Faking A Religious Experience

This documentary shows how stimulating the brain in a certain way can produce an experience with very similar characteristics to those of a religious experience.
Does this show that religious experiences cannot be genuine?
I don't think it goes that far. It does show that a scientific explanation of the experiences is possible and as such, bring more doubt as to the authenticity of such experiences but it doesn't prove they are not genuine.
After all, taking hallucinagenic drugs may make you see beautiful butterflies flying in front of your eyes, but this does not mean that whenever anyone claims to see beautiful butterflies that we must assume that the butterflies are not real.




For more on religious experiences click here.

Catholic Church announces that the use of Condoms can sometimes be the right thing to do.

One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic Church is that the use of artificial contraception, including condoms, is wrong. This is because they believe that the main God given purpose of sex is to reproduce. This is based on a Natural Law view of ethics, heavily influenced by St Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle who were both concerned with the purpose or Telos of an action.


This belief has, until now, been seen in an absolutist way so that the use of condoms would be seen as wrong in any circumstance.

There now appears to be a change of stance whereby the Pope has said that, in situations were a condom is being used to prevent the spread of HIV, and thus protect one's partner, that their use is the most repsonsible thing. This could still fit with a Natural Law approach under what is called 'double effect'. This is where, when one's primary intention is good, eg to save a life, a normally immoral action can be allowed.
This does not mark any significant change in the Church's view of sex or indeed contraception. It still holds that sex should only be within marriage and should always have the possibility of reproduction. It also still maintains that the proper way to combat HIV is not condoms but through a change of attitude and lifestyle with regards to sex.

It does seem to show though that there is some recognition of a 'grey area' in some ethical matters however which will be seen by some as very significant.

For more on this story click here.
For more on Natural Law click here.
For more on sexual ethics click here.

New Primate - Bad Design or Illogical Evolution?

I was very excited to see a new type of primate has been discovered in Burma. Such discoveries are incredibly rare.

The new primate, a type of snub nosed monkey, is very distinctive, with nostrils that point upwards. This unusual feature apparantly causes the animal some problems, with locals claiming that the monkey sneezes when it rains, due to rain drops falling into its nose. It seems that it puts it head between its legs to avoid this. (I am not making this up!).

So what would a Creationist have to say about this? Why would a perfect God create an animal with such an apparant flaw?

On the other hand a supporter of Darwinian evolution may also be faced with some difficulty here. Why would the upturned nose have survived as a characteristic when, again, it appears to be a negative trait?

A tragic side to this story is that the only known specimen of this monkey was killed by hunters and later eaten. It could be said that this human brutality is more fitting with evolution's 'survival of the fittest' idea than that of a species created and designed in the image of a loving God.

To read more about this incredible discovery click here.

How far can we trust our senses?

In his Cave Analogy Plato compares empirical knowledge to imperfect flickering shadows. He argues that our physical senses cannot be trusted and reveal the truth to us.

More modern Materialists, such as Richard Dawkins, have more sympathy with Aristotle's view that it is only through scientific empirical evidence that we can know anything.

The BBC documentary Is Seeing Believing explores how our senses can be misled and manipulated and, also, why this may not necessarily be a bad thing.



To watch more from this programme click here.
For more on Plato's Cave Analogy click here.

Black History Month and Theology

One of the most well known figures in Black history is Martin Luther King, who campaigned for equality in the U. S. A. His Christian beliefs were an inspiration in his belief that all people should equal and also in his insistence on non-violent protest.

Another hugely important figure was William Wilberforce who campaigned for he abolition of the slave trade. Again he was inspired by theological concepts.

The opposition to inequality is founded in the Creation account of Genesis. God created a male and female human in His image (Imagio Dei), and gave humanity dominion over the rest of creation, not over fellow humans (Genesis 1:26–28). Galatians 3:28 explicitly teaches the fundamental equality of human beings, claiming that, 'all are one in Christ'.

These are good examples of how theological ideas can have a real, practical impact on the world.

View the black History Month website here.

Killing in the name of Justice

The first woman in 5 years is to be executed in the U.S. Does the fact that she is a woman make it significant? There are certainly far fewer women than men executed.

When considering issues such as the sanctity of life the death penalty is very contentious. Does anyone, even the state, have the right to take away the life of another person?

Few people would argue that many who are executed have committed terrible crimes and need to be kept away from the general population, but what is the purpose of the justice system?

