Will Religion Kill Science

Sangre

How do you define 'good works' in a scientific study? The study would also have to quantify unscientifc terms like morality etc.,

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

One interesting question that suggests itself is whether converts to evangelical christianity perform relatively more or fewer good works than converts to other faiths, or indeed people who find non-religious ways to improve themselves from a "very low moral base".

Would the results of such a study have any bearing on how you perceive the value of your faith if, say, it was scientifically demonstrated that other belief systems were more effective in inspiring people to live good lives than evangelical christianity?

If such a study did indeed produce such results then it would certainly weaken a major argument that Christians use to propagate their faith, but would not necessarily have any bearing on how I, as a Christian, view the value of my faith. I do not Christianity as existing solely to improve morality. Rather I would see the improvement in morality as a beneficial side product of Christianity's main purpose of salvation.

We've gone a long way from the OP, haven't we?

karen3212

PDN wrote:

Has today been designated as a special day for making unwarranted assumptions about other posters? I do not think that scientists should limit themselves to research that is seen as moral by religion, nor have I argued such a thing. I am simply making the point that scientists cannot expect taxpayers to stump up public money for research that is morally unacceptable to the majority of those tax payers. This would apply irrespective of religion - for example in the area of animal experimentation.


And you are entitled to your opinion. Again, I think you are misquoting me, but I'm getting used to that by now. It appears to be a tradition of this board.


You may well be correct that "the masses" are less enlightened that you are. But as long as you want the masses to fund scientific research you will have to take their opinions into account.

PDN I will agree to disagree with you on the fact that I misquoted you.
I include myself in the masses, and I do not mean uneducated in the academic sense, I mean in the informed sense. In some areas I am as uninformed as anyone else. Also I would like to add my voice to others here, I do not think religious people are stupid or illogical. I have never thought any human being was stupid, misinformed maybe but never stupid, uninformed maybe but never stupid. Now an argument or post or a way of thinking, may be logical/illogical. But can a human, with all that is unknown about the processes of the brain, really be called logical. Really, I don't think so.

Now lets look at abortion. A majority of people in Ireland have voted in favour of stopping a woman from having an abortion in most cases, in ireland, based on the feeling they have that abortion is wrong/immoral.

Could somebody here please inform me, as to why the right of the individual woman in this case is inferior to the right of the unborn feotus.

When does a clump of cells rapidly dividing becom a human being whose right supercedes the right of the adult. How is it justified to people who are not Christian.

edit for bad use of english
Also when does the wants of the majority become more important that the right of the individual.
thanks

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

We've gone a long way from the OP, haven't we?

Sure have... but not entirely unrelated... if it's fair to ask whether religion will kill science, it's surely reasonable to conjecture whether the opposite might happen? I'm just curious as to whether there's any possibility at all of you re-examining your faith in response to scientifically derived information.

I think I understand what you're trying to say about science and religion dealing with different spheres of knowledge, but I can't agree (surprise )... I am convinced there must come a point where the contradictions become too much - where you have to either deny some effectively indisputible scientific information or reject some essential plank of your faith. Much as christians have had to engage in serious soul searching in response to new evidence about evolution and the age of the planet, or re-assess their prejudices in response to wider social acceptance of behaviours such as homosexuality.

How much re-interpretation can a faith stand before it ceases to have any value?

You have to bear in mind the relative youth of the scientific era in contrast to millions of years of superstition and faith. I personally think, and sincerely hope, that at some point in the future, after lets say several thousand more years - if we survive that long - of intensive scientific study of the universe, clinging to faith and its bizarre morality will become simply untenable in the face of the knowledge we will have at that time. Especially if more scientists can escape the bear pit of competition for funding and commercial interests and undertake more personally motivated research. But it's just a hunch, and I doubt I'll live long enough to see it.

PDN

karen3212 wrote:

Could somebody here please inform me, as to why the right of the individual woman in this case is inferior to the right of the unborn feotus.

I think few, if any, people in Ireland would deny the right of a woman to have an abortion when such a procedure is necessary to save the woman's life. Her right to life is generally seen by the majority as being at least equal to the right of the child. So, in this case, her rights are in no way inferior to the rights of the unborn baby.

