Introduction

I think it is impossible for anyone living in Oxford to completely ignore the vast amounts of philosophizing that occurs here. Personally, I am encountered with philosophical issues nearly every day, though I admit I seek them out. But people here sincerely seem to be looking for truth and wisdom. I think this is fantastic, though I often disagree with friends on how to execute this search.

I'm sure most of my readers know that I am religious, but I do like to think I at least have some sort of logical backing for much of what I believe. True, Christianity absolutely requires faith at some point, and faith requires belief in things unseen, unable to be experimentally verified. According to the Bible, faith is the essential element that we accept. Faith, however, is not ignorant acceptance of something. Faith is based on reason. I will address this later.

However, I have found that many of the problems people have with Christianity do not relate to faith at all. Within the church I have encountered all sorts of theological issues that simply do require faith, or at least, that I have never heard explained in a logically complete manner. But most people subscribing to other (or no) faiths don't seem to care much about these issues. That's because those intra-church issues hardly ever make a difference to the main tenants of Christianity. Although many people would vehemently disagree with me, I don't even think the polarizing topics of evolution or abortion make any sort of eternal difference. For evolution especially, I don't think it is outside of the realm of possibility that God used such a process to create the world and mankind. Nor does it have any impact on whether or not God loves us if he exists. Many like Richard Dawkins have morphed evolution into a philosophical system that implies everything is cold; God is impossible because evolution controls all outcomes by chance. But even just in the past month, I have read or heard at least five different philosophers, some Christian, some profoundly not, who all shake their heads and chuckle at Dawkins' inability to reason. For those who doubt, check out Being Good, by Simon Blackburn, who also wrote the Very Short Introduction to Ethics. Even as an obvious anti-theist, he points out how terrifically flawed are Dawkins' philosophical inferrences. As a side note, I might mention that the strictly seven-day interpretation of Genesis is actually a rather new development. Even St. Augustine urges Christians to be willing to alter their views of the Creation account as new information becomes available, and he himself did not believe in a seven-day creation (see On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, St. Augustine). You can draw your own conclusions from that.

In any case, what I'm trying to say is that many topics vigorously debated among Christians are not even on the radar of others when it comes to why they don't believe in God or the Bible. Faith is not an intellectual problem for many. Sure, they may not want to put their faith in the Christian God, but that does not mean faith is a troublesome thing for them. They often have completely separate issues, for instance the belief that truth is relative, which is a very common belief, that have convinced them that Christianity is flawed. Indeed, topics like evolution and abortion often get in the way of discussing the principle tenants of why Christianity makes sense, thereby allowing the essential faith. (This does not mean I find the topics uninteresting as many of you know.) However, I have found that most of the problems people have with Christianity can be logically reasoned through and are often found wanting. So instead of focusing on whether evolution is true or whether women should be free to have an abortion, issues that almost everyone has very strong opinions on, over the course of the next few days or weeks (who knows really, this Oxford place is sort of demanding of time), I intend to address a number of issues related to a very common problem my friends have with Christianity, or organized religion in general, namely, that they believe in relativism and Christianity is blatantly absolutist. If it is indeed true that all religions are equally good, that all opinions are equally good, that truth is defined by individuals and societies, then Christianity is indeed flawed. I believe, though, that relativism is logically untenable, and I intend to convince you, reader, that that is the case. Meanwhile I will address related issues that have often come up in the same conversation, including political leanings, church and state, and others.

I do not intend this as proselytizing, but rather as reasoning through difficult topics that happen to relate to what I believe. Thereby, I hope to prove that my faith is not based on threadbare thoughts and ignorant dismissal of other opinions, but that it is rather quite reasonable and logical. For I would never want to give the impression that I am a stubborn fool, unwilling to recognize my own faults when my logic fails. I hope I can show that.

You may ask why I didn't just write out my opinions right now, thinking I could have already addressed the topic in the time it took to write this introduction. Well, I did actually start writing the main body, and I realized it would be too long as one post. So instead, I will post a few things in the weeks to come that will hopefully cover all the bases. I may intersperse with other blogs in the meantime if I get bored with the topic (or if it is evident that you do). If you have questions or believe you have found holes in my argument, do point them out, as I am always eager to improve my reasoning. Or if you do not share my religious beliefs and I do not address your qualms with Christianity, I urge you to challenge me with those thoughts. Perhaps we will all learn something new or consider something we had never considered before. That would be excellent.