I’m a religious hybrid, having spent sixteen years as a vicar and about the same length of time earning a crust from ‘digital media’ work.
After becoming a bit complacent I was shaken into life by Richard Dawkins and “The God Delusion”. Delving into atheism made me appreciate Christianity more. Curiously, even atheists don’t all like his new aggressive approach.
This site is unashamedly about promoting a religious view, although it’s not an intolerant one. I like to think I’m more patient with other people’s views than the ‘new atheists’ are.
My other purpose on this site is to promote my book, “Faith in the Age of Science”. I’m not one of those people that constantly wants to impose his views on the rest of the world – life is too complicated for over-simplified answers.
I do think, though, that the arguments for atheism are not very strong compared to the arguments for religious belief. In particular, the view that science and religion are in permanent conflict is nonsense. Many of the pioneers of scientific progress have acknowledged deeply-held religious beliefs.
As for the view of Richard Dawkins and others that religion causes immense harm – well, if that were the case, we should expect the great atheists of history to be angelic, but they are not.
The book is available from the usual outlets or the publisher.
Do you really think the opposition between science and religion is an argument for atheism?