If it is to seek revenge thenthe death penalty may well be acceptable, but if it is about justice - about making things right, can the death penalty do this?

To read more about this case click here.

Professor Keith Ward discussing Materialism and Idealism

Keith Ward: "Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins from Metanexus Institute on Vimeo.

Keith Ward is seen here challenging the claims of Hard Materialists like Richard Dawkins, that the universe and everything in it is purely physical.

Some good notes regarding the body and soul argument can also be found here.

This would be particulalry useful for the Body and Soul module and anyone taking part in the A2 essay competition.

Near Death Experience - Proof that we have a soul?

Plato's Cave. A dated but useful re-telling of Plato's Cave Analogy.

The Case for God Part 1. Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs defends his faith against a number of atheists.

The Case for God Part 2. Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs defends his faith against a number of atheists.

Creation without God

Professor Stephen Hawking has argued, in his forth coming book The Grand Design, that the creation of the universe did not require God.

He says that the laws of physics are such that the universe could have created itself from nothing. This is a change of stance for Hawking who, in a Brief History of Time, had said that God may have a place in the beginnings of the universe.

Of course this does not constitute proof that there is no God, as some reactionaries have claimed. What it does do however is reignite the debate of the nature of the relationship between religion and science.

One may question why Hawking saw fit to mention God at all in a book about cosmological science. Cynics may suggest it was for publicity to incease the sales of his book. Even if that is the case however it is an interesting and challenging point he has made.

So where does it leave believers in God?

Fundementalist creationists will dismiss this entirely, as it contradicts the account of creation in the Bible.

The majority of Christians do not take a literal view of the Biblical creation stories however. (A discussion of different ways to interpret the Bible can be found here.)

Some may point out that we can still ask where the fundemental laws of physics, that made the universe possible, came from? Maybe God made these. There is a danger of taking a 'God of the Gaps' approach here however.

Some may point out that it has long been a popular view of God that he is not a part of the universe, he is entirley transcendant, so it is only to be expected that no physical/scientific evidence of him can be found.

Others, such as Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs, believe science and religion ask different questions and you cannot get answers from one discipline by studying another. "There is a difference between science and religion. Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation. The Bible simply isn't interested in how the universe came into being." He also described the hostility between religion and science as the "curse of our age" claiming that it is damaging to both. He suggests our religious faith is about how we interpret what we experience. For many theists the beauty of the universe, that science reveals, and our very ability to appreciate and understand it, makes more sense by believing in God.

Read more about this story here.

How old is too old?

The availability of fertility treatment has led to post menopausal women being able to have children. Stories of women in their 60s giving birth are becoming a regular feature in the news.





However many men require no special medical treatments to be able to father children unitl the day they die.




If we object to older women becoming parents should we also object to older men fathering children?




In June 2010 Dennis Ealam hit the headlines by becoming the Uk's oldest father, aged 76. His wife is 36.
Whether through the use of IVF or naturally, should there be an upper age limit on becoming a parent?
If so how could this be enforced?

For revision materials on the right to a child click here.

AS Theology Essay Competition

Enrich your subject knowledge and understanding
Improve your exam skills
Excellent way to enhance your UCAS personal statement
Essay of no more than 1000 words
‘There are no convincing reasons to believe in God.’ Discuss
Must be handed in/emailed to your Theology teacher by Monday 6th December
1st Prize £30 HMV voucher
Runner up prize £15 HMV vouchers
For more details see Mr Vaughan

A2 Theology Essay Competition

Enrich your subject knowledge and understanding
Improve your exam skills
Excellent way to enhance your UCAS personal statement
Essay of no more than 1000 words
‘There is nothing beyond the physical world.’ Discuss
Must be handed in/emailed to your Theology teacher by Monday 18th October

1st Prize £30 HMV voucher
Runner up prize £15 HMV vouchers
For more details see Mr Vaughan

Should all people have the right to die?

The head of the Swiss euthanasia clinic Dignitas has proposed that the right to die does not only belong to those who have terminal illnesses. Ludwig Minelli has suggested that there are many reasons why someone may feel they do not want to live. I heard him speaking on the radio where he cited the example of a lonley elderly man who had no friends or family. My young daughter, who was with me at the time, remarked, 'If someone called you saying they had no family or friends, shouldn't you offer to be their friend rather than offering to kill them?'.

I was amazed by her instinctive compassion clarity of thought!

