Religion

[Matt Rutherford]

So there is a lot I’ll try to address from a Christian perspective. I’m not an expert, nor do I suspect my answers will convince or entirely satisfy-but I hope it adds some clarity/context to thinking. I’m happy to take questions on it-and my thanks to you for giving me some theological practice-it’s something I always enjoy talking about

For those that believe in God...

Do you think the God you worship is the same God that the Christians/Muslims/Jews worship?

It seems to me that most of the troubles in today's world are around not what God you believe in, but how you worship your God. Is he really that insecure that he'll damn those who pray via the wrong channel, or facing the wrong direction, or at the wrong times, or eat the wrong foods, or wear the wrong clothes to an eternity of hell? Even within different flavours of the same religion, small differences seem to be enough to cause hate and division (Catholic v Protestant, Sunni v Shia etc)

Where is the love for fellow humans regardless of how/when/who (or if) they pray to?

I realise the stuff that's hit the news recently isn't really new, but 1000s of innocent civilians are being killed because of differences in the way that God is worshipped. How's he gonna fix this? Is he just sitting back with the popcorn?

(genuine question - keen to hear the views of those who believe)

There are major differences between Christians, Muslims, and Jews, primarily about the nature of Jesus Christ, and therefore the nature of salvation-from where most of the differences stem. Handling those differences with violence is something I think the majority of the followers of all three would firmly reject (that is obviously not the case for, especially some of the more vocal minorities within them).

Jews believe that Jesus is not the promised Messiah, whilst Islam holds that Jesus is a prophet rather than the Messiah, who pointed the way to Mohammed (PBUH). (NOTE-These can be different and my understading of Judaism and Islam is not as extensive-I stand happy to be corrected if needs be!)

Regarding Christianity, specfically Christian values, the Gospel states that salvation is achieved by the belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and acceptance of him as your Saviour. The grace given from this is what saves, and beliefs. Not following specific rules. Not any good works. Belief in this grace alone. And when you repent of your sins, it is wiped clean. A lot of what you see of Christianity in the news may not show this, but this is core belief. How people follow that core belief can be variable.

In terms of salvation, the belief in hell as a place of eternal torture is something quite modern. I’ll reference here a scholar called N.T Wright. Look at his podcast ‘Ask N.T Wright Anything’ episode 18. It is more of an idea of separation from God-the image of a lake of fire stemming more from Platonic thought (and this is something one which I not the expert-see Wright!). As to who goes to heaven or hell, that is not a judgement to be made by anyone human-but most Christians would maintain that God is a God of love. For those with bad experiences of the church, that might make you scoff, I know. But that is the focus and belief of the Christian message-even if some haven't always carried that out

..there is nought wrong with Christian values.

Oh I think there's plenty wrong with a lot of Christian values. Inequality, homophobia, mysoginism for starters

I suspect those aren't the values you mean though - you mean love, honesty, helping those less fortunate etc, etc... Christians don't have a monopoly on those values, and religion is not a requirement to live a moral, fulfilling and meaningful life. Indeed the best approach to life is to accept you only have one shot at it, so live it in the best way you can for yourself and society.

Going onto ‘Christian’ values…I can see why many equate them with inequality, homophobia, and misogyny. My entire undergrad dissertation was an 8,000-word rant at how Christianity is misused in this manner (available on request if you want something to help you nod off). If you live by Gospel grace, it makes it very hard for you to judge, for you to criticize, for you to be mean (and good grief, I get it wrong on many, many occasions). Jesus evidently makes multiple calls against judgement, spitefulness, nastiness.

Jesus called ‘blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God’ (Matthew 5:10). Paul calls on Christians to ‘if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone’ (Romans 12:18), among many, many others.

[...] religion is not a requirement to live a [...] meaningful life.

I think it could be said that religion is a requirement to live an objectively meaningful life, with the caveat that it is almost certain that the objective behind that meaning is false.

I believe that's essentially the main reason, other than perhaps the general resilience of being grandfathered in, that religion continues to be a ubiquitous phenomenon in human societies after many of its other qualities have largely outlived their evolutionary advantage.

