The Big Debate - Does God Exist?

I, and a number of other Loreto Theology staff and students, recently attended a debate between American philosopher William Lane Craig and Oxford Chemist Peter Atkins. Craig arguing that science, when applied to philosophical propositions, provides strong evidence for God; Atkins taking the opposite position.
Craig opened with the Cosmological argument. He argued that the consensus among scientists is that the universe has a beginning. As something cannot come from nothing, there must have been a transcendent reason as to why the universe came into existence - this transcendant reason is God - a supremely powerful, disembodied consciousness. Atkins had a variety of responses, one being the multi-verse theory. Craig countered that by multiplying the number of universes did not avoid the initial question of why something rather than nothing exists, and therefore God still remains as the best reason for the universe's existence. Atkins countered that just because we do not know how the universe started, we should not assume God did it. Craig's response was that science uses empirical investigation to gain knowledge, and as there was nothing before the universe (science agrees with this claim) therefore science has nothing to say about anything before it, as 'nothing' cannot be empirically investigated. Philosophy however, tells us that God is a good reason for the existence of the universe.
Craig's also used the argument that in our experience some actions are objectively wrong, eg rape or child abuse, and that without God there can be no objective morality. Atkins more or less agreed with this, explaining that morality has evolved to help us survive and is no more than that. The key issue here is that without objective morality, no action can really be said to be wrong - it can only be said to go against the survival of our species. This is different to saying that it is actually wrong however. I believe Craig argued successfully argued that if we want to consider morality to objective there must be an authority on which the morality is based - and this authority is God. Of course one could simply deny that morality is objective, but this can lead to some uncomfortable conclusions.
Craig's final point was based on the resurrection of Jesus. His argument was that given the evidence of the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances and the actions of the early Christians, the best explanation is that Jesus really did rise from the dead. This is then, strong evidence for the Christian God. Atkins initially dismissed this rather flippantly as being a rather fanciful idea. Craig however was unperturbed and pointed that all other explanations of the events, eg the disciples stealing Jesus' body, had even less evidence and create more questions than they answered, such as why would they steal his body and then go on to be persecuted and killed to support what they knew to be a lie.

This was a fascinating and engaging debate. I think it must be said though that it probably did not change anybody's mind with regards God's existence. It seems that the real reason people believe is not because of logical argument, but rather because of their own personal experience of the world (and of God?) and their relationship with it.

The real importance of debates like this, I believe, is that they re-address the balance of the arguments put forward by the rather aggressive 'New Atheist' movement. These debates show that believing in God can still be a rational option for modern scientifically minded people.

As to whether God really does exist or not? Well I suppose God only knows...

Here is a link to Craig debating Atkin's in 1998 - unfortunately the new debate is not available.

Professor John Lennox on Christianity and Science

Professor John Lennox is a top Oxford Mathematician. He is also a committed Christian. Here he talks about his debates with Richard Dawkins, his own journey of faith and why Christianity makes sense of science, life and the universe.

What do you think about his ideas?

Homosexuality, Church of England and the Bible

Discussions and interviews regarding the issue of homosexulity in the Anglican Church. Also has some interesting discussions about how Bible references regarding homosexuality can be understood.

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

‘Any action is good as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.’ Discuss

Must be handed in/emailed to your Theology teacher by Monday 5th December
1st Prize £30

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 17th October

1st Prize £30

No Change to UK Abortion Law

There has been a recent parliamentary vote on whether women wanting an abortion should have to recieve independant counselling before the abortion is carried out. Critics of abortion clinics say the counselling currently offered is biased because they are run as businesses - this claim is denied by the clinics.



A human foetus at 24 weeks gestation - abortions can be carried out up to this date in the UK.


Last year, 202,400 were carried out in the U. K.

Abortion is a highly contentious issue with many Pro-Life groups, including the Catholic Church, considering the killing of an unborn baby to be the same as killing any other person. They see it as murder.

MPs however, rejected the call to offer women independent counselling by 368 votes to 118 so tha law remains unchanged.

For more on this story click here.

Life After Death is a 'Fairy Story' say Stephen Hawking

Emminent scientist Stephen Hawking has branded life after death a 'fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark'. He has also recently proposed that the universe could create itself from nothing, with out the need of God - see here.



Hawking's understanding of the workings of the universe is, to be sure, greater than most of us could ever wish to hold, but is knowledge of the universe enough to deny out right the existence of life after death? Talk of life after death is generally regarded as belonging to the realm of metaphyics, philosophy and Theology. It's true that science hasn't provided any convincing evidence for life after, however it has long been suggested that if there is a heaven, or indeed a hell, that it would be transcendant, that is beyond time and space beyond the universe. The idea of a heaven in the sky and hell under the earth is viewed by most, in metaphorical or symbolic terms.

