Doug Belshaw

Everyone rejects something which challenges their core beliefs: if someone told you the sun goes round the earth, you'd reject that! Please give me something which I have to flatly reject. It would be interesting to see what you come up with! I appreciate that your tongue is somewhat embedded in your cheek, Andy, but I feel sorry for you if you think Christianity is a 'medieval psychological scaffold'. Yes, many come to believe in God during rough patches in their life, but I'd say that this was because they are times when they are most receptive to new ideas. They haven't got their normal barriers up - akin to what you mention above r.e. people challenging and questioning core beliefs! Doug

An unjustified assertion, if ever there was one! I assume you are referring to intellectual laziness, rather than the physical variety. Either way, I would say that Christians, in my experience, cannot be condemned for being either. I have found, upon questioning, Christians to be able to back up what they believe in. Atheists I have often found wanting. Rowena, you're judging Christianity (and other religions) from an atheistic-scientific worldview. This says that, as you quite rightly pointed out, that there are no such things as hard facts and that we view the world through the prevailing scientific paradigm. Theories about the world are backed up by evidence from scientific experiements. Christianity, on the other hand, agrees that we can find out about the world, but says that the ultimate piece of evidence comes from God's revealed Word, a.k.a. the Bible. There are differing scientific theories, etc. to which Christians can adhere, but the final test is whether they are in accordance with what the Bible tells us. Christians believe in objective Truth. If you read one of my posts above, I point out that this is most atheists' view of the world. That by doing one's best, being caring, kind, etc. one is good enough to enter heaven. Christians, of course, believe that one's faith must have a purpose on Earth as well as in Heaven, but that salvation is entirely the work of the Lord, not of the individual human. That is why both Mother Teresa (for example) and a serial killer could both end up in Heaven. One can never be good enough to live a perfect life - only Jesus could do that - which is why we need His death and resurrection to save us from our sin. Where would you draw the line on a graph at what constitutes a 'good life'? Doug

I'll leave this to the atheists... I would say that Christianity is the most exclusive 'club' going! The gospels make it clear that Jesus' salvation is for everyone - as Galatians 3:28 puts it: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." To say that 2x2=4 one is implicitly saying that people who believe 2x2=5, etc. are false. So just because one believes something does not make one justified in that belief! There is one true religion and one true way to salvation - otherwise, what would have been the point in Jesus' death and resurrection? Harsh, yes, but straight to the point: we shouldn't pussyfoot around major issues. My family's dog is currently on the edge of needing to be put down. I will mourn his loss, but not in the way I would mourn a human - he has no soul. Doug

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, Caterina. The position it would seem you are putting forward here is Deism - the idea that God left us alone to get on with it as soon as He created the world. I believe that God answers prayer, meaning that He does intervene in our lives. Often, however, this will be in ways which were not obvious at the time! Although it sounds initially comforting that living a 'good' life gets you into heaven, I'm thankful that this is not the qualification God insists upon! The only person to ever live a perfect life on earth was Jesus Christ. He therefore set the standard of what a good life consisted in. We can never live up to this, meaning that no-one would end up in heaven. Thankfully, God sent his Son to die for us, meaning that in believing and trusting in Him, and asking for the forgiveness of our sin, Christians can guarantee that they will be in Heaven when we die. This is a hard and worrying thing to get over - although my parents became Christians after I did, my sister is still agnostic/atheist. Knowing where she's headed when she dies concerns and upsets me greatly. Doug

John, you (as someone wonderfully created by God) are judging the Creator. As it says Romans 9:14-21 says, Just because we don't understand God's motives for something doesn't mean that He doesn't exist! Doug

And there I shall leave it - I'm not going to try to evangelise through a message board, it really needs face-to-face contact to get to the heart of the matter. We're agreed that scientists must invoke an element of faith in their work, and I admit that the resurrection of Jesus cannot be 'scientifically' proven. I wonder what it would take for you to abandon your belief system and notice God? Doug