However, let's take another scenario that occurs every day in societies where abortion is legal and provided on demand. A woman gets herself so drunk that her judgment is impaired, so she ends up having a knee-trembler behind the disco with a cute looking guy. A few weeks later she finds she is pregnant and decides that having a baby would cramp her style. After all, her silver glitter belly tops would not look so good when, down the line, she gets to 8 months. So she aborts the baby. In this scenario I would suggest that the woman's rights to selfishly kill an unborn child because it would be inconvenient should not outweigh the right to life of the child.

It is not so simple as weighing the rights of the mother against the rights of her unborn baby. You have to ask: "The right to do what? The right to stay alive? The right to avoid an inconvenient consequence of behaving irresponsibly?"

Also when does the wants of the majority become more important that the right of the individual.

A good rule of thumb, for me, is when the 'right' of the individual involves harming someone else. I do not agree that an unborn baby is a clump of cells that miraculously transforms into a human being as it passes through the birth canal. An unborn baby is the most vulnerable and powerless member of the human race, and as such I believe it should be afforded special dignity and protection. I do not believe that anyone has the 'right' to abuse a 5 year old child - and I personally believe that the same applies to a child that is inits fifth month of development in the womb.

Dades

PDN wrote:

We've gone a long way from the OP, haven't we?

As usual. Unless the OP complains it's usually let slide.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

I am convinced there must come a point where the contradictions become too much - where you have to either deny some effectively indisputible scientific information or reject some essential plank of your faith. Much as christians have had to engage in serious soul searching in response to new evidence about evolution and the age of the planet, or re-assess their prejudices in response to wider social acceptance of behaviours such as homosexuality..

I think you are confusing two very different concepts when you speak of indisputable scientific information, and then, in the next breath, about wider social acceptance of behaviours.

I don't want to get back into the subject of homosexuality per se since it seems to be a particularly touchy issue for certain posters. However, I see a very real problem in advocating that Christianity should conform to whatever morality is accepted by the surrounding culture. In my opinion Christianity's most shameful periods of history have been when it has failed to separate itself from the prevailing moral standards (ie in regard to slavery, segregation and anti-semitism).

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I think you are confusing two very different concepts when you speak of indisputable scientific information, and then, in the next breath, about wider social acceptance of behaviours.

I don't want to get back into the subject of homosexuality per se since it seems to be a particularly touchy issue for certain posters. However, I see a very real problem in advocating that Christianity should conform to whatever morality is accepted by the surrounding culture. In my opinion Christianity's most shameful periods of history have been when it has failed to separate itself from the prevailing moral standards (ie in regard to slavery, segregation and anti-semitism).

Hmm. I think Christianity always conforms to prevailing social 'moral trends' - possibly has done ever since it stopped being counter-cultural. It's quite a different animal from country to country, and social group to social group. No-one in Europe, I think, would argue that Christianity would accept or condone the death penalty, whereas in the US they undoubtedly would.

There are exceptions, of course, since elements of the basic message cannot be too obviously altered.

I am not trying to trap you in any way here - I am interested, as you appear to be, in the logic and limits of the other's position. I'd hope to see something other than a "no true Christian" answer to this one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. I think Christianity always conforms to prevailing social 'moral trends' - possibly has done ever since it stopped being counter-cultural. It's quite a different animal from country to country, and social group to social group. No-one in Europe, I think, would argue that Christianity would accept or condone the death penalty, whereas in the US they undoubtedly would.

There are exceptions, of course, since elements of the basic message cannot be too obviously altered.

There is a strong movement within evangelical Christianity to see the faith revert to its counter-cultural status. Such is already the case in certain parts of the world. This is why I personally believe the decline and implosion of institutional Christendom in the West to be a very positive development.

I am not trying to trap you in any way here - I am interested, as you appear to be, in the logic and limits of the other's position. I'd hope to see something other than a "no true Christian" answer to this one.

Sorry, I've lost track of what the question is! Which one is 'this one'?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

There is a strong movement within evangelical Christianity to see the faith revert to its counter-cultural status. Such is already the case in certain parts of the world. This is why I personally believe the decline and implosion of institutional Christendom in the West to be a very positive development.

Sorry, I've lost track of what the question is! Which one is 'this one'?

Actually, you've answered it implicitly, to some extent. It wasn't phrased as a question, but an assertion - that Christianity tends to conform to prevailing morality.

I would take it from your answer that you would probably agree that this can be the case, and would additionally regard it as a bad thing?