Hawkings also likens the human brain to a computer, that shuts down at death. I can only assume that he is making use of analogy here as, while there are obvious similarities between a brain and a computer eg, the ability to store and retrieve information, that are also vast differences. It was the famous sceptical agnostic philosopher Hume who criticised Paley's watch analogy on this very point. Just because the brain resembles a computer in some ways, it does not follow that it resembles it in all ways. The Dualist view is that we are more than simply physical matter - and that it is reductionist to suggest that the people we are, our feelings, desires, memories, fears and loves are nothing more than the result of a complex biological computer.
There are good arguments against the existence of life after death as well as arguments to support it but many of them go beyond the remit of science.

There is a danger when scientists like Hawking make metaphysical/philosophical claims and that many people will accept them as scientific fact, when, in truth the issue is very much up for debate.

To read more from this article click here.

To read more on life after death click here.

Discrimination and Equality - Not as simple as it seems!

In a recent news story we see that a devout Christian couple have been refused as foster carers becasue their religious beliefs prevent them from teaching potential foster children that homosexuality is acceptable.
"I cannot lie and I cannot hate, but I cannot tell a child that it is ok to be homosexual."
Eunice Johns
It is clear that this has taken place to prevent 'sexual discrimination' but it has led to claims of 'religious discrimination'. That the only reason they cannot foster is because of their religious beliefs.
Whatever one's personal views on homosexuality or religous views towards it are, this is certainly a very contentious issue.
It is only becasue the couple are open about thier beliefs that this has become an issue. One wonders how many people have been allowed to foster and adopt that hold views, that they will teach to their children, that could be deemed discriminatory. One does not need to belong to a particular group or religion to be homophobic, racist, sexist etc and to then pass these beliefs on to the children on your care.
Indeed how does one decide what an acceptable belief is? If it simply a matter of what the government finds acceptable, we could find ourselves living in George Orwell's '1984', where we are told what to believe or else! If however we say it is about what the majority of people find acceptable there are huge practical implications of how this would be discerned and this also assumes that the majority of people are in some sense morally enlightened.
It should also be noted that not all Christians hold strong beleifs against homosexuality. Catholic teaching is that being homosexual is not wrong, although practising it is. The Anglican Church is currently debating how homosexuality should be viewed, with many arguing that, providing it is a committed, loving relationship, (marriage) it is acceptable, while others do regard it as a grave sin .
The truth is that just about every parent in the world will be teaching their children something that someone else finds offensive or wrong - it is the nature of the diverse species that we are.
How we then try to apply this to fostering and adoption laws is a very complicated question, and one to which I do not have the answer!
For more on this story click here.
For more on sexual ethics click here.
For more on the right to a child click here.

The Dangers of Relativism

Prominent American Atheist Sam Harris discusses the dangers of relativism. Interestingly it is religions that normally argue in favour of an absolute morality but Harris turns this on its head.

While I think he raises some very interesting and insightful points I can't help thinking he had somewhat of an anti-Islamic agenda. I would feel more comfortable if he had used more of a range of idealogical beliefs, both secular and religious (like the comparison between the veil and the magazine covers), and that this would have actually strengthened his argument.

For more on absolutism and relativism click here.

Elton John and David Furnish have a surrogate child

Elton John and his long standing partner David Furnish are now parents to a baby boy. ApparantlyElton is the boy's biological father via a surrogate mother.

This raises some interesting issues related to our topics of study.

Firstly the question of the 'right to a child'. Is it right that people, who cannot have children naturally, should be able to do so artificially? Some would argue yes. The joy that a child brings to its parents, family and friends means that it is a good thing. Technology is used in many different ways to improve our lives, so why not use it to provide children?

Others however would disagree. One reason is from a deontological perspective and is supported by the Catholic Church. They would propose that there is no 'right' to a child. A child is a gift. If you are unable to have children naturally you must accept this and maybe explore other avenues eg, adoption. (Incidentally it seem Elton and David did try to adopt but were not successful.) They would assert that children should not be treated as material commodities that are there to improve our lives.

Another response, a more practical consequentialist one, would refer to the world's growing population. It has been suggested that over population is one of the biggest threats to our future flourishing. This would mean that going to excessive lengths to have children could be viewed as not only damaging but also immoral.

Another related issue is that of homosexuality. In a society of equal rights it would be wrong to deny fertility and surrogacy treatments to homosexuals if it is allowed to hetrosexuals. There are those, often, though not exclusively from religious standpoints, that propose that homosexuality is an intrinsic wrong, either because of scriptural passages or on grounds that it breaks the nartural purpose of sex. Should the sexuality and gender of the prospective 'parents' be a factor when considering the morality of surrogacy? Catholic teaching can neatly avoid this awkward issue as they say surrogacy should not be allowed at all!

So, what do you think?

For more on Elton John's baby click here.

For resources on the Right to a Child topic click here.

For resources on sexual ethics click here.