
Its also interesting to think about the motives of the writers of such literatures. A comic-book writer can make money from selling comics, probably the more interesting and distant from reality the more will sell. The people in the New Testament devoted their lives to telling people the news that Jesus had risen from the dead (and that he had died in the first place to take the death penalty for our sin so that we could know God). They put their own lives at risk to save others, and many of them were killed for what they claimed to have seen. They were either barking mad (which is inconsistent with their writings), knowingly lying (in which case they would all have to have been in on it, and I doubt they would have faced death for it), or they were telling the truth. There's simply no point in them doing it unless they were telling the truth. Again this isn't proof, but still compelling evidence in my mind that there is truth in it.
I don't think anybody is arguing that invisible unicorns exist (or could provide much evidence for them).
Again since the definition of an atheist is a person who has made the choice to believe that god does not exist, that belief must be based on faith since it cannot be proven, and evidence for the existence of a God and the truth of the bible must be conciously explained away using faith. For a person to claim that all their beliefs are based on pure logic and nothing else is nothing less than lying and arrogant. All logical arguments work from a set of assumptions to a set of conclusions. If A,B,C are true that means D must be true. They are meaningless without assumptions.
I don't want to assume that you are an athiest or put pressure on you if you'd rather not, but I'd be interested to hear your analysis of your own beliefs as I did in my previous post (I just started asking myself why I believed something until I got to the "coz i just do" level).
Sorry for another long post.
Mitch: muahaha, your puny little comments will be crushed by the weight of mine and ben's html!
I’m sure children have many abstract notions, and I don’t deny that a belief in a great (not always benevolent) being or deity is a base attribute of human nature. It is one of the great things about our species that we have the ability to look into available evidence and make up our mind beyond base conclusions, and one of the most deplorable things when people refuse to do so.
Your arguments for the veracity of the Bible all boil down to faith, with I have no problem with and don’t intend to argue against. I agree that my analogy to comics and the Archers was inadequate (and possibly slight insulting, I apologise). Here I am truly sorry that I am not more familiar with the Bible, and cannot argue with you in this sphere. I know ignorance is no excuse, but I promise I will read it more closely than cursory school meanderings soon.
As for the motives of the writers, ‘barking mad’ is extreme and carries many negative connotations, but a kind of mass delusion disseminating from the base desire to acknowledge a creator those studies find in children seems much more consistent with reality – you may be more liberal, but there are many that see the many incompatibilities between their faith and others as proof of the others' falseness. Yet other faiths have texts with just as much consistency, both across their content and in their observations of the world, as the Bible. I would understand if you reply ‘but I am in that sense “liberal” as you sweepingly term it, and see no great differences between the religions.’ That would be fine for you, but I don’t see the closeness and am not convinced.
This 'mass delusion' continues through today, not in much established religion - I don’t wish to label all faith as delusion – but in cases like The Church of Scientology and violent radical abuse of Islam, all of which are perfectly consistent with the observations their followers make of the world.
As you asked, my views at the moment verge on the nihilistic, but without the implied aggression (although not without a degree of anger). I’ve never believed in a creator (not to my knowledge, anyway). I do believe passionately in the rights of others to believe what they like, as long as it doesn’t harm others (although I definitely condone allowing people to make others feel uncomfortable, or troubled – that’s quite different to actual harm). My openness to other’s views and angry nihilism-lite probably makes me a prime candidate to find either religion or a more fervent atheism at some point. I am interested in your labelling of a claim to rely purely upon logic as ‘arrogant’ (not without some truth in it) as that is exactly how I feel about a claiming ‘I was created in God’s image and I know that he exists’ – there seems to be a breathtaking arrogance implied in such a claim, even if it is tempered by the idea of being a servant to this creator.
