One of the enemies of Christianity has always been so called man's wisdom. Paul the apostle called it "science falsely so called" Man's great effort to explain away their guilt along with their God. Believers will increase with persecution and believers will continue on untill you peace loving people put them to death as stated in your Bible. May hope is befor then many will take the esier way out, just believe the truth.

auburn Packwood, Neosho, Missouri

Yes, let's have a return to Christianity. Bring back the Crusades. Forbid the common folk to own a Bible. Restore religious driven inquisition, torture and burning folk at the stake. After all the Word of God never changes. It was right then apparently (according to successive Archbishops and Popes who must have ordered these actions), so it must be right now. Anyway, isn't the Pope supposed to be infalable, and God's rep on earth, so they couldn't have got it wrong; surely not?

Kevin Sell, York,

I doubt very seriously if "creationism", even in pre-enlightenment times was considered anything more than an allegory. Medieval Christians were more than capable of questioning the notion of night and day could mean anything before the Earth existed.

Your use of the phrase "sky-god" is a puerile attempt to discredit a rather profound concept by associating it with a ludicrous idea. No, Barry, most Christians don't believe that God sits on a cloud somewhere.

You do your argument and your cause no service by descending to such crass rhetorical techniques.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Hey Barry, who says God issued the first commandments? If you'll read your bible, I think you'll find that Moses had guards placed that were ordered to kill anyone who went up the mountain while Moses was "receiving the tablets from God". Sounds a little fishy to me. Why do you think someone might do that?

Jeff, Baton Rouge,

Andrew,

I am confused. You claim religion has "moved on" and that aspects have been disregarded. Has god issued some new commandments whilst I was away? Is there a revised copy of the bible stipulating that in fact the earth was not created in 6 days? Does the pope acknowledge women weren't made from a rib? etc.

No, the problem is that religion doesn't move on. The bible is "the word of god" and that is unchanging despite the obvious falsehoods and outdated ideas. Whatever you feel personally this is the position of most believers. Also, as far as I know the Christian faiths are defined and not just a smorgasbord of ideas that you can pick and chose from whenever you feel like it.

I think your confusion come in a definition of terms; what you seem to be referring to is metaphysics and moral philosophy. Both noble pursuits and I agree ever improving and evolving. However, they are not dependent on the belief in the Judeo-Chistian sky-god and all his 100 million angels.

Barry, Newbury, Berks

Barry,

If you were a thorough-going materialist then you would have to admit, like Alan, that beauty does not exist and your perceptions have deceived you. Let people make up their own minds about this claim.

Anyway, why should scientific philosophy be the only one to allow truth claims to compete and be judged by reason? Religion has always had competing claims about truth and as some have been shown to be unreasonable they are disregarded or changed. Religion, like science, can move on to new understandings and new theories. Obviously some will still cling on to 'flat earth theories' but reason can change minds in religion as well as in science.

Face it guys, if we have moved on from 1st century science - we can (and many have) moved on from 1st century religion. So why do people like Dawkins and Hitchens refuse to engage with modern, sophisticated religious thought? Religion, like science, is a QUEST for truth and ALL answers are provisional.

andrew holden, oxford, uk

Anyway, Barry, where's your sense of discrimination? Bad, thoroughly ugly rather than beautiful, art poetry, literature and indeed science, all exist. Why is it that you only require religion to be perfect?

andrew holden, oxford, uk

I love these discussions. People claiming that "religious truth" is more than a bad oxymoron. Somehow because science can't prove why a sunset looks beautiful it makes the teachings of the bible more correct. If it weren't so tragic it would be funny.

Science does not profess to have all the answers, any ultimate truths and it probably never will. However it is the quest to find the rather than consigning oneself to iron age superstitions and then convincing oneself that this is in some way profound and enlightened.

It is especially nice to see the mental somersaults undergone by religious apologists so they are not forced to justify so called "religious truths" such as transubstantiation, virgin births, rib women, 900 year old individuals, cosmic Jewish zombies and the like.

Do not get religion confused with poetry, art and literature. These are things of beauty.

