From Barry Foster
Reading, Berkshire
I am always astounded at the words of “believing scientists”. They always
seem to be jumping on and off the fence. They can’t possibly believe in the laws
of physics if they believe that a god can exist outside those laws, and neither
can they believe in a god when they well know that the Universe requires neither
an instigator nor a sustainer.
It was Pope John Paul II who lit the “literal” firecracker in 1992, when he
suggested that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally. Russell
Stannard, as quoted by Tony Jones, follows this by saying that: “What you get in
Genesis are examples of myth…a fictional storyline which acts as a
vehicle for the real information you are trying to get across.”
How very convenient. This means that when parts of the Bible are obviously
wrong to the point of absurdity they can be treated as allegories. But where
they don’t contradict science then that must be the divine truth.
Advertisement
If some parts of the Bible are unbelievable—even to followers of the
faith—then who is to say which parts are believable? Shouldn’t the Pope
use a highlighter pen over the Bible so that we can at least argue over a level
playing field? It is hard nowadays to debate the issue because the believers
won’t stand still on a subject long enough. Back-pedalling is a sport at which
they have become so good that I believe it should be an Olympic event.
