Faith and science are not exclusive
Philosophy of religion is a very popular subject at advanced level.
The syllabus involves some of the traditional arguments as well as more recent ones – for the existence of God formulated by such theologians as St Anselm and St Thomas Aquinas and counter-arguments by such renowned thinkers as the classic empiricist David Hume.
It is certainly a very worthwhile undertaking for students.
At every twist and turn they are involved in a profoundly thoughtful debate, one in which they will try to argue that perhaps one side may be shown to carry more weight than the other.
To provide sound foundations for the undertaking it is necessary to become familiar with two schools of thought with respect to examining propositions in order to verify their meaningfulness – rationalism and empiricism.
The former concerns itself with the sort of truths arrived at by way of sort of mathematical proof (a priori), the latter those using the scientific method (a posteriori) with its emphasis on experience.Just to offer a taste of argument and stir things up somewhat. Think of yourself – don't try it – standing between railway lines and staring down the track.
Your experience, by way of the senses, would clearly demonstrate that the two lines meet.
Rationalism, in terms of mathematical proof, would perhaps win the day in arguing that, by definition, parallel lines never meet.
It was Rene Descartes in particular – theist, philosopher and mathematician – who argued in this sort of way to show that experience could be somewhat flawed.
Some years ago a Jesuit priest explained to me how for him the teaching of physics involved both himself and his students in something of a spiritual and aesthetic exercise since, as they tried to unearth the mysteries of the universe, the whole process invoked such feelings of awe and wonder.
At the same time, he was careful to argue the limitations of influencing the spiritual development of pupils by way of teaching religious education, maintaining that "religion is something caught" by way of example, "rather than taught".
Most certainly the Jesus of the gospels was teacher, preacher and, more significantly, regarding the latter comment, healer.
In the universities many dons teaching science are also theists, some members of the various faith communities of this country.
Further, I seem to recall reading about a leading scientist, maintaining with some humility, that science strictly speaking seeks to show that a particular theory has escaped disproof rather than attempting to prove anything with concrete certainty.
Personally, I don't recognise the estrangement between science and religion today, though I can quite understand how it arose in past centuries.
The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, in its initial condemnation of Galileo – in Cardinal Newman's words – forsook truth at the expense of authority and it seems that Charles Darwin largely upset the biblical fundamentalists with his theory of evolution.
David Abbott, Stoke Golding
This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury (but not on its website):
Rationalist needs more than belief
Peter Anderson, in his letter ("God's existence not disproved", Mailbox, July 16) seems to have misread or misinterpreted my letter of July 3 regarding the questionable existence of a supreme deity.
He writes of a sweeping statment I allegedly made about science disproving the Bible and Christianity.
I never used the word science in any sentence or paragraph in the whole of my letter.
Also, Mr Anderson has completely side-stepped the challenge which I made.
I asked for absolutely irrefutable evidence of God's existence but this issue seems to have been evaded.
No such proof will ever be forthcoming. Why? Because no one can prove the existence of an incorporeal and imaginary being - quite simply, a non-entity.
Any god is a product of man's imagination, an easy way of explaining the wonders of the Earth and the universe.
However, any person who is capable of truly rational thinking will need much more than ill-founded traditional beliefs to rely on.
FO Hipwell, Wigston
God's existence not disproved
The letter from FO Hipwell ('Offensive, but I'd go further', Mailbox, July 3) makes the sweeping statement that science has disproved both the Bible and Christianity.
But my question to him would be: "How does science do this?"
I have just been reading a book by Dr Steve Taylor, a senior researcher and lecturer at Liverpool University, in which he says: "Science is limited in scope and usually asks the questions 'what? and how? But, not usually, 'why?'"
Science is also empirical – it is based upon observation and experiment and so does not usually consider things that are not open to testing.
Therefore, science does not disprove, indeed cannot disprove the existence of God, nor the events recorded in the Bible.
To establish the truth of those things, we must turn to other methods for proof, such as the witness of eyewitnesses and personal experience.
In the Bible, the four Gospels provide eyewitness accounts of the life, teachings, miracles, death and resurrection of the central figure of human history, Jesus Christ.
It is He who divides time into two (AD and BC) and it is He from whom today's date is taken.
There are more books about Him, more songs to Him, and more people who claim to follow Him today than any other person in history.
The Bible is now in 3,000 languages and it still the world's best-selling book.
All over the world, there are thousands of people, young and old and from very different cultures, who have discovered that being a Christian and believing the Bible is not being "gullible".
I became a Christian when I was 19 and doing my National Army service in Singapore. It was in a Chinese church one Easter Monday and a big part in how this happened was by reading the New Testament for myself.
Over many years, I have travelled to many parts of the world and produced 18 missionary documentary films on the impact of the Christian gospel from the Amazon Basin, Africa and even Papua New Guinea.
The Bible and Christianity are very much alive with the largest growth in mainland China, estimated to be in the region of 70 to 90 million, more than the total population of Great Britain!
No, I don't think that God believes in atheists, but He does love them.
Peter Anderson, Leicester