Barry, Newbury, Berks

Laurence - your examples of the blue sea and the sun setting and rising prove the very opposite of what you claim.
-- Scientific truth explains the way in which your perception has deceived you. The scientific truth is therefore superior to your subjective impressions.
-- This is surely the whole point of scientific research - to explain the world around us as far as possible.What on earth is wrong with that? Why should you oppose the quest for knowledge (as opposed to religious dogma, for example)?
-- If all the world's religions would only accept the knowledge we have gained through science (the process of enlightenment), the world would doubtless be a better place.
-- Just two examples:- Jehovah's Witness mothers might not die after refusing blood transfusions. Aids might not spread so rapidly if condoms were "allowed".

alan, cologne,

Laurence,
truth in science is relative, what science says is that this appears to be true as of now. It normally does not claim to deal in absolutes in the way that religion does. What science is very good at is determining that something cannot be true. The tools of science can make this determination both qualitatively and quantitatively. That is sciences strength. It is also the reason why there is so much conflict between science and religion. For thousands of years religious leaders made decisions on challenged by anyone. Papal infallibility is a good example. If you didn't like what your religion said, you had either to sit quietly, or take the risk of forming another sect. Over the centuries so much of what religious leaders said turned out to be wrong. That is the real source of conflict between religion and science.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

The blood transfusion tragedy is a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty in religion. The Bible prohibits the drinking of blood. At the time it was written blood transfusions did not exist. Transfusion does not involve any of the actions of drinking,nor are any of the subsequent digestive processes involved. So how can it be called drinking. Perhaps it would be more accurate if the Bible had used ingesting. But if we use ingest we would make it impossible for anyone to eat meat. Even ritually cleansed meat must contain some traces of blood. Or perhaps it's the cooking that matters, who knows?

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

Alan - my examples were intended to illustrate how truth can occur outside the realm of scientific thought. This kind of truth should not be written off mere 'subjective impressions' or delusions, but that is precisely what science does.To say that scientific truth is 'superior' to any other truth is like saying Newton is superior Shakespeare.
I suppose this depends upon how one defines truth, and I would be interested to hear what your understanding of truth is.
The example you have given about refusing blood transfusions is of course deeply distressing. However I can't help feeling that with the media being how it is, we are constantly exposed to the negative aspects of religion (as with most things); but I think anyone with a balanced mind will be able to appreciate that there is also a lot of good resulting from people holding a faith.
I agree that the world may be improved if certain convictions were relinquished, but I do not agree that science alone has the all the answers.

Laurence, Clifton, UK

Laurence - your examples of the blue sea and the sun setting and rising prove the very opposite of what you claim.
-- Scientific truth explains the way in which your perception has deceived you. The scientific truth is therefore superior to your subjective impressions.
-- This is surely the whole point of scientific research - to explain the world around us as far as possible.What on earth is wrong with that? Why should you oppose the quest for true knowledge (as opposed to religious dogma, for example)?
-- If all the world's religions would only accept the knowledge we have gained through science (the process of known as enlightenment), the world would doubtless be a better place.
-- Just two examples:- Jehovah's Witness mothers might not die after refusing blood transfusions. Aids might not spread so rapidly if condoms were "allowed".

alan, cologne,

What I mean by subjective experience is the embodied and situated reality of human existence. When we experience the sun for example, it rises and sets on the horizon. Now we are aware that this is scientifically false, but the reality of this experience remains true for us all none the less. Science cannot accommodate this kind of truth because it seeks to transcend embodiement and to objectify reality. This is the basis for Cartesian rationality and the subsequent enlightenment, it is founded on a mistrust of perception.
For me, the problem with this arises when truth becomes the exclusive preserve of science, and is defined as only that which can be objectively and scientifically proven. Everything else is negated, trivialised and regarded as ineligible.

Laurence, Clifton, UK

I've posted two comments recently and they seem to have disappeared! If they eventually show I apologise for repeating myself.
Dave - by 'subjective experience' I mean perception, or the shared reality we experience as embodied and situated human beings. We say that the sea is blue, but this is not really the case - are we therefore lying? Or are we being deceived? Is it unreasonable to make this assertion? This is the foundation of scientific understanding; It recognises the unreliability of perception and abandons it in pursuit of objective truth.

