Constance says, "If your senses and mind are not open, you’ll never see anything."

Believe what you want but your faith in the existence of "God", Constance, is not a testable hypothesis. Science is about reliance upon objective observation based on the five senses to provide indesputable support for, or falsification of, hypotheses.

Telling us that you have personally seen the light is not sufficient scientific support of your faith/hypothesis. All other observers must agree with you.

Evelyn Waugh's personal decision to believe is as persuasive in changing my outlook on faith as is your decision, Constance, but I am happy for you are/were both happy with it. Best wishes but stay out of the way of my natural rights.

With respect, I find myself having to defend Christianity, as it is generally practised in this day and age, as a very worthwhile, if not indispensable, organised religious movement (or aggregation of movements) at this point in human history. My reasoning is simple and straightforward, and that is as a counter-balance to the one major religious movement, in this much-troubled world of ours, which is currently presenting a real and visible hazard to world peace, as well as to the prospects of many of its own followers - and that is Islam, as practised and enforced by its 'Fundamentalist' protagonists and proponents. (Viz Egypt currently and the Islamic Brotherhood; the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Mali/Nigeria, and elsewhere, and ongoing Shia/Sunni rivalries and conflict.) (Perhaps also Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and Israel/Palestine.)

Before anyone gets too excited, I am Not suggesting overt, or even clandestine, religious conflict or war, which must be avoided at all costs. No, my proposition is that Christianity should actively work for a cooperative and conflict-free future.

What can Christianity do? It can work to press for more open and intensive international diplomacy, and more direct consultation with 'aggressor' movements and leadership, to identify and resolve grievances and causes of conflict; and to induce leaders of competing 'movements' (such as Shia and Sunni) to endeavour to reach a workable compromise, or at least respectful tolerance of each other.

Diplomacy alone would of course be insufficient to have much effect, and cooperation and material support (aid) by Western nations would be essential to any lasting resolution. In this respect, participation by the U.S. in particular would be of the utmost importance - as the U.S. appears to be seen as a major target of Islamic tensions and dissatisfaction.

Why Christianity? Because it can have a significant and telling voice. And, whereas Hindu, Buddhist and Chinese Leaders should also take an active part in these endeavours, in my view the Atheist 'movement' should stay well clear.

Saltpetre, given that the U.S. is supposedly a Christian nation and also the world's greatest warmonger, you might have difficulty convincing some folk that Christianity is the way to go!

In the Middle East we have Jews, Christians and Muslims at each other's throats, a familiar story!

I agree, Saltpetre, but probably not in the way you might expect.

>>[Christianity is] a counter-balance to the one major religious movement, in this much-troubled world of ours, which is currently presenting a real and visible hazard to world peace... in my view the Atheist 'movement' should stay well clear.<<

Apart for the moment from the obvious fact that there is no such thing as an Atheist movement, I find your underlying reasoning a little puzzling.

Would not an organized religion feel a greater threat from another organized religion, than from non-believers? It would appear - at least from the evidence on this thread - that Christians fear Muslims far more than atheists do. It is not much of a stretch to suggest, considering the practical mechanics of running and managing a set of believers, that the feeling would be mutual.

I doubt there were many atheists setting off on the Crusades, for example. Nor were there many atheists among the 9/11 crews.

If there ever is to be peace between the different religions on this planet, I would expect that it could only be brokered by atheists.

That's atheists, by the way. Not the "Atheist movement".

My reasoning, Pericles, is along the following lines:

These major religions have a lot in common, whereas they have little if anything in common with atheism - as a life philosophy or 'belief' system. Islam recognizes Jesus and Mary, both have a staunch belief in one true God, and there is a lot in common between the Christian Bible and the Holy Koran (Qur'an). Hence, there is a reasonable starting point for some bridge building, for comparing notes and discussing areas of agreement, difference, and disagreement. Scope for greater understanding.

Then there is the issue of how even moderate Muslims, let alone the more radical elements (read Taliban and the like), view Western decadence and perceived lack of modesty or of sound moral grounding. In this, the general Christian viewpoint would be not too dissimilar - virtue and humility being at the forefront of moral guidance. A starting point perhaps for a common vision of a better world - and for agreeing that there will always be dissenters and 'black sheep', but tolerance, within reasonable limits, is a virtue, and a moral imperative.

Then on the economic disparity front - which I feel is at the root of much dissatisfaction in the developing world - the U.S. is viewed as a principal 'hog', and as unacceptably aggressive in pursuing its planetary 'interests' (as well as being arguably untrue to its espoused Christian 'principles'). Hence, as both a majority Christian nation, as well as the most powerful and affluent, the U.S. would have to take a leading role in any cross-boundary dialogue aimed at achieving a stable and peaceful world - which would have to include universal religious tolerance, and conformity with Universal Human Rights. An ambitious but essential undertaking.

Dawkins and the Ayatollah? Not much future there, IMHO.

Pericles,

"I doubt there were many atheists setting off on the Crusades, for example. Nor were there many atheists among the 9/11 crews." What a ding bat statement. There would have been hardly any atheists around at time. The Crusades were there to defend Europe of Islamic re-invasion for goodness sake. Read some history will you.