Ooops! You're on to me! Seriously, I am arguing that scientific faith and religious faith are different, and are equally valuable. Now, as to why I don't subscribe to the idea that Jesus is the only route to heaven - first let me state that I don't think heaven is a place we go to when we die. I think what we have here and now is IT. There is no after-life for me, except in the sense that my bodily composition will be used again by other critters, and again after that. And my family and friends may remember me for a couple of generations. So heaven is here and now. So is hell. Which it happens to be at this particular moment depends mostly on my own actions and attitude. Even if I believed that there was an after-life, I still couldn't buy the idea that the only way to get there would be through one particular religious entity. Human culture is far too rich to allow me to entertain such an idea. If I believed that the only way to heaven was through Jesus, I would be relegating people like Gandhi to hell, or at least to purgatory. If there really is a heaven, I'm pretty sure Gandhi is there, and so is Chief Joseph, and Lao Tzu, and Buddha and.....you get the idea. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So it would seem, at the end of it all, your belief system is centred around yourself and you do not in fact have an 'external referent' (although I'm sure you would argue that you do not believe it possible to have such a referent). What you believe about the universe is how it must be. It is difficult to think that 'good' and even 'great' people such as Gandhi are in Hell. The problem is that Christians believe we all fall short of what God expects, meaning we need to believe and trust in Jesus to save us from our sin. That's why I'm so concerned about showing people the truth of Christianity - eternity is at stake here! Christians believe in God and what Jesus did on the cross as being at the centre of their belief system. I would argue that this makes for more objectivity... Doug

Mike, A very intelligent and well-made reply. It does, however, demonstrate the problem I raised above about communicating what you mean across belief systems. You seem to be saying that scientific 'faith' and religious faith are two different but equally valid things. That makes it very difficult for me to argue that religious faith is the better without sounding intolerant and/or silly! When you say: I'd love to know the reason for this! Doug

So, scientists' external referent is their belief in a benevolent Nature which is uniform throughout time and space, but Christians cannot believe in a loving God as their external referent? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It doesn't bother me that science works - in fact it delights me! It shows that God is a deity who care for us and makes the world comprehensible to us! So I believe science to be one of the explanations for Him giving us reason and intelligence. Science may have predictive power, but (at least in the way it is done nowadays) it is fundamentally amoral. God's 'Word' gives us a way to live out our lives in a way which gives them moral content and makes them fulfilling. So, I would say His Word 'works' as well... Doug

I think the thing I object to with the purely scientific materialist view of the world is regarding faith. Those that share this 'scientific' view of the world have to actually have faith in what they are doing, which is the exact thing they criticize Christians, etc. for! Let's say you've got a situation where the deity who has created the universe decides to communicate with certain human beings in a non-scientifically testable way. Why should science have the last word? We've already established that it is not entirely objective (it's 'theory laden') - so why should we trust human reason over divine inspiration/guidance? Doug

I don't think so, Doug. There's no problem referring to your own experiences - the only problem comes when someone elevates their experience to the status of scientific fact, without all the groundwork you otherwise have to do to establish something as scientific fact. And, as I've posted earlier, scientific 'facts' are always temporary - waiting on the next time they get falsified … which gives us new scientific facts to have a go at. Thus, I have no problem at all with, say, Tim's descriptions of his experiences … but the idea that this account proves the existence of a god is to use the word 'prove' in a different way from the way that scientists use it, that's all. It doesn't detract from Tim's experiences or make them less real to him, though. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> David, What you're saying here - if I've got you correct - is that there is no such thing as objective reality and that 'facts' are merely a series of values, beliefs or pieces of knowledge which are agreed upon by a community. I agree when you say 'scientific 'facts' are always temporary - waiting on the next time they get falsified … which gives us new scientific facts to have a go at.' Except it's not facts but scientific theories which are temporary and are falsified. The statement 'pure water boils at 100 degrees centigrade' could be used to by scientists in two different 'paradigms' to prove their theories. The problem is that you dismiss religious 'facts' as being similar to this - as being beliefs or ways of behaving which change over time. This is to implicitly say that religion is a human construct which is to do with socialization and helping people deal with the struggles of life (and nothing more). Whilst Christians must adapt to their culture and the times in which they live (we must be 'in the world but not of the world'), there's a difference between that and rejecting the Bible as containing a set of facts only relevant to a different time and place. So when you say 'the idea that this account proves the existence of a god is to use the word 'prove' in a different way from the way that scientists use it' you're assuming that scientists have the last word on the way the world actually is. But seeing as you have admitted their theories do not map one-for-one onto objective reality you have no grounds for doing this! Doug