Because I make this criticism of science it does not mean that I advocate abolishing it in favour of some other system of understanding based on perception for example. But neither do I think that every way of understanding should be subordinate to science, which I fear is what is happening.
In early Greek thought, 'truth' was undersood as 'disclosure'. As such truth could occur in manifest ways, including poetry, myth, and art.

Laurence, Clifton, UK

Laurence,

I find some deep errors in your statement below. "it discredits the reality of subjective experience". If by this you mean personal experience, there is a specific reason that this isn't used as evidence. People lie! To take someones word and base theories on this would be pointless. What is to stop someone creating a contradictory statement just for fun. Also if you have more regard for peoples honesty, then what about preception errors. I'm sure many people will have seen something, looked again and seen something different, or heard the words wrong from a song. These errors mean that personal experience cannot and should not be held as valid evidence which is the reason that science doesn't hold it in value.

if this isn't what you meant, then please expand upon it, as the phrase you used is unspecific and widely open to interpretation.

Dave Jones, London,

Laurence - the terms in which you couched your question to Bob made me think you did not agree with his arguments. If, however, you agree with them, then I must apologise to you. -- Having said that, perhaps you can explain to me why you think the "problem" is that "scientif ic" reason "discredits the reality of subjective experience" (whatever that is). Is reason in science any different from reason anywhere else? Why, for goodness sake, should reason discredit anything? A discussion without reason is impossible. If you abandon reason, you abandon it at your peril.

alan, cologne,

Laurence
the fastest-growing religion is Islam estimates are that by 2025 it will be bigger than Christianity. If you look at the population that Islam is addressing, it is the disadvantaged all over the world. Generally people are disadvantaged because they are un-educated (ignorant). The fastest-growing sects in the Christian religion are the charismatics. Their principal focus is also the disadvantaged. They prospered in places like the slums of South America, Africa and the poorer parts of southeast Asia.

In all of the established religions there are a great number of sects. Each sect has its own interpretation of the holy books. Some sects tolerate homosexuality others do not. Can the truth actually be different for different sects? There are also errors of fact in all of the holy books which are allowed to persist. I could go on at great length about intellectual dishonesty.

Religions have always exploited the fear of the unknown, particularly the fear of death.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

Alan - you presume that because I have asked Bob to back up his statement that I must take the opposite view, this is an example of the black and white attitude that James refers to below: 'you are either with us or against us' etc.
In my view, the claim that Bob makes for ignorance and intellectual dishonesty being the main conditions for religious prosperity is unfair because it limits human understanding exclusively to scientific reasoning. The problem with this is that scientific reason itself is a limited evaluation insofar as it discredits the reality of subjective experience.
As for fear, it would be equally valid to say that this is the motivation behind science as much as religion, and would point to their shared essential origins.

Laurence, Clifton, UK

Laurence, could you perhaps then explain to Bob why you think ignorance, intellectual dishonesty and fear are NOT the three main conditions that allow religion to prosper? -- The arguments of the faithful indicate that indeed they are.

alan, cologne,

Ruth Gledhill refers to atheists and agnostics being led by Richard Dawkins. I am an agnostic and Dawkins certainly does not speak for me. I have more in common with open minded religious people than with Dawkins and his disciples. With their black and white certainties, and their arrogant intolerant attitude, they have more in common with religious fundamentalists than with agnostics.

james, London, England

Bob,
Other than hearsay and superficial speculation, do you have anything to back up your claim that ignorance, intellectual dishonesty and fear are the three main conditions that allow religion to prosper? To make such a bold statement as a scientist would require proper research and solid evidence.

Laurence, Clifton, UK

Alan
sadly you are right. Organized religion is a business. It does make money, but is more interested in influencing how the flock think. There are three main conditions which allow a religion to prosper. The first is ignorance. The second is intellectual dishonesty. The third is fear. These three conditions have always been with mankind and I see no reason why anything should change. Science has had an influence on the first two conditions but has had little impact on the third.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

Good religion will continue to live, thank God, because people of faith know that good religion is not a matter of evidence but of art and inspiration!

Of course religion, like anything else people do, can go bad - and that needs to be opposed and got rid of.

andrew holden, oxford, uk

Chrism,

"Why is it that the Vatican and the Church of England are such vast wealth amassing Mega Corporations who give very little away....?"

