Rowan Williams and Richard Dawkins in Oxford argument

The importance of matters of Theology were reinforced again this week in a debate between prominent atheist Richard Dawkins and the Arch Bishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

This is in the light of claims from the likes of Dawkins that religion should be an entirely private matter and should have no place in public life. He would like to see the removal of unelected Bishops from the House of Lords and the eradication of faith schools that are partly funded by the state.

This particular debate however covered the issue of the soul, which Dawkins rejects and Williams accepts; evolution, which they both accept; and the problem of evil, that they both agree is a serious issue for those who believe in God.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Interpreting The Bible

How the Bible is to be read and understood is by no means a simple matter.

There are a number of different ways of approaching the Bible and different Christian denominations will advocate one method over another.

This matter is further complicated by the huge variety of types of literature in the Bible, the different authors and the huge timescale over which the different books were written.

Some propose the Bible must be taken literally. This creates problems however as there are apparant contradictions and it also, for example, is very difficult to make this compatible with a scientific view of the world.

Others will suggest that many of the Biblical books should be read as myths that still, however, contain truths about God's relationship with humanity. While this may explain some of the contradictions and be compatible with science it does mean that the meaning of these myths is based on human judgement and could vary from person to person or denomination to denomination.

Read more here and here.

Pope Benedict XVI believes there is no incompatibility between faith and reason, or religion and science

In March 2009 the Pope reinforced his view that the theory of evolution is compatible with a Christian understanding of humankind.

Read more here.

Why we are born to believe in God

A recent newspaper article suggests that humans are programmed to believe in God because, researchers claim, it gives them a better chance of survival. Read more here.

Teenagers and Belief in God

A recent survey suggests that 66% of UK teenagers do not believe in God and 59% think religion has a negative influence in the world.

Why do you think this might be the case?

Read more here.

Do you think this survey is representative of the people you know?

Compare this to the rising popularity of A Level Religious Studies in recent years - here.

Can you believe in God and the Theory of Evolution? Largest U. K. survey to date.

There are many, such as Richard Dawkins, who argue that belief in God is irrational in the light of modern evolutionary science. Others like Keith Ward however believe there is no problem in accepting a scientific view of creation and evolution and also believing in God.

See what the survey reveals about attitudes in the U. K. here.