You'd accept, I take it, that Christianity can only really be 'counter-cultural' in a society which rejects Christianity - out of interest, do you feel that this is the case for Irish society?

Finally, which of the evangelical churches (or in which country) do you think have gone furthest in the counter-cultural direction?

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

PDN wrote:

A good rule of thumb, for me, is when the 'right' of the individual involves harming someone else. I do not agree that an unborn baby is a clump of cells that miraculously transforms into a human being as it passes through the birth canal. An unborn baby is the most vulnerable and powerless member of the human race, and as such I believe it should be afforded special dignity and protection. I do not believe that anyone has the 'right' to abuse a 5 year old child - and I personally believe that the same applies to a child that is inits fifth month of development in the womb.

I understand the law from the perspective of a christain,

I am wondering more about how it is justified to non-christains, if they do not believe the clump of cells is yet a human being and should therefore not have the same rights as a human being.

Therefore as a clump of cells, it is part of the woman's body, and she has full rights over it.

I am not speaking of a christain perspective.

PDN

karen3212 wrote:

I understand the law from the perspective of a christain,

I am wondering more about how it is justified to non-christains, if they do not believe the clump of cells is yet a human being and should therefore not have the same rights as a human being.

Therefore as a clump of cells, it is part of the woman's body, and she has full rights over it.

I am not speaking of a christain perspective.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that only Christians see unborn babies as having rights. Speak to any couple who have suffered a miscarriage, particularly after the first few weeks of pregnancy.

By the way, you and I are also clumps of cells.

karen3212

PDN wrote:

I think it would be a mistake to assume that only Christians see unborn babies as having rights. Speak to any couple who have suffered a miscarriage, particularly after the first few weeks of pregnancy.

By the way, you and I are also clumps of cells.

I appreciate that, PDN. So is cancer, it doesn't have equal rights to me, in certain circumstances, never the less.

I am talking about the justification given to someone who doesn't believe the clump of cells is a human being.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually, you've answered it implicitly, to some extent. It wasn't phrased as a question, but an assertion - that Christianity tends to conform to prevailing morality.

I would take it from your answer that you would probably agree that this can be the case, and would additionally regard it as a bad thing?

You'd accept, I take it, that Christianity can only really be 'counter-cultural' in a society which rejects Christianity - out of interest, do you feel that this is the case for Irish society?

Finally, which of the evangelical churches (or in which country) do you think have gone furthest in the counter-cultural direction?

cordially,
Scofflaw

You are reading me correctly.

I do think that Irish society is increasingly rejecting Christianity, which I see as preferable to the ritualism and nominalism of the past. Evangelicals have, of course, been a counter-culture in Ireland for many years, often ostracised because of their non-Catholic beliefs.

The churches that would be most counter-cultural, in my opinion would include the church in China (persecuted) and the church in the Palestinian territories (discriminated against by Israel because they are Palestinian, and mistreated by Hamas & Fatah because they are not Muslim).

There is also a growing movement in the US known as the emergent church. This is not an organised group as such, but rather a variety of churches of various denominations which are predominantly very young, politically left wing, and strongly critical of the Republican Party/ Moral Majority etc. Some of these churches are very large (20,000 or more members in a single congregation) but receive very little media attention because they don't conform to the stereotype of right-wing fundamentalism that lazy reporters prefer to feature.

PDN

karen3212 wrote:

I appreciate that, PDN. So is cancer, it doesn't have equal rights to me, in certain circumstances, never the less.

I am talking about the justification given to someone who doesn't believe the clump of cells is a human being.

If someone does not believe that an unborn baby is a human being then I would imagine that they would see nothing wrong with abortion on demand. I doubt if any argument I can offer will impress them or sway them. If such people become a majority then no doubt this country will go down the same route as the UK and cheerfully slaughter as many unborn babies as possible.

PDN

karen3212 wrote:

I appreciate that, PDN. So is cancer, it doesn't have equal rights to me, in certain circumstances, never the less.

I am talking about the justification given to someone who doesn't believe the clump of cells is a human being.

Karen, I would be interested to know, how do you feel when you see a pregnant woman smoking?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Karen, I would be interested to know, how do you feel when you see a pregnant woman smoking?

That she is potentially giving the person her unborn will become unnecessary health problems/reduced IQ for the entirety of their life, which is grossly irresponsible if she intends carrying the unborn to term.