I don't think they are really all that wealthy if you look at actual disposable income. Much of the money is in heritage assets which are culturally important - it costs a lot of money to maintain and run a great Cathedral and even more a religious theme park like the Vatican! The church is steward of these assets on behalf of present and future generations. It might be tempting to give them away but it wouldn't be right.

Some of their other financial assets are tied up as investments in pension funds for retired employees - and church pensions, like clergy salaries, are not particularly generous. That money doesn't really belong to them either.

Finally much of the rest of their wealth is spent, if not actually given away, to do good - both spiritual and material good - on behalf of others.

andrew holden, oxford, uk

No, unfortunately not. Religion continues to live. And I fear it will do so as long as superstition lives. And as long as ignorance lives. And as long as the fear of death lives. And as long as gullibility lives. And as long as clever seducers of the gullible live. -- Oh,(sigh) , how much better the world would have been, and would be, without religion.

alan, cologne,

In her second sentence, does Ms Gledhill really mean 'obtuse'? Perhaps 'abstruse' might be nerarer the mark.

John Lea, Stuart, Florida

Why is it that the Vatican and the Church of England are such vast wealth amassing Mega Corporations who give very little away, when the Bible pontificates about the problems experienced by the rich entering Heaven, not to mention the importance of looking after the less fortunate poor?

Chrism, Manama, Bahrain

The truths discovered by science are always subject to scrutiny and revision and as such are not absolute. However the means for attaining these truths are absolutely conditioned by the scientific method, which itself is sacrosanct and refuses to permit anything that does not conform to its decree. This is the absolute nature of science - it demands an uncritical faith in the scientific system.
I think it is too dismissive to say that religious belief is arbitrary. The mythologies of religion are not simply camp-fire fabrications to keep people happy in an unelightened age. Myth is an essential expression of our existence, and despite science, the truths of myth resonate today as much as ever before because our essential being remains the same.

Laurence, Clifton, UK

Laurence

You are mistaken. Science does not equate itself with absolute truth, only religion does that. Science merely says here is what we understand as of now. Tomorrow may be a different story. Newton's discoveries lasted for centuries, but there were toubling anomolies which were accounted for by Einstein. Now we are concerned with problems in Einsteins theories. The beauty of science is that it is not the place to look for absolute answers, which may not exist anyway. All scienctific postulates are time stamped and can be changed instantly based on new information. Ulike religion which is arbitrarily based in unexplained mystery. This gives rise to a great deal of dishonesty.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

I don't have implicit faith in any written word or any God, be it scientific or religious.
Although they are presented as being opposites, science and religion are essentially the same, insofar as they both claim the exclusive right to truth. What seperates science and religion is the way in which truth is defined.
It's clear that the truth of the bible for example does not stand up to scientific examination, and as such the words contained therein cannot be regarded as a reliable account of historical events. But does the bible therefore have no truth? Are there no universal truths that every human being can recognise in the deeds and actions of the characters within the stories?
If the definition of truth lies exclusively within the realm of science, then only that which succumbs to the method of science will qualify as being true.

Laurence, Clifton, UK

"In this country, and in the US, declining attendance in the liberal wings of the Christian churches - chiefly the Anglican and Episcopal churches - has been more than offset by the increasing devotion of evangelicals, the increasing numbers of Muslims and the enormous influx of devout Catholics through immigration"
Not really true, at least in England. Between 1968 and 2005 alone Anglican attendance fell from 1,606,000 to 881,000, a loss that is nowhere near accounted for by other churches or religions. Furthermore the Catholic Church has been declining faster than Anglican Church for the last few decades.

Charlie, Oxford,

Laurence, for arguments sake let us keep your divine. If your God stands meekly by, when untruths are published in his name, what does that tell you about your God?. Is the Word of God a Chinese menu where you can pick and choose as you wish? In the law if a witness is found untruthful in one matter, we can discount all of his evidence.

If, you choose to have implicit faith in these writings, knowing that there are errors, what does that say about you? Is this what is meant by the ultimate test of faith?

We can lose sight of the horizon, either by creating our own fog, or by simply closing our eyes.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

In the absence of the divine all that remains for us are 'facts' and 'evidence'.
But who needs the Bible now that we have Google for guidance.