How can it be meaningful if it's false? Spending your one and only brief shot at life with the false hope of having a better afterlife seems a terrible waste. The best way to get meaning from life is the here and now - make your impact on the world a positive one (something you've definitely embraced with your veganism), get joy from nature, relationships, friendships, activities, work, leisure. Forgive others (and yourself) not because the bible dictates it, but because that's the way to find contentment.

God existed because we didn't have science. Religion evolved as a way to control the masses and make them accept the shitty lot that many had with the promise of something better to come.

I would obviously disagree that it is false, and would state it’s meaningful in many other ways. I (and many other Christians) would say that we are not spending our brief shot here on earth hoping for a better afterlife. The grace that we receive is so freeing-it doesn’t get rid of the bad of our time here, but prayer, fellowship, and belief give such joy and freedom.

How can it be meaningful if it's false? Spending your one and only brief shot at life with the false hope of having a better afterlife seems a terrible waste. The best way to get meaning from life is the here and now - make your impact on the world a positive one (something you've definitely embraced with your veganism), get joy from nature, relationships, friendships, activities, work, leisure. Forgive others (and yourself) not because the bible dictates it, but because that's the way to find contentment.

It can't, but people who find meaning in a religious claim wouldn't believe it to be false.

Agreed with the rest as a good source of subjective meaning. But it is subjective. I think any objective claim on meaningfulness of life is necessarily religious, even if it does not explicitly invoke the divine. Without any religious belief we are left to form our own subjective meaning or accept absurdism, lest we fall into nihilism.

I'm not sure I'm totally with this take. I strongly refute the idea that belief in the meaningfulness of life is inherently religious. I think life has meaning, and I'm very much an atheist. You don't need to believe in any higher power or spirit in order to believe that life has meaning at all. I'm totally at peace with the fact that when I die, that's the end, and that whilst I'm alive I should try and have a positive impact on the world and enjoy the time that I am here in a conscious form.

I think your last sentence here is especially puzzling - people who are religious form subjective opinions on things as well. Even those in the same religion as fellow humans may hold wildly different beliefs and have different interpretations of what things mean. In fact, given the great number of wars caused by religion, I'd even say that religion causes people to form subjective opinions.

In terms of ‘meaningfulness of life’, people do find meaning in many things. I can see why people may think that religion existed because we didn’t have science. However, I would state that arguing there is no God is as big as a leap of faith as claiming there is a God. The Bible states that we are called to do things by faith (see all of Hebrews 11)

I must confess my knowledge of the history and origin of Biblical texts isn’t as extensive as I would want it to be in terms of answering the other questions. I’ll point you in the direction N.T Wright and Tim Keller-even if you don’t believe, it can still provide very interesting insights.

Wright-https://www.premierunbelievable.com/sho ... t-anything
Keller- https://gospelinlife.com/

There is a lot that the church has done is reprehensible, and it has much to answer for, I know. However, I would recommend-go to a church, see what it is like-grill a Christian (be it me or someone else!), and have a look. No matter your beliefs, it will widen your thoughts and broaden your viewpoints

[Elliott Mellor]

In terms of ‘meaningfulness of life’, people do find meaning in many things. I can see why people may think that religion existed because we didn’t have science. However, I would state that arguing there is no God is as big as a leap of faith as claiming there is a God. The Bible states that we are called to do things by faith (see all of Hebrews 11)

If there was a really old book that was an entirely atheist scripture, it would state that we should do good things purely because we should aim to make the world a better place. The existence of religious texts predates the existence of atheistic texts by millennia, but that's only because religion simply was the early explanation for how things happened (and anyone who thought otherwise wouldn't dare publish this for fear of exile or death). There are religious texts that predate the Bible - why is that the source of truth and not any that came before it?

There are many things in the Bible that are demonstrably false - the assertion of special creation of the earth and all the creatures upon it has been resoundingly disproven (and I've only ever met two Christians who seemed to deny evolution, so it's not even really a functionally atheist standpoint anymore), and there are countless other things within the book that are clearly false (and get selectively ignored). I've never once met anyone who could give me a reasoned answer as to why something which has been proven to be false and full of contradictions in so many places should be taken as being a reasonable document to believe. You wouldn't trust a mathematical document that was littered with assertions that 2+2=5, or that pi was equal to 84, or that even numbers were the only real numbers, because you would identify it as being untrustworthy as a result of these falsehoods. Atheism doesn't really have such contradictions - the position is that god isn't real, and that everything has a scientific explanation (and that if something doesn't yet have one, it's just that human understanding hasn't significantly advanced enough - which seems reasonable as a belief given that historical progression of belief is very easy to see, such as our understanding of the orbit of planets, or the cause of volcanic eruptions).