So when people are in despair, what is the right thing to do? Is it to attempt to help them, even at times when this may be futile, is it to offer them the opportunity to die?

Read related article here.

Euthanasia resources here.

Hundreds of Urns found in lake could be from euthanasia clinic

The controversial Swiss euthanasia clinic Dignitas is in the spot light again. Hundreds of urns containing cremated human remains have been found dumped in a lake. Not only is this illegal and could bring hefty fines, it is also a distinctly undignified way of treating the remains of people who went there for a 'dignified' death. Read article here.

About 1000 people have had their lives ended at Dignitas, including 115 Britons. Euthanasia is illegal in the UK but there was clarification of when relatives may be prosecuted, earlier this year - see here for details.

With an aging population in the UK there is likey to be far more cases of degenerative diseases that can lead to a scenario where euthanasia is considered.

So, is it absolutely wrong to take a human life, or there situations when it is acceptable?

Is all type of killing the same?
There is also the issue of human remains. Do we have a moral responsibility to treat them with respect? (This links to the previous post)

For revision materials on euthanasia click here.

Aborted Foetus' Found in Rubbish

The remains of 14 aborted foetus' have been found in rubbish bags near a clinic in India. Some will see this as an unfortunate case of mis-managment of medical waste while others will be appalled as it highlights what they see as the legalised murder of unborn people.

It raises another issue that exists within Indian society, and some others. That is aborting foetus' on grounds of gender. Males are more desirable and it is believed that millions of female foetus' have been aborted over the last couple of decades.
If abortion is murder then this is clearly wrong. However, for those who argue that abortion can be acceptable is there anything wrong with this?

How does one decide what is an acceptable reason to have an abortion and what is not?

To read more about this issue click here.

The Last Supper... would you like fries with that?!

As Christians prepare for Holy Week they will be drawn to remember Jesus' Last Supper with his disciples, the event which Communion/Eucharist is based on.



Recent research has shown however that in artistic depictions of this event portion sizes have significantly increased over time.
Could this be yet another sign of the overindulgent, materialistic Western lifestyle? So used are we to having all that we want, and more, that we find it hard to depict a celebratory meal with only meagre portions.
The implications of this can be seen in rising levels of obesity, especially in the USA.
From a broader perspective, this sort of attitude may well be responsible for collapse of the global financial system, where banks, being driven by greed, took ever increasing risks secure bigger profits. The price of this is that we may all have to tighten our belts and reduce our portion sizes as public spending looks set to drop and taxes look set to rise for years to come.
Exploitation in labour and trade is another symptom of putting profit and personal gain above all else. Many of our high street retailers have been shamed in recent years, due to their use of child labour in sweat shop conditions. How can such rich businesses put their finances above the lives of thousands... yet does the fact that I am wearing my Primark jumper as I write this highlight that this is not just an issue for businesses but for all of us?
The impact of working for profit and personal gain has also taken its toll on the environment and while we are being told to reduce our 'carbon footprint', the biggest polluting countries, USA and China, are very reluctant to sign up to any climate change plans, due to the financial impact.
The events of Holy Week have huge religious significance for millions of Christians but maybe the simple meal of the Last Supper can also have a far more down to earth and practical message for all of us in the 21st Century. One that doesn't require fries on the side...

Click for resources on Business and Environmental Ethics.

Why do atheists just not get 'it'?

I came across an interesting article in New Scientist that has turned the debate about belief in God on its head. It suggests that, given the prevelance of belief in God throughout history, all over the world, we should not ask , 'why do some people believe in God?', but rather we should study atheists to investigate why they do not.

Some prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins (actually Dawkins refers to himself as agnostic) have pointed out that statistically, theists are less intelligent than atheists, and that this may help answer the above question. However the article also suggests that when this is explored more deeply it is not that simple. It seems, for example,that post graduates are actually more likely to believe in God than not. The danger with statistics is that they can easily be skewed and viewed to support a number of different conclusions. I personally know some very intelligent theists and atheists, aswell as some that are not so intelligent in both groups too!

Dawkins, like many other atheists/sceptical agnostics, likes to point to the lack of scientific empirical evidence for God. While it is true that God's existence has not been disproved by science, Dawkins certainly has a point that many scientists argue that science does not point to a God and has shown some traditional theistic beliefs, regarding creation for example, to be incompatible with a modern view of the world. Yet many theists know this and still retain their faith. Is it because of their lack of intelligence? Well surely this is too much of a generalisation and does not account for the likes of John Polkinghorne who is a world class scientist and also a Christian minister. Embracing a scientific view of the world does not, it would seem, necessarily lead to atheism. So, does Polkinghorne have 'something' that Dawkins does not?