Doesn't really have any application if she's going to have an abortion, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sangre

PDN wrote:

I think it would be a mistake to assume that only Christians see unborn babies as having rights. Speak to any couple who have suffered a miscarriage, particularly after the first few weeks of pregnancy.

By the way, you and I are also clumps of cells.

I certainly wouldn't view a foetus as just a bunch of cells. Of course, I don't want to start an abortion debate just wanted to point out that the view isn't exclusively that of Christians or even theists.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

I think you are confusing two very different concepts when you speak of indisputable scientific information, and then, in the next breath, about wider social acceptance of behaviours.

I'm well aware of the difference between scientific evidence and social values. I chose to select two examples of external forces which have forced christians to re-examine their beliefs. This touches on the parallel discussion of whether and to what extent science informs moral debate.

To go back a step (and I also don't want to get sucked back into a discussion of homosexuality per se, but it is the current example) - I'm no scientist (obviously ) but my science isn't so bad that I don't grasp the fact that homosexuality can't be directly attributed to the presence of 'the gay gene'. A correlation can be established, which doesn't necessarily imply causality. However AFAIK scientists have suggested that a combination of factors cause such behaviour, including genetic factors.

So if you accept the science, the question remains: why would god design some of us with a genetic inclination to sinful behaviour? And given that he has also - for some unknown purpose - designed other of his creatures to exhibit such behaviour, isn't there a stronger probability of your interpretation of the behaviour as sin being wrong than of the behaviour itself actually being sinful?

PDN wrote:

I see a very real problem in advocating that Christianity should conform to whatever morality is accepted by the surrounding culture. In my opinion Christianity's most shameful periods of history have been when it has failed to separate itself from the prevailing moral standards (ie in regard to slavery, segregation and anti-semitism).

You seem oblivious to the fact that christianity most likely wouldn't have survived as a meaningful force had it not so acted.

But leavig that aside, I certainly don't advocate that christianity does anything. However, I do think it is inevitable that it will adapt to prevailing moral standards as the alternative is to become obsolete and die. This is the hazard of all faiths since none can encompass a universal and eternal perspective on issues which are fundamentally ephemeral and culturally informed. Slavery and racism used to be perfectly acceptable, and christianity was entirely in step with wider social values by supporting both. Of course, a high proportion of abolitionists were christians, but since just about everybody was a christian in those times you can't attach any great significance to this.

Nowadays christians have had to modify their views on both, due in part to science and in part to social pressure. Do you think christianity would receive any great support these days if it continued to support slavery?

However there is still sufficient general social hostility towards homosexuality to allow christians to maintain their position that it is sinful. But when the time comes when homosexuality is generally accepted as normal behaviour, christians will no longer be able to sustain their opposition. Where will the support come from, with the overwhelming majority taking a tolerant view? People will walk away in droves (as they already are in developed societies), and christianity will again be left with the choice to either adapt or die.

No faith can thrive for long in direct opposition to wider cultural values. Especially as faiths in developed and open societies are generally pillars of conservative thought holding back the slow but inevitable momentum towards more progressive and tolerant views.

As for a countercultural role for christianity - this implies, does it not, that the majority in such a society will be opposed to your faith? The same faith can't be simultaneously both mainstream and countercultural, this idea makes no sense at all. So are you saying you worship a god who actually wants (and indeed expects) most people to be outside the faith and therefore condemned to eternal damnation?

Scofflaw

rockbeer wrote:

As for a countercultural role for christianity - this implies, does it not, that the majority in such a society will be opposed to your faith? The same faith can't be simultaneously both mainstream and countercultural, this idea makes no sense at all. So are you saying you worship a god who actually wants (and indeed expects) most people to be outside the faith and therefore condemned to eternal damnation?

Very good point! I must admit I hadn't thought of that - presumably PDN has?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

I would imagine that PDN will say that God wants most people to move away from sinful behavior, but because of human nature most people won't do this and sin will always be widespread in society.

But since most people seem to be ignoring me on this thread I'm taking my ball and I'm going home ... screw you guys ... :cool:

BrianCalgary

rockbeer wrote:

However there is still sufficient general social hostility towards homosexuality to allow christians to maintain their position that it is sinful. But when the time comes when homosexuality is generally accepted as normal behaviour, christians will no longer be able to sustain their opposition. Where will the support come from, with the overwhelming majority taking a tolerant view? People will walk away in droves (as they already are in developed societies), and christianity will again be left with the choice to either adapt or die.

