Roots need firmer footing

April 23, 2009

Andrew Chanerley commits a logical error that underlines the reason why a "return to Christian roots" (Letters, 9 April) would be an outrageous and completely unacceptable academic development in 21st-century Britain.

He states that it is "contrary to ... philosophy in the West" to assert that religious belief is irrational, since such belief is the result of "an exercise in thought". Indeed, it may be, but the use of a thought process does not mean that the process is logical.

Many people, especially those associated with religious doctrine, "think" irrationally. This distinction is at the heart of the science-religion conflict and reaches its zenith in the illogical premise that any aspect of life or religious experience that cannot be explained rationally is due to the "mysterious ways" concept. In other words, we have fallen off the end of the rational road but we intend to persist in our irrational beliefs anyway.

For any right-thinking, honest intellectual, it must be accepted that religious belief is nothing more than a hypothesis, and to base a major establishment of academic learning on an unproven (and highly improbable) hypothesis is simply unthinkable.

Trevor Stone, University of Glasgow.

登录 或者 注册 以便阅读全文。




  • 获得编辑推荐文章
  • 率先获得泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名相关的新闻
  • 获得职位推荐、筛选工作和保存工作搜索结果
  • 参与读者讨论和公布评论


Log in or register to post comments


Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October