For reference, I was made to go to church from a very young age, so have a level of understanding that is beyond your average Joe, and I've arrived at my stance of atheism having witnessed a lot of religious services and texts.

As you well know, I have a lot of respect for you as an individual and anything said here is purely for debate purposes as opposed to me trying to disrespect you in any way

[Fiona T]

Sorry, my quotes went to shite - I've given up

The Christian belief "No-one comes to the Father but by me" is something you presumably fundamentally believe.

Just taking the Abrahamic religions, there are as many people (give or take a few million) who don't believe that as do.

Assuming the majority of people who follow those religions do as you do and try and keep God at the centre of their lives, do you think when they reach the pearly gates, God is going to reject them because they happened to be born into the wrong flavour of God-worship? Do you think if you had been born to Jewish parents, or Muslim parents you would have rejected those religions and found your way to the 'real' one? Is it possible that actually their interpretation is the correct one and you've picked the wrong flavour? Surely that has to at least be feasible?


There could be a God, I certainly wouldn't be arrogant enough to completely rule it out (although I think it's pretty unlikely). I haven't seen evidence of one other than the fact that billions of people believe in one - many of the things that were assumed to be God's work have been explained by science. Some argue that the Bible is metaphorical and not at odds with science (I don't know if this is your position?). I'd suggest that God himself is a metaphor for science and nature. If there is a God, and he is omnipotent, then it hard to see him as the loving father with all the horrendous stuff that is happening - much of which is being done using his name as justification.

[Matt Rutherford]

As you well know, I have a lot of respect for you as an individual and anything said here is purely for debate purposes as opposed to me trying to disrespect you in any way

Likewise, you hexagonal heathen

In terms of ‘meaningfulness of life’, people do find meaning in many things. I can see why people may think that religion existed because we didn’t have science. However, I would state that arguing there is no God is as big as a leap of faith as claiming there is a God. The Bible states that we are called to do things by faith (see all of Hebrews 11)

If there was a really old book that was an entirely atheist scripture, it would state that we should do good things purely because we should aim to make the world a better place. The existence of religious texts predates the existence of atheistic texts by millennia, but that's only because religion simply was the early explanation for how things happened (and anyone who thought otherwise wouldn't dare publish this for fear of exile or death). There are religious texts that predate the Bible - why is that the source of truth and not any that came before it?

There are many things in the Bible that are demonstrably false - the assertion of special creation of the earth and all the creatures upon it has been resoundingly disproven (and I've only ever met two Christians who seemed to deny evolution, so it's not even really a functionally atheist standpoint anymore), and there are countless other things within the book that are clearly false (and get selectively ignored). I've never once met anyone who could give me a reasoned answer as to why something which has been proven to be false and full of contradictions in so many places should be taken as being a reasonable document to believe. You wouldn't trust a mathematical document that was littered with assertions that 2+2=5, or that pi was equal to 84, or that even numbers were the only real numbers, because you would identify it as being untrustworthy as a result of these falsehoods. Atheism doesn't really have such contradictions - the position is that god isn't real, and that everything has a scientific explanation (and that if something doesn't yet have one, it's just that human understanding hasn't significantly advanced enough - which seems reasonable as a belief given that historical progression of belief is very easy to see, such as our understanding of the orbit of planets, or the cause of volcanic eruptions).

For reference, I was made to go to church from a very young age, so have a level of understanding that is beyond your average Joe, and I've arrived at my stance of atheism having witnessed a lot of religious services and texts.

From a Christian perspective, the reason the other religious texts vanished in pre-history is because they aren’t true. To quote a friend from my Bible study group when comparing versions, ‘we have the Bible God wants us have.’ Expand that out-we have the text God wants use to have.