The opposite is is actually what is happening. The churches in Canada that have accepted homosexuality and blessed homosexual unions have seen a remarkable decline in attendance and memebership.

Whereas churches that have remained true to the Bible as the source of authority have grown.

So, Christianity has to stay true to Biblical teachings or face irrelevance. If that means being counter-cultural, then so be it. If it means being mainstream, then so be it.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

The opposite is is actually what is happening. The churches in Canada that have accepted homosexuality and blessed homosexual unions have seen a remarkable decline in attendance and memebership.

It was my understanding that church attendance in Canada has dropped significantly since the 50s, and only crept up again up again in the last 4 years to 80s levels?

karen3212

PDN How do you feel when you see a pregnant woman somking

Scofflaw wrote:

That she is potentially giving the person her unborn will become unnecessary health problems/reduced IQ for the entirety of their life, which is grossly irresponsible if she intends carrying the unborn to term.

Doesn't really have any application if she's going to have an abortion, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agreed.

If I saw a woman smoking when she has a clump of cells growing inside her, I wouldn't know she was pregnant.
I would think smoking isn't good for her health, and hope she can take steps to stop.

aidan24326

BrianCalgary wrote:

The opposite is is actually what is happening. The churches in Canada that have accepted homosexuality and blessed homosexual unions have seen a remarkable decline in attendance and memebership.

Whereas churches that have remained true to the Bible as the source of authority have grown.

So, Christianity has to stay true to Biblical teachings or face irrelevance. If that means being counter-cultural, then so be it. If it means being mainstream, then so be it.

So I take it you'd prefer to see dwindling numbers if it means the people in attendance are more devout in their faith and rigid in their adherence to bible teachings? On the other hand why not just accept that the bible may be a bit wide of the mark on certain things, with no obvious reason why a god should hate homosexuals since he himself would have made us with the potential to be homosexual? Why does a dusty old book have to be so infallible?

rockbeer

BrianCalgary wrote:

The opposite is is actually what is happening. The churches in Canada that have accepted homosexuality and blessed homosexual unions have seen a remarkable decline in attendance and memebership.

Whereas churches that have remained true to the Bible as the source of authority have grown.

But which is happening quicker - the decline in the progressive churches, or the growth in the traditional ones? i.e. is there a net gain or a net loss to christianity?

You are of course talking here about relative changes between different brands of christianity, while I was talking about the overall decline in numbers of adherents of whatever stripe in the developed world.

BrianCalgary wrote:

So, Christianity has to stay true to Biblical teachings or face irrelevance. If that means being counter-cultural, then so be it. If it means being mainstream, then so be it.

But that's the point... christian interpretations of biblical teachings are constantly being reassessed to account for scientific discovery and prevailing social attitudes - else christians would still be supporting racism and slavery, and upholding the fiction that the world was made in seven literal days.

It's only a matter of time before today's sins become tomorrow's normal activities, and christians are begging the pardon of yet more of those they mistakenly condemned.

The question is, how much reinterpretation is possible before a faith loses all value and/or meaning?

karen3212

Sangre wrote:

I certainly wouldn't view a foetus as just a bunch of cells. Of course, I don't want to start an abortion debate just wanted to point out that the view isn't exclusively that of Christians or even theists.

I think it is called the foetus at the 7th week.

I know too that views expressed by people aren't exclusively Christian or theist or atheist.

I think science can inform us, so as that we know exactly when an few cells become a being.

This is a theoretical argument, and I am not in any way supportive of killing babies.

I simply worry about women whose mental state drive them to suicide, because they truly cannot handle the idea of having another baby, some of these women are married with children.

I worry about women who die because they procure illegal abortions, or attempt to do it themselves.

It is a difficult subject.

But I didn't want an abortion debate either,
I was looking at when the want of the majority overrules what some would see as the right of the individual.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

It was my understanding that church attendance in Canada has dropped significantly since the 50s, and only crept up again up again in the last 4 years to 80s levels?

I know th edrop occured through the 60's and 70's. I haven't seen numbers overall in the current decade.

I have only seen denominational numbers form th e90's and 00's.

