Final chapter in the great faith debate

Monday August 21, 2017 Published in Letters to the Editor

At last! A proper and seemingly reasonable response that unfortunately is selective and does not address all the concerns that I have raised in a coherent manner.


All those people who get fixated and want to have a go at the Unionist for having an opinion are not addressing the issues raised. The Unionist is not the issue, you are, because you stick your heads in the sand and can’t or won’t address the issues.

It is your inaction and inability to question the status quo and do something about it that is at the heart of our problems. Your absolute belief in your faith appears to cloud your judgement.

You will note that the Unionist writes with a particular narrative style designed to raise an issue then support it with background experiences and research.

This is designed to provide a coherent and logical pathway to follow whilst positing a series of questions. One would expect that respondents would then be able to make a proper response following such a sequence. Otherwise, writers get very selective in how they want to respond, and miss the point or leave out important points they should be addressing while presenting the whole picture. These are clearly close to their hearts and thus the sometimes personal flavour of opinion against the Unionist to merit the points they raise.

There seems to be a concerted effort, deliberate or not, to denigrate the past or to downplay or belittle the legacy of the past by comparing modern societal norms with the past. Don’t. The context is very different. A hundred years from now, do you want your descendants comparing the excesses of this era with theirs?

Do you want to pit your paltry 2000 years of faith against the 60,000 years of the Australian Aboriginals’ “Dreamtime?” These are the questions I pose, but never get answered. Why is that?

Neither the Unionist nor the scientific community - or anyone else for that matter, can prove or disprove the existence of a God in a manner that is consistent with scientific principles.

Faith is not a science. It contributes to an ideology based on an emotional response to particular external stimuli that is personal to the person experiencing it. This is a scientific fact. What is not science, is the belief - because like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. It is an interpretation by that person. It is used by its adherents to posit a particular point of view that is sometimes skewed from societal norms with a particular outcome designed to directly or indirectly influence an individual.

That is how we get those religious nutter sect start-ups and the separation of seemingly intelligent people from acceptable and proper societal norms.

If God did appear in front of the Unionist, he would have no idea if in fact it was God.

Someone once said that advanced technology to a primitive mind would be indistinguishable from magic. So who is to naysay if such a situation occurred?

The Unionist doesn’t have all the answers, but collectively we do.

            The Unionist

Editor’s note: Correspondence on this topic is now closed.

Leave a comment