I’d have to disagree with you there, arguing that atheist texts would say we exist to make the world a better place. From an atheist perspective, where is morality birthed from? How do we know what is good and what is evil? The natural state of the world is one of natural selection-survival of the fittest, the strong killing the weak. Where do human rights and calls for equality come into it?

Furthermore, for as much as many argue science has done away with faith, it was actually Christians who believed God had made the earth with rational principles behind it, and created Science to uncover these. When it comes to creation, the view I take is that it is a story explaining how God made the world-however, with the use of the Big Bang, evolution, and the various many things that science has since uncovered. ‘Days’ may not be literal days, various things explain how God brought them into being. To be clear, the Big Bang and evolution are things that happen. I’m not from the Deep South.

(Links lead to Rebecca McLaughlin, apologist who explains this wayyyy better than I do!)

Human Rights-https://www.crossway.org/articles/disca ... -equality/
Science-https://www.rebeccamclaughlin.org/post/ ... -worldview

Sorry, my quotes went to shite - I've given up

The Christian belief "No-one comes to the Father but by me" is something you presumably fundamentally believe.

Just taking the Abrahamic religions, there are as many people (give or take a few million) who don't believe that as do.

Assuming the majority of people who follow those religions do as you do and try and keep God at the centre of their lives, do you think when they reach the pearly gates, God is going to reject them because they happened to be born into the wrong flavour of God-worship? Do you think if you had been born to Jewish parents, or Muslim parents you would have rejected those religions and found your way to the 'real' one? Is it possible that actually their interpretation is the correct one and you've picked the wrong flavour? Surely that has to at least be feasible?


There could be a God, I certainly wouldn't be arrogant enough to completely rule it out (although I think it's pretty unlikely). I haven't seen evidence of one other than the fact that billions of people believe in one - many of the things that were assumed to be God's work have been explained by science. Some argue that the Bible is metaphorical and not at odds with science (I don't know if this is your position?). I'd suggest that God himself is a metaphor for science and nature. If there is a God, and he is omnipotent, then it hard to see him as the loving father with all the horrendous stuff that is happening - much of which is being done using his name as justification.

See above for science stuff (I don’t know how to do quotes beyond the basic )

I do believe that. I believe in a God of love, and for me to make the call one whether God would reject someone would be sacrilege. I know what I believe on ‘no-one comes to the Father by through me’ (John 14:6), I would disagree with a Jew or a Muslim theologically-it’s said salvation comes via Jesus-they do not believe that. But I’m not taking the place of God by saying what would happen afterwards to them-frankly, I don’t God knows people’s hearts, people’s minds. Either way, it’s no call for war, for nastiness, for anger. Quite the opposite, I would hold.

I do believe I would have found my way, for I did (kind of). My parents are agnostic/atheist, I wasn’t brought up going to church, they are relatively anti-faith in many respects. I came faith when I was 12 via school assembly and a quite rocky summer (long story)

In terms of God and suffering, that is hard to square-was a massive doubt of mine, especially during 2020. We are in a fallen world (as caused by the Fall in Genesis). God gave us free will out of love for us, we humans misused that massively. Evil therefore exists. God's plan to sort that evil out is in motion, is being worked out...Much outlined in the Bible.

The exact nature of it is not something we know, for there is much we don't know (see my note on Hebrews 11). It does not make entire sense to anyone- I hold faith that either when we are ‘'called home' or Jesus returns, that’s when we know. That’s the point it will all sense.

I am fully aware that for many, that will be unsatisfactory, but that is my own thought process. I’ve even preached on this before-have linked if you can put up with my dulcet tones!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pnLeuB7WS8

[Elliott Mellor]

From a Christian perspective, the reason the other religious texts vanished in pre-history is because they aren’t true. To quote a friend from my Bible study group when comparing versions, ‘we have the Bible God wants us have.’ Expand that out-we have the text God wants use to have.

I’d have to disagree with you there, arguing that atheist texts would say we exist to make the world a better place. From an atheist perspective, where is morality birthed from? How do we know what is good and what is evil? The natural state of the world is one of natural selection-survival of the fittest, the strong killing the weak. Where do human rights and calls for equality come into it?

