What's On
Menu
In this course we take a hard look at some of the most difficult questions that are asked of the Christian faith, so as to understand it more deeply, explain it more persuasively and defend it more effectively. For example, any really good reasons to believe in God? And even if there are some good reasons to support belief in God, aren’t there also lots of reasons not to believe – how should we weigh these up? What about the thought that belief in God is irrelevant to the most important things in our lives, anyway - can’t people be ‘good without God’? Shouldn’t we focus our concerns on the problems of this world, rather than worrying about the ‘life of the world to come’? Why bother trying to resolve questions that lie beyond the limits of our understanding?
In each week of the course we take a look at one problematic question or an objection to Christian belief, and see how it might ask us to deepen our understanding of our faith. We will consider a range of writings from some vocal opponents of Christian belief, as well as responses from Christian thinkers who have engaged thoughtfully with these perspectives. The aim is not to memorise a series of handy arguments that could be pulled out in an argument, but to come to a clearer, deeper, more honest and convincing account of our own beliefs.
If there is no God, then perhaps Christians should just ‘stop worrying and enjoy their lives’, as one memorable humanist campaign suggested. So are there any good arguments to support belief in God? If so, what do these arguments have to do with the reasons that actually motivate people of faith? This session asks whether it is rational to believe in God – and what it might mean to be ‘rational’ in the first place.'
Reading
‘Cosmological arguments’ from Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Brian Davies
Questions for reflection and preparation
Many influential thinkers have argued that morality does not depend on religion in the way that some religious people claim it does. But many influential philosophers have concluded that certain moral commitments do depend on belief in God in crucial ways, even if in practice many of the people committed to these ideals don’t believe in God themselves. What should we make of this? Can we be ‘good without God’? Does commitment to the objectivity of moral values fit better within some worldviews than others?
To prepare for this week, it will help to look at the short presentation of WilliamLane-Craig’s version of ‘the moral argument’ here: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral
From there, you could listen to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s critique of these kinds of argument, available, here: https://philosophybites.libsyn.com/walter_sinnott_armstrong_on_morality_without_god
Questions for reflection and preparation
1. Do you think that it is possible to be an atheist and believe in ‘objective moral values’?
2. Do you think that ‘morality’ (moral beliefs, emotions, judgements, practices, etc.)can give someone a good reason to believe in God?
Very often, the relationship between evolutionary theory and Christian belief has been portrayed as one of open conflict. Many serious thinkers, from both scientific disciplines and theology, think that this is an enormous over-simplification. But it may be that the evolutionary picture that has emerged since 1859 really does seem to pose some challenges for Christian belief – we explore a few of these.
You may wish to explore these issues by listening to the podcast interview with theologian John Haught here: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-bsrdm-112d5e7
Questions for reflection and preparation
1. How would you intuitively describe the idea of creation? What is it claiming –about God, about the world, about humans?
2. What has/is the biggest question that emerges from the evolutionary picture for you– why?
The Christian story seems to be based on miracles of one kind or another: the parting of the Red Sea; the virgin birth; the resurrection. But the whole scientific worldview is based on the assumption that the world is governed by natural laws that don’t admit of exceptions.Doesn’t that mean that Christianity is unscientific, somehow? In this session we explore what scientifically informed people can or should make of the miraculous.
To begin to think about this topic, you may also want to listen to the episode of BBC’s In our time on miracles, which explores some of the history of the idea, and the significance of the miraculous in different religious traditions. Available here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00dkh78
Reading
Do the laws of nature exclude miracles?’ by Keith Ward
In our seminar we will discuss the reading from Keith Ward, which you can access at the bottom of the page, which will help us consider the relationship between miracles and the idea of a ‘law’ of nature.
Questions for reflection and preparation
1. Do you think it makes sense for a Christian to think of miracles as ‘violations’ of the laws of nature? Why/why not?
2. Ward suggests that it is a mistake to present miracles as if they could be evaluated dispassionately (p.102). Do you agree? What are the implications for attempts to show the rationality of Christian belief?
.jpg)
Stuart is the Theology Lead at LJC. He graduated with a degree in Literature and Theology from the University of Hull in 2000. From 2003-9 he studied Philosophical Theology part-time at the University of Nottingham, whilst continuing to work in the third sector with vulnerably-housed or homeless people, and young asylum seekers (as well as pulling pints in a pub). He was Lecturer at York St John University for almost a decade, before moving to London Jesuit Centre in 2021. He now lives in South East London, and spends as much time as he can in the woods.
