Showing posts with label atheists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheists. Show all posts

Christian Defenses of Atheism (Christians Who Have Defended Atheism, or Respect What Some Atheists are Saying or Doing)

Christian Defenses of Atheism
I retain a profound respect for [atheismʼs] aspirations for humanity and legitimate criticisms of dysfunctional religion… There is something about human nature which makes it capable of being inspired by what it believes to be right to do both wonderful and appalling things. Neither atheism nor religion may be at fault.
Alister McGrath (Oxford Professor and Christian apologist), The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World, 2007

Skepticism and atheism are, at least in their highest manifestations, noble, precious, and even necessary traditions, and even the most fervent of believers should acknowledge that both are often inspired by a profound moral alarm at evil and suffering, at the corruption of religious institutions, at psychological terrorism, at injustices either prompted or abetted by religious doctrines, at arid dogmatisms and inane fideisms, and at worldly power wielded in the name of otherworldly goods. In the best kinds of unbelief, there is something of the moral grandeur of the prophets—a deep and admirable abhorrence of those vicious idolatries that enslave minds and justify our worst cruelties.
David Bentley Hart (Eastern Orthodox theologian, philosopher, and cultural commentator), “Believe It or Not,” First Things, May 2010

Iʼve found self-deception as much among Christians as among atheists and agnostics. In fact, Iʼve come to like dealing with secularists better than with Christians who use religion as a cloak to cover their pride and absence of love. Secularists are at least more likely to admit that theyʼre being bad. Christians, especially American evangelical Christians, with pietism and puritanism always in the background, have to pretend to be good.
William A. Dembski (Christian and Intelligent Design advocate), William Dembski Interview