"A MOLECULE OF STUDENT OPINION"

The Editor,

Dear Sir,—After reading your appeal for articles, I have felt compelled to sit and write upon a subject which has caused me somej thought for years—that old subject of religion. I wonder how many of us who profess to he Christians have really sat down and pondered the significance of our belief. Or rather, how many of us after doing so would continue to find satisfaction? Let us. then, look at this religion called Christianity.

Exponents of Christianity have as the foundations of their belief the writings of the Bible. They believe that the biblical writings were divinely inspired; that only God could have been responsible for the wisdom and fine literature found in its pages. Certainly because of its quality, the Bible has outlasted most other books. But I ask you—does this mean that it has holy origins? Other books, for instance, the Koran have similar traditions in which different concepts of God play as large a part. Are they all divinely inspired also? All this aside, it is questionable whether such a philosophy of life as propounded in the Bible is beyond the creative imagination of man. After all, haw not such writers as Shakespeare or Milton equalled the literary output of the biblical writers in relatively modern times?

Furthermore it is impossible for me to take literally everything that the Bible says. For instance, scientific opinion throws much doubt upon the biblical interpretation of the origin of man. Other remarkable events, without parallel in life today—the turning back of the waters—Sampson's superhuman strength—the miracles of Christ—are completely unsubstantiated to the best of my knowledge, by any concrete evidence. I conclude therefore that much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament is purely legendary—which raises my next point. When does it cease to be legendary, and commence to touch upon factual history? And in the light of this-how can we be sure that the life of Christ itself is truly and faithfully recorded?

I do not want to create the impression that I condemn the Bible out of hand. I wish to state that I believe it to be a document of great ethical value, and as such, is worthy of reading. But what proof is there, that we have a duty towards God in the absence of the validity of its message being, established beyond doubt? Without this assurance, we may as well accept the verdict of Buddha or Mohammed. Yet there are those Christians who contest this view. "God does not need to be revealed to us in black and white," they say. "One becomes convinced through faith (not fact), as everything is unfolded after the act of faith has been performed."

This is possible because any number of people have experienced new hope by this means However, faith in anything grows stronger very often because the object of faith is given credit for the psychological effects of faith itself. To my mind Christianity cannot really escape this rule, for it depends upon the very force required by other religious adherences to make converts. As such, along with these other beliefs Christianity must depend more upon faith than upon truth—and this being so—how can it still make special claims for recognition?

Given that we accept the Bible, it is not enough, unless God shows concern for man in return. I find this difficult to believe, for it cannot be in character with an all-powerful loving God to allow the manifold misfortunes of this world to prevail over happiness. Moreover, these appear to strike at random, afflicting the God-fearing as well as the ungodly. Does this show that some benevolent divine power exerts control over our destinies?

Now that I have considered the relationship between God and Man, I arrive at the question whether there is a God at all. I think it is reasonable to suppose that there is a supreme being; a creator of the wondrous order of things that constitute life. Upon this subject all religions appear to concur. They all subscribe to some conception of "God," but beyond this point there is confusion. We need only note the divisions of religious thought, and the dogma within Christendom itself to see this. I believe that to expand the personality of God beyond that of a Creator introduces too much of the element of supposition. On the other hand I don't believe it is impossible to accept the idea that the process of Nature has taken over since the Creation.

I anticipate that I may be asked to account for the higher motives that the human being is capable of displaying. First of all it is in man's nature to distinguish between right and wrong conduct. He is innately a gregarious being who by instinct, shuns from those acts that put him apart from his fellows. Furthermore his superior intelligence enables him to classify his behaviour. He can easily recognise that those actions that work for the ultimate benefit of mankind are moral, and conversely they are immoral. Secondly, whereas I recognise that any spiritual faith strengthens morality, I consider that the ideal of a perfect society is sufficient to generate the higher human motives and to ensure purposeful living.

The Christian viewpoint is that duty to God is obligatory. Should one build a church instead of clothing the poor? This is a question all Christians must ask themselves.