I've found the above posts interesting. It would seem that atheists criticize Christians for evangelising through their own experience. However, they themselves go on to 'compartmentalize' their lives because they see a discrepancy between their 'intellectual' view of the world and the way it 'really is'. Christians don't go in for compartmentalization - they don't have to. God created the world and scientists study it to find out about it. Simple, but true. Doug

I don't think anyone has said that it would 'not make the slightest difference'. There's a difference between cultural norms and religious truth. Some things (e.g. women covering their hair in early Christian times) are relevant, some aren't. That's why Christians can continue to occupy themselves in debates and interepretations of God's Word. The point you make can be made about any moral position. It is pointless having principles unless they are applied. It is in the application that they gain meaning and relevance. Doug

The difference is, though, that whereas religious values are objective, those belonging to atheists are man-made and of a pick-and-choose nature. It leads to a position which Richard Rorty calls 'ethnocentrism'. He believes this to be a good thing, but in fact it simply leads to communities who cannot understand one another. Although their value and belief systems are completely different, they are seen as equally valid. If you have no fixed point of reference, you have no standard against which to judge the worth of your values. Of course it would be easy to dismiss those who have been 'on the wrong side' as not being true Christians! Leading a Christian life does not mean having a 'God shield', 'righteousometer' or knowing exactly what the correct course of action is in any given situation. Having a loving God who will forgive you and a manual about life which He's written for your certainly helps though. One of the core Christian messages is that we are all inherently sinful and naturally rebel against God. Even Christians. (it's just that we're aware of it and ask for forgiveness) I'll ignore the inflammatory last sentence and concentrate on what you say about atheists' approach to life. You say that 'it is what you do in this life that matters'. Philosophers since Socrates have been interested in what consitutes a 'good life'. They haven't been able to agree. The Christian point is that you can never be good enough to please a perfect God in and of yourself. That is why you need the ulimate sacrifice of Jesus to atone for your sin. So in the end, although what you do matters, it's not up to you to reach the 'pass mark'. Now, I've been on the other side of the fence, before I was a Christian. I know from an agnostic/atheist point of view how silly what I've said might sound. Do me a favour, we're talking about serious stuff here, please give it some further thought and investigation... Doug

I would say that the core belief of Christians is in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. If atheists do not have shared core values/beliefs how can they give themselves the label 'atheist'? The examples you gave above are about the application and interpretation of values and beliefs, not of the values and beliefs themselves... I presume this is not directed at me - I have already agreed that it is counter-productive to force Christian worship upon pupils... Doug

This debate is all over the place at present! We're discussing many different issues and the goalposts seem to be changing all the time... I agree that people should not be forced to worship when they do not believe. That is pointless and counter-productive. However, I do think assemblies, when done properly, are useful and positive: they can be used to celebrate pupil achievement in front of a large proportion of their peers, and create a sense of belonging (especially if part of a house system). Doug PS To respond again to David, I see your focus on the process of reason rather than its results as being similar to what Hilary Putnam calls 'the view from nowhere'. How can you possibly criticize others when you have no ground to stand on yourself?!

Thanks for that objective, reasoned and mature reply Andy... Of course, I'm sure no one's met any caring, sociable, helpful Christians with a social conscience - I mean they're so rare! Doug

So what are the core values to the average atheist's belief system? (other than 'there is no God')? If all you've got is the 'process' then you're simply drifting through life on a sea of change. I'd much rather be securely fastened to a rock... I'd always alter my beliefs in the face of hard-and-fast evidence. I'd no longer be a Christian if someone could prove to me what I believed in is false. But I don't think that's going to happen: all atheists have been able to offer me so far is an assertion backed up by theory-laden observation! Doug

Not as far as I'm aware - but then it's a large school and each department does keep very much to itself. There could be a nuclear bunker underneath the staff room and I wouldn't know about it. How about using that email thing that Janos suggested in Toulouse? (and/or doing DV presentations to each other and emailing them) Doug