Furthermore, for as much as many argue science has done away with faith, it was actually Christians who believed God had made the earth with rational principles behind it, and created Science to uncover these. When it comes to creation, the view I take is that it is a story explaining how God made the world-however, with the use of the Big Bang, evolution, and the various many things that science has since uncovered. ‘Days’ may not be literal days, various things explain how God brought them into being. To be clear, the Big Bang and evolution are things that happen. I’m not from the Deep South.

To be a contrarian to you...

1) Except, we don't. We have several different versions, all with their own translations and implications. We also have many surviving atheist texts, and texts for other theological standpoints. To say that "we have the Bible God wants us to have" doesn't hold any water. I think it's also pretty clear that the reason so many religious texts survive is because so many were made, at a time when there was no science. We only started gaining a really good understanding of science in relatively recent history in comparison. Also, if you say that Christians created science, why was it Christianity that was trying to silence people who believed Galileo's explanation of the planets orbiting the sun, and Christians who tried to silence those who believed in evolution?

2) Where do they come from when you consider that the majority of wars have been caused by religion (and even infighting within religious groups)? If anything, the more religious you are, the less moral you tend to be from a historical point of view. It's patently not true that religion teaches morals, at least not for everyone. I'm an atheist and my sense of morality comes from the fact I value people, and regard others with respect because that's how I'd want to be regarded myself.

3) That just seems weak to me. That's selective interpretation to me. That's akin to a text saying "2+2=5", and then someone saying "but did they actually MEAN 5 in the literal sense?". If you can interpret things in the Bible to mean whatever you want, why can't we interpret God to simply be a metaphor for science?

[Elliott Mellor]

Also, the idea of prayers...

- Supposedly "God gives us that which we need, not what we want"
- There are millions of people praying for an end to the Russian-Ukraine war, and the Israel-Palestine conflict, yet they haven't been answered. Which leads one to the inescapable conclusion that either God isn't answering the prayers because he actually wants them to continue (which is horrible), or he isn't answering them because he isn't real.

[Fiona T]

I do believe I would have found my way, for I did (kind of). My parents are agnostic/atheist, I wasn’t brought up going to church, they are relatively anti-faith in many respects. I came faith when I was 12 via school assembly and a quite rocky summer (long story)

But that's my point. If you'd attended a school in a country where the predominant religion was Judaism or Islam, you would probably be arguing your case from a different belief of which version of events is true.

As an aside, many seem to find God during times of trouble in their lives. That's when we're most vulnerable and most in need of a friend. Maybe God really is that friend holding our hand, or maybe he's the imaginary friend that you can talk to and pass your troubles to.

We are in a fallen world (as caused by the Fall in Genesis).

The source of the misogyny You've said you believe in science. Science has disproven the creation story - surely Eve plucking the forbidden apple is at best allegorical?

In terms of God and suffering, that is hard to square-was a massive doubt of mine, especially during 2020. We are in a fallen world (as caused by the Fall in Genesis). God gave us free will out of love for us, we humans misused that massively. Evil therefore exists. God's plan to sort that evil out is in motion, is being worked out...Much outlined in the Bible.

The exact nature of it is not something we know, for there is much we don't know (see my note on Hebrews 11). It does not make entire sense to anyone- I hold faith that either when we are ‘'called home' or Jesus returns, that’s when we know. That’s the point it will all sense.

Ah yes, God moves in mysterious ways....

[Fiona T]

From an atheist perspective, where is morality birthed from? How do we know what is good and what is evil? The natural state of the world is one of natural selection-survival of the fittest, the strong killing the weak. Where do human rights and calls for equality come into it?

Humanist worksheet (aimed at 14 year olds )

https://understandinghumanism.org.uk/wp ... rality.pdf sums it up quite nicely - I could quote bits of it but it's an easy enough read.

https://understandinghumanism.org.uk/ar ... st-ethics/ has a lot more (scroll towards the bottom for stuff aimed at older pupils)

[Gavin Chipper]

On the morality thing, a lot of people will argue that there is no such thing as objective morality. It's also not at all clear that adding a god changes anything. See the Euthyphro dilemma. If something becomes moral because god has decided so, then it's just based on his arbitrary whims, and not objective. Or if god could only have chosen this morality in one way, then it is objective, but also independent of god.