"who gave us the sponge to wipe away the horizon?" -Nietzche

Laurence, Clifton, UK

Moses first found the talking Burning Bush in the Desert and then his meeting with this Supreme Being on Mount Sinai, none of it, you will note was observable by any other human to corroborate, this meeting resulting in the Ten Commandments. Who supplied the Commandments? Like other ancient writings it’s a mystery, but most certainly not any Supreme Being. Moses found what religion needed Abraham’s Jewish God, a breakaway religious sect Christianity founded by the Jewish Prophet Jesus’s followers, and Islam by Mohammad, the link between the three is Abraham but each has their Supreme Being and in time all would be slotted into the web of deceit and given an unprovable place as God in each religion. The problem with Religion started when the jealousy over which God was Supreme emerged. It was instigated by the earthly representatives of the Religions.Thus leading to Wars and hatred amongst countries and peoples using religious differences as key and as such is very much alive today.

Robert Nickisson, Gorokan, Australia /NSW

The question of evidence is very important in this argument. If we are allowed to discount hearsay and evidence which cannot be independently verified then what is left. We have miracles and otherworldly activities, we have the word of God (the holy texts) of various religions, all of which, on careful examination can be shown to contain errors of fact. These errors can readily be found with a simple Google search. Belief is not based on an assessment of available evidence which would satisfy science, every day business dealings or the law. Believers should ask themselves the question, why is it, if religion is so important to me, the standard of proof I require is so low. My statement, that individuals who believe, do so because they have an innate need to believe, regardless of the evidence, is true. This need, in my view, is a primitive response to uncertainty.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

It is all to do with money and control over people.

Find the God and Goddess with ourselves.

That is all we are here for.

Enjoy each moment.

Believe nothing.

Question everything.

Mary Barrett, London, uk

Jesus said the poor you have with you always.

He might just as well have said the credulous, superstitious, and lunatic you have with you always.

JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO, Canada

Bob Gibson repeats the atheistic misconception that those of us who believe that God exists do so despite having any evidence. We have plenty of evidence. It may not be the sort that atheists accept but it is compelling for the vast majority of human beings and always has been. I really wonder how it comes about that a minority of human beings cannot recognise the evidence and not only boast about the fact but remain convinced that they are the rational ones.

Tam Earl-Aine, Cheltenham,

It's all so boring. Isn't it obvious that man is a child? And like any child needs parents? But why is god called Father?
The most amusing thing about christianity is that its god has a mother ! And sex was so taboo in heaven that when the god from this earthly mother she had to be fertilized by a breeze. And what a breeze! It's still blowing.

San Ying, Montreal, Canada

Atheism is always misrepresented in these discussions. The atheist says that there is no evidence to support the existence of God, therefore I am entitled to say He does not exist. The true believer says that in spite of any evidence to the contrary I believe that God exists. The agnostic says simply, I do not know. These are just different ways of dealing with uncertainty based upon personal needs. Clearly agnostism is the most honest. It also seems to be the least satisfactory. If atheism is a religion it is at the other end of the spectrum from accepted beliefs

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

Through a complete life experience one can demonstrate that there are 3 stages of Faith and Reason (religion and atheism to cut short):
1. FAITH WITHOUT REASON - blind dogma acceptance through growing within a religious environment without alternative of questioning or opting at all. This is the childhood of spiritual experience, where one can't actually choose one's belief shelter and can't deny it until emancipated. Unfortunately many grow old and die without surpassing this phase.
2. REASON WITHOUT FAITH - the natural reaction, opposition and rejection to the first phase and its faith after reasoning awakens. This is the atheist stage, which the longer it gets, the drier and more cynical one becomes.
3. FAITH with REASON - actual experience through scientific spiritual practices and the Grace of the Lord demonstrates the greatness and divinity of the Supreme Entity without neglecting rationality or conscience. Here all debates become powerless, as the inner light dissolves doubts.

Ac., Taipei, Taiwan

Yes. The interesting debate is between those who want a return to Christianity and those who want a brave new modern society in which religion is at most just a tolerated personal eccentricity. It is not between those who want a penny on or off income taxes.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

I can't see much hope for religion, but Harry Potter might be a useful substitute.

Dave, Southampton, UK