A Daniel in the lion's den

Christians have come in for considerable flak in recent times for their opposition to, and indeed, to a degree, acquiescence in the breaking down of what were once clearly defined societal mores regarding human relationships. These include issues such as sex belonging within a marriage between a man and a woman - definitely not two men or two women, divorce being regarded as a bad thing, best avoided if at all possible and children being taught self discipline as well as obedience to parents and teachers. These customs or rules were seen as building a strong, decent, law-abiding society in which families and individuals would flourish. Since the 1960's sexual revolution everything has gone downhill. Sure, we may be wealthier, possess bigger cars and homes, take longer holidays, enjoy more gadgets, but we also have more broken families, more hurting people, more and nastier crime.

So, does atheism stand for moral recovery, and does it have a firm identifiable basis for moral values, or does it just "go with the flow" or settle on whatever is?

Sound moral values appear to be a strength of Christianity, grounding morality in the character of God as revealed in his creation but more especially in the Bible, a book with a very long history and a proven track record. So where does atheism stand in relation to the things that bring happiness, purpose and a sense of community into the lives of ordinary people?

Another area I will be interested in is the "reason" verses "faith" issue.

As a Christian, atheism would have me believe that because I'm faith orientated, I'm irrational whilst atheists, being reason based, are entirely rational. This is self aggrandising nonsense. Without trust we will never get far in life. I know Richard Dawkins has postulated the existence of memes in cultural formation operating in a manner analogous to biological evolution, something Daniel Dennett agrees with. There is no evidence for memes but I am willing to grant Dawkins the possibility that they may exist. To the extent that Dawkins and Dennett espouse the existence of memes this is clearly a faith position.

On the other hand and contra Dawkins, Christians do not believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. They believe what the Bible has to say about God creating the universe out of nothing simply for the pleasure of it, and about Abraham and his family, the exodus from Egypt, the life, death and resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ as well as the final judgment of God at the close of human history as we know it. That to believe in such matters is clearly a faith position but it is not a faith without evidence. No, not evidence that we can investigate today with our own eyes, hands and ears, but nevertheless historical evidence that people found compelling at the time it presented itself to them and which still remains open to historical verification much as any human history from times past. Thus the documentary evidence surrounding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, verified by the ongoing existence of the church is arguably far stronger than comparable documentary evidence for any other person from the ancient world. That's a fact.

I know I'm going to have to put up with the constant attack on religion. Mohammed may be spared for good reason, but not the religion of Jesus Christ. I know we Christians have learnt to put up with it, but it is a crying shame that it is so often mean spirited.

Any movement such as atheism to survive must find a reason other than being a reaction to something else. In a way, atheism is defined by the religion it denies. In a recent debate on the BBC, Dawkins in mocking Christians for not knowing the first book in the New Testament completely muffed his lines when asked the full title of On the Origin of Species, and was heard to exclaim, "oh, God", which somewhat cheered me. But the question remains, "can atheism stand on its own two feet?".

What I will find completely unacceptable is the ubiquitous, "religion is the root of all evil". Not so! Look no further than men and women themselves, and yes some will use religion as their vehicle for evil, just as others will use racism, greed, lust for power and even atheism.

I hear Richard Dawkins claims the biggest damage religion does is in the brainwashing of children.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

I, as a believer, have every right to be equally concerned that atheists are doing their own brainwashing of children, chiefly through the education system. The more important point is that the believers have more children than atheists. Here's another question: "why is this so"? If I were an atheist that would be the issue worrying me for despite some success for atheism in the affluent, though demographically declining West, religion shows no sign of dying, more the opposite.

Well I'm looking forward to attending Convention to see what atheism has to offer. I will certainly be interested in seeing who attends the Convention, their demeanour, what excites them, do they find joy in their atheism? Is it a matter of the heart, to use an old fashioned expression? Christians love to sing, extolling the virtues of their God and their pleasure in being believers. Will I see 5,000 atheists singing the praises of atheism?