BrianCalgary

aidan24326 wrote:

So I take it you'd prefer to see dwindling numbers if it means the people in attendance are more devout in their faith and rigid in their adherence to bible teachings? On the other hand why not just accept that the bible may be a bit wide of the mark on certain things, with no obvious reason why a god should hate homosexuals since he himself would have made us with the potential to be homosexual? Why does a dusty old book have to be so infallible?

Quite a few questions here.

I would prefer to see growing numbers. Wherever you see a church move away from biblical teachings you see a decline in attendance.

The Bible is the autority behind the Christian faith. If it is not used to communicate to the congregation, then the church is irrelevant.

The Bible provides the foundation on which all the activities, teachings and doctrine are based.

If that foundation is monkeyed with, the institution falls. We have seen that happen with mainline churches that have gone the route that you suggest, which is to eveolve with human mores.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

So if you accept the science, the question remains: why would god design some of us with a genetic inclination to sinful behaviour?

My understanding of the research so far is that it demonstrates that the presence of a certain gene in a minority of people makes them slightly more likely than the rest of the population to be homosexual, but that the rate of homosexuality among those possessing such a gene is still much lower than 50%. So, therefore, I think that your question is framed wrongly. You should be asking whether it causes me problems, as a Christian, that a minority of people are slightly less disposed to avoid homosexual behaviour than the rest of the population.

This would only cause me a problem if I believed that every single human being must face exactly the same amount of temptation (not a fraction more, not a fraction less) for every conceivable kind of behaviour that the Bible warns against. However, I find it perfectly reasonable that everybody is different and that some people will be more tempted in one area than another. This can occur for genetic, societal, or psychological reasons.

And given that he has also - for some unknown purpose - designed other of his creatures to exhibit such behaviour, isn't there a stronger probability of your interpretation of the behaviour as sin being wrong than of the behaviour itself actually being sinful?

There's a wee bit of a leap of logic there. Just because animals have been observed to behave in a particular way, it does not necessarily follow that God designed them to behave that way.

I have already stated that the observance of a behaviour among animals does not necessarily carry any implication as to the morality of similar behaviour among humans. For example, rape is common in the animal kingdom and also occurs among humans with depressing regularity. However, I know of no sane person who would argue that rape is therefore morally acceptable.
As humans we routinely avoid behaviour that is commonly observed among almost all other mammals, which is why you and I (forgive me if I'm making a false assumption here, but I assume this would apply to both us) refrain from licking our genitals in public.

You seem oblivious to the fact that christianity most likely wouldn't have survived as a meaningful force had it not so acted.

That is an unproveable statement and extremely dubious historically. Christianity has demonstrated an amazing ability to survive as a meaningful force when it is non-violent and subjected to persecution.

But leavig that aside, I certainly don't advocate that christianity does anything. However, I do think it is inevitable that it will adapt to prevailing moral standards as the alternative is to become obsolete and die. This is the hazard of all faiths since none can encompass a universal and eternal perspective on issues which are fundamentally ephemeral and culturally informed. Slavery and racism used to be perfectly acceptable, and christianity was entirely in step with wider social values by supporting both. Of course, a high proportion of abolitionists were christians, but since just about everybody was a christian in those times you can't attach any great significance to this.

Again, I think that you are on dodgy ground historically. Most people were Christians in the sense that they believed in Christ and attended church at least occasionally. However, it is clear that the rise of evangelical movements such as Methodism and the Quakers (who were evangelical in the 18th century) was a major impetus in the abolitionist movement. Most abolitionists were evangelicals and, as such, were clearly part of a minority group with Christendom. For example, Church of England bishops in the British House of Lords voted against abolition and routinely attacked Wilberforce and his evangelical colleagues in the Clapham sect.

As for a countercultural role for christianity - this implies, does it not, that the majority in such a society will be opposed to your faith? The same faith can't be simultaneously both mainstream and countercultural, this idea makes no sense at all. So are you saying you worship a god who actually wants (and indeed expects) most people to be outside the faith and therefore condemned to eternal damnation?

I am saying that Christianity appears to work best as a countercultural force, probably because violence and greed are so entrenched in mankind's sinful behaviour. Power corrupts, and if religion holds the reins of power then unscrupulous people will hijack it to achieve their aims. When Christianity, or indeed any other religion, is counter-cultural then it is less attractive to such hijackers since pretending to be a Christian now offers little material benefit. This does not, by the way, mean that this is what God wants. God wants all men to be saved and to live a holy life - but he knows, and we know, that ain't going to happen.