He makes four main points against those who promote an atheist point of view. Number one: critics focus on the weak point of Christianity, such as the belief in creationism. He implies that it is obvious that reasoning people should not take this literally. In that case, surely the same argument applies to the resurrection? Number two: there cannot be any proof of a God. I am religious because I am. There can be no argument against that lack of logic. Number three: the percentage of trained scientists who believe in God is about the same as for the population as a whole. Such use of statistics could prove anything and means nothing. Number four: even if it is based upon false assumptions there must be something in it because so many people believe in it. This is about as far from a rigorous scientific discussion as you can get.
Stuart Barry
Reading, Berks
To add to what the Bishop of Oxford said, not only does science not challenge belief, science is actually founded on belief. This is true both philosophically (how do you know there are 'laws of nature' - why is nature not irrational?) and historically. It was Christians (with the help of Muslims, Jews and Hindus) who gave the world science and taught us to think and read critically. The atheists can't prove that God doesn't exist, just as the Christians can't prove that he does. Let's have a bit more good sense from our incredulous brethren.
Chris Jeynes
Guildford, Surrey
Why is the non-religious side always fought by an atheist? Religionists know there is a God but have no proof; the antis know there is no such thing but cannot prove it. Both are equally dogmatic. Let's hear from one of us agnostics sometime. We know that the other two are equally biased in favour of the unknown. We say with Socrates that: 'We know enough to know that we know nothing.'
Cyril Bracegirdle
Sale, Cheshire
Richard Harries seeks to marry religious faith to acceptance of science, in particular evolution, whilst castigating others for a lack of logic. Has he abandoned scripture?
Either the Bible is the word of God, in which case evolution is bunkum. Or the Bible is a nice wee analogy, in which case it deserves the same level of faith as literature does.
Matt Hodgman
Glasgow
If the Bible is the word of God until science disproves elements of it then surely all of it is potentially disprovable and Christian belief is only transitory. This pick and mix approach to God's word shows that religion is indeed nothing more than mythology.
Paul Smith
Bristol