James, I'd also like to take issue with the fact of the Bible being true. This isn't just taken from inconsistencies in it (although that is obviously something we need to consider). You seem sure that the Bible writers were telling the truth. I agree that there is no reason to suppose that they were deliberately lying, or mad, but this doesn't mean that the Bible has to be taken word for word. Most of the Bible was written (or at the very least complied) hundreds of years after Jesus's crucifixion. During several centuries, fiction can turn to fact and stories can get distorted and exaggerated. I think most people would accept that there is some truth to elements of the Bible. Indeed, that seems hard to refute. However, this doesn't have to lead us to God's existence. Although the Bible claims Jesus as the son of God who performed miracles, how are we, 2000 years later, able to say that he wasn't just someone extremely charistmatic and clever, who either made these myths up about himself, or had them made up for him after his death?
I also take issue with the entire faith vs. logic argument. I don't like to think of myself as someone who needs everything proved by logic. In fact I believe in a lot of things that cannot be proven. But this doesn't mean I have to have faith. Furthermore, as a Philosopher, I have studied many people who held their views on God and Religion entirely on the basis of what they thought were logic, A+B+C=D style arguments.
Also, going back to the top, #3, I entirely agree with your view that if there is a God, then he wouldn't care about the intracacies of religion, but I think that is discounting how important these things are to some people. OK, I agree, not important enough to kill thousands of people over, but thats only looking at the extreme cases. There are many, many more where being part of an organised, loving religion, has made people feel accepted, when they otherwise might have had nowhere to go. It also teaches many brilliant qualities and attributes to so many people, that I don't think it's fair to dismiss organsised religion on the basis of a few extremists.
I realise this probably sounds contradictory, but hey, I'm an agnostic and a Philosopher...I'm here to play devils advocate!
Ben:
Yeh sorry about devoting so much time to the Bible in my last posts. (I wasn't insulted by the Archers analogy).
I disagree with the idea that the new testament diciples could be deluded. For one thing at the time they already had knowledge of God and creation, so telling people that they had seen Jesus alive would not have satisfied the desire to acknowledge their creator.
I highly recommend reading this article written by a chief magistrate analysing the accounts of the witnesses in the New Testament as he would have done as a judge, which I think covers any points I would otherwise bring up.
I am not liberal in that sense. There is unfourtunately a common attitude that any faith can lead to God, but thats not what the bible says. Jesus said:
You're right that there are incompatibilities, and this verse makes christianity incompatible with any religion that says that there is another way to God except through Jesus.
The thing about the Christian faith is that it provides a solution for sin. I don't know of any other faith that solves it satisfactorally.
Although I am not very familiar with other religious texts, i would expect them to have inconsistencies in the same way the Bible probably would if it was entirely from man, it would be interesting to look into this.
I'm not really qualified to analyse the consistency of scientology or islam, however from what wikipedia tells me scientologists believe in reincarnation which isn't really consistent with what we observe (I don't see any intelligent insects, and where have all the souls from the recent surge in world population come from?).
Re: the claim of being created in God's image, it is indeed arrogant from the assumption that we are a tiny and insignificant part of creation (which would make it particularly undeserved). The bible teaches us that God did make us in his image and gave us the task of looking after the earth, which is what separates us from all the other creatures on earth and allows us to reason about such things. I suppose my argument against it being arrogant is the fact that christian's acknowledge that they are sinful and non-deserving of God's love or forgiveness (which I would say is humble, quite the oposite of arrogant - even that we claim to be saved is not by our own acts). In contrast many athiests use their self-confessed "logic" and "objectivity" to justify their superiority over and verbal abuse of those who "have faith". Which do you think is more arrogant?
Suse:
Thanks for your input.
As this article mentions, the claim that most of the bible was written centuries after Jesus' crucifixion and resurection is outdated: "It has now been established that the Gospels were written between 30 and 60 years after the death of Jesus" which would not have been enough time for such corruptions. The supposed exaggeration is also not consistent with the fact that these accounts include things about the gospel writers which they could easily have omitted if they didn't want to look bad (again I highly recommend reading the above article).