Well done for setting that up Dan & Nico! I'd certainly like to develop links with schools throughout Europe - and indeed the world! The pupils I teach can be very insular and narrow-minded, so it would be great to open up their horizons a bit... Any takers? I'll be doing the following in the summer term: Year 7 - King John Year 8 - Cromwell/Industrial Revolution/Dying For The Vote Year 9 - World War II Year 10 - 19th & 20th Century Medicine/Coursework on Canals Doug

'Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die' - so long as you enjoy the ride the destination doesn't matter. Is that what you're saying? You say that you've 'got a great incentive to enjoy life to the full' but I believe that ultimately you will find it unfulfilling as you have no purpose in life. The choice is not between 'living life to the full' and being a suicide bomber! I'm genuinely mystified how you can survive with such a seemingly unstable belief system. You appeal to human reason and rationality, but say that nothing has to be proved for you to believe in it. That makes your belief system invulnerable to new ideas and suggestions, but is paradoxical in the extreme... I think we've strayed significantly from the original focus of this debate which was the supposed division between science and religion. I agree with Newton that science discovers things which God has created, and therefore see no conflict between them. Doug

I'm glad that Ed and others have found the shareforum useful. Hopefully, as it grows I'll be able to transfer it to its own domain and take my name away from it! Doug

Nearly all of them, I would say - the weather, to give just one example. (I've got a badge at home, BTW, which says "Religion is man's attempt to communicate with the weather"). Yes, using your belief system the weather perhaps has no purpose. But in the Christian view it has the purpose of sustaining and keeping the God's creation in balance. Doesn't atheism make everything rather pointless? Banality depends upon your point of view, of course. The difficulty comes when people find belief systems inpenetrable. That is to say, they see how one thing logically justifies another, but cannot find a reasonable way into the system. I presume that is how most agnostics see Christianity. In the end it comes down to faith. Scientists have faith that human beings can fathom everything to do with the universe. Atheists have faith that there is no God (there's no way they can objectively prove it). Christians have faith in a creator God. So, what does it matter, you might say? Well, the rubber hits the road when you 'die'. Perhaps. As I said above, ritual gets in the way of true belief, which is why I don't count myself as a 'religious' person. You've just appealed to rationality and reason above, how can you hold and attempt to justify your values if you know they 'rest on questionable grounds'?! Doug PS Just because something doesn't make sense to a human does not mean it has no purpose. Elevating human cognition and reason makes no sense on a purely materialistic worldview.

Sounds like teleology to me … and, for my money, it was Voltaire who disposed of that a good many years ago. I don't rate Voltaire very highly. How many things do we deal with each day that have no purpose? 'Reason is a web of beliefs' - but then so too, in a way is religion. So if reason is simply made of beliefs, why should I trust reason over religion to be able to tell me anything about the world? You talk about the process of reasoning being the 'strength of the web', but under this conception one simply has a web of beliefs with no core values. That could lead to a very empty and amoral existence. I doubt anyone has ever lived without values as well as reason guiding their actions... Doug

The reason you would not have to change your whole life upon discovering Paris is not the capital of France is is due to that particular belief being a periphery rather than a core belief. If, for some reason, your whole belief-system (in the sense of Quine's web of beliefs) had the 'Paris belief' as a core one, then it would have far-reaching implications. But because the 'Paris belief' is actually towards the periphery of your belief system, modification of it has little effect. It is the difference between throwing a stone into a pond and the ripples affecting the whole surface, as opposed to dropping it near the edge... People do have to change their whole lifestyle when they become Christians as beliefs about God, rather than themselves, becomes the centre of their belief system. A reticence to do this (on the part of oneself or ones pupils) in effect protects your core beliefs from ever being questioned. Given a conflict of belief systems (as we have here between Christian and agnostic or atheist) it is not usually the core beliefs which end up being discussed, but the peripheral ones. Thus it is the 'Christian attitude towards...' which is discussed rather than the fundamental principles of belief. If it was God who gave us reason then perhaps it was for a purpose. I believe it was so that we can use it to understand better the mysteries of His creation and to understand Him better. As I inferred above, reasoned debate and discussion is much better than unthinking ritual. Doug