In what was otherwise an excellent article, in The Gleaner on Friday, October 2, Peter Espeut writes: "The atheists conclude that since the Bible contradicts itself, it proves that God does not exist ... ."

The word 'atheism' means literally 'without theism', and atheists only make the claim that there is no rational basis to believe in God or the gods. No atheist I know of claims to have proof that there is no God, anymore than any of us can prove that there really is no Santa Claus. Even atheists like Dawkins would tend to argue that the existence of God is rather remotely improbable and if true, would still not explain the phenomenon of existence, as it would still raise the further question as to the origin of the gods.

Darwin's explanation is simpler and far more accessible to reason, and hence, by applying Ockam's Razor, is very likely the best. As Ian Boyne pointed out in another good article on Sunday, September 27, Darwin himself did not become an atheist as a result of his scientific discovery. It was as a result of watching his young innocent child die from disease that made him begin to doubt that there could be any intelligent and benevolent being in charge of the world. He is perfectly right when he says that it has been the problem of evil that has led most people to atheism. The earliest atheists were writers, poets and artists, not scientists.

Contradictions

The contradictions in the Bible show only that it had been written by fallible human beings. The fantastic claims of miracles place it in the realm of mythology alongside the works of Homer. Both are records of oral history, not unlike some of our own local folk tales concerning Nanny's alleged ability to catch bullets with her rump.

In my view, the Bible is best viewed as a record of the history of human morality as seen through the experience of the Jewish people. As Espeut asserts later on: "It appears at a particular moment in history containing some of the culture and prejudices of its times." As such, it should be read critically as we do any work of history or literature. Who among us can agree with Lot when he offers his daughters to a lustful mob in order to protect his visitors? If they had been our daughters, regardless of who had sent them, who among us would not have preferred to see the visitors get buggered?

Edward Seaga's article last Sunday moved in the most relevant direction. Rapprochement among nations at the political level might well depend on engagement at the cultural and the religious level. I would, however, take this conclusion even further and assert that there needs to be a new reformation in all the major religions if they are to remain relevant in the future. Religion, like life itself, must continue to evolve, as the intellectual environment changes, or it will become extinct.

I am, etc.,

R. HOWARD THOMPSON

roi_ane@hotmail.com

Mandeville, Manchester