It is very hard to pin down why some people beleive in God and some do not and, in attempting to answer this question, it is very easy to rely on sweeping generalisations. It will be interesting to see what this study reveals. Until then the question still remains...

Why do atheists just not get 'it'?

Check out the article here.

What do you mean?

'Ghandi was good; Hitler was bad; honesty is right; killing is wrong...'






We use words such as 'good' and 'bad' all the time, often in an amoral sense, 'That was a good Theology lesson(!)', but, more importantly, we regularly use them in a moral sense.

But, what do we really mean when when we say, 'Hitler was bad'?

Do we mean...
He did things that are intrinsically wrong;
He did things that had negative consequences;
He did things which I personally feel are wrong;
He did things that the majority of people feel are wrong;
He did things that no people should ever do?

There are those, such as A. J. Ayer, who hold that ethical statements are no more than expressions of emotion. So if I say, 'The Iraq war was wrong' all I am really saying is 'Boo to the Iraq War' in the same way one may Boo at a pantomime villain. No proof can be offered as to whether the statement is true or not, it is simply how I feel. This is called Emotivism.

On the hand there are those who propose that moral statements are objective, something is either right or wrong. G. E. Moore suggested that we recognise 'good' intuitively, we simply know when we see it. We cannot, however, define goodness. For example I may say that charity is good, but this only says that charity has the quality of goodness, it doesn't actually say what goodness is. What it does do though is show that we do recognise goodness when we see it. This is called Intuitionism.

Others, such as F. H. Bradley, advocate that ethical statements are like any other, and that they can be shown to be the case. For example, 'Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister' can be shown by checking historical records, and equally 'Martin Luther King was a good man' can be shown by examing his actions and their results. As such, his goodness would not simply be my opinion, it would be shown to be objectively true. This is called Ethical Naturalism.

So when, for example, we hear Terry Pratchett arguing that it is right for people to be allowed to decide when they die, what does he actually mean? Is it what he would prefer; is it what would benefit most people or is he saying it is some sort of absolute right?

I wonder how many of us say we think things are right or wrong without really stopping to think what we actually mean?

To explore these ideas further click here.

Are we really free?

The terrible case of the 2 young brothers who brutally tortured 2 other boys raises a very serious question regarding free will. The obvious, understandable reaction to cases such as this often along the lines of 'lock them up and throw away the key' or 'torture them and see how they like it'. While one can empathise with this view, especially in the case of the victim's families, the reality may not be that simple.
When we speak of justice or morality we normally require that someone be acting freely if we are to apportion blame. Looking at the background to this tragic case it appears that the 2 attackers have themselves been subject to abuse. Watching extremely violent and pornographic films, drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis, all under the age of 10.
To reject the concept of free will however has serious implications. What right do we have to punish people who do not freely choose their actions? Free Will is also a hugley important concept within Christain Theology, and to reject it would be unacceptable for many.


The American lawyer Clarence Darrow used a determinist arguemt to save 2 teenage murderers from the death penalty in the famous Leopold Loeb case.

So does your upbring determine the person you are?
If so, then how far are you really responsible for your own actions?
Would the attack have occurred had the boys had a more caring upbringing?

Hard Determinists argue that we are not free. Our genetic make up, upbringing and environment mean that we will inevitably make the coices we do.
Libertarians reject determinism, arguing we are free.
Compatiblists accept we are in someways determined but are morally free.
Read more about these ideas here.

The Right to Kill

A mother has been found guilty of killing her son by injecting him with a heroin overdose. Frances Inglis ended her son's life after he was left brain damaged following serious head injuries. Ms Inglis claim she was acting out of love and wished to end her son's suffering. She has been sentenced to 9 years in jail.
There are those, such as the Catholic Church, who view any such killings as totally wrong under all circumstances.
However another of today's news stories shows that there are many who argue that killing should be allowed, under some circumstances.
MSP Margot MacDonald has drawn up a Bill to make it legal for someone to seek help in ending their lives.
Should the law get involved over such matters or should they be seen as personal concerns that can be dealt with without the fear of prosecution?
Where ever you stand on the issue of euthanasia, it is an ethical debate that does not seem to be going away.