Cheers
James
I'm afraid we're going to disagree some more here. I think it is far more arrogant to believe that the greatest being in creation made you to look after the earth. I don't refute that we should be taking care of the planet, but only as a moral task for the rest of humanity. I also think that your contrast of the superior and abusive athiest is not only unfair in the context of our discussion, but also irrelevent in the light of equally superior and abusive Christians.
It's good to see you sticking to your guns about other religions, but surely the inconsistencies you percieve between reincarnation and your view of the world, and many other inconsistencies I'm sure you would find in other religious texts, are only equal to the inconsistencies others find between the contents of the Bible and observations like the discovery of dinosaurs, morally good homosexuals and the age of the universe.
I would suggest that it would not only be interesting to look into other religious texts and see if you percieve any inconsitencies, but essential if you are to propound the truth of one text above the rest contrary to the beliefs of (increasingly) large swathes of humanity. I'm surprised that as an obviously intelligent person and a someone of powerful faith you haven't explored other people's beliefs more closely. I think this is where those without faith would percieve arrogance, and why the original article (which seems so far away) painted the religious as without reason.
Of course, there is potential for hipocracy in what I am saying as I have admitted to not reading the Bible closely - but I am neither promoting Christianity nor atheism, if I was doing so actively I would want a good knowledge of all surrounding subjects.
The Bible: Because all the works of science can't compare to the writings of a few cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought that every species of animal on Earth lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
Sorry to be a bit harsh but as someone who is liberal in the sense Ben mentioned, I do find the suggestion that other faiths are inferior merely because one verse from John's gospel allegely implies this (and this verse could be interpreted in other ways) a little offensive and, more importantly, unjustified.
I do not doubt that the Bible is of value, I believe that some parts of it are literally true and other parts convey important lessons. But I do not think it is very reasonable to take everything in the Bible as (for want of a better word) gospel. The Bible is not even internally consistent, let alone consistent with some of the findings of modern science (as well as the Noah story, one could consider, for example, disparities between Biblical and scientific estimations of the age of the world, or the great degree of genetic diverity that exists; which would be inexplicable if we were all descended from just two people). Further, some of the acts attributed to God in the Bible are morally outrageous and inconsistent with the picture of God being benevolent.
I believe that the best way to find out about God is to observe humanity and the world and reason freely about what each observation might say about the existence and/or qualities of God. I suppose that this is another way that I could be said to be a liberal; I believe that an unquestioning acceptance of the Bible ties one down and prevents one from searching for truth as freely and effectively as one could. Since God is not dead, I do not believe that reading a book written several thousand years ago is the best way to find the truth about God, any more than reading a biography of a living person could be as useful as interacting with them and the people who know them.
Ben: yeh sorry about that comment about athiests, It wasn't really fair in the context of this discussion, and I certainly don't condone the behaviour of any Christians who might act similarly to some of my experiences of athiests.
Re other texts, I did make it clear that i wasn't familiar with many others and that my comments were only presumptions, but since I have already found a text that fits so well with reality, it isn't one of my top priorities to find another. My interests lie more in the areas of the creation/evolution debate as oposed to other faiths (with a particular interest in astronomy).
David: I didn't suggest nor do I think that people of other faiths are in any way inferior (we're all made in God's image after all), I am simply saying that if Jesus is the only way to God as the verse clearly says (I really don't see how it could be interpretted any other way), then Christianity is not compatible with a religion that says otherwise. i.e. they can't both be right. I'm sorry if you find that offensive and you're more than entitled to your opinion, but I'm more interested in truth than making everybody happy.
I don't really want to get into discussing the details of how popular estimates for the age of the earth etc are flawed here as its not really the place and it tends to invite heated and emotional responses from those who are indoctrinated with evolution, if you're interested in persuing such a discussion, email me (my email address is in the about section of this website under Technical Team - disclaimer: my views don't necessarily represent those of The Yorker). I am familiar with these issues and have no problem reconciling the actual facts with a straightforward interpretation of the Bible (and as I hope I've demonstrated I am of sound mind, not an ignorant nutter who buries his head in the sand as some might have you believe creationists are).
Cheers for an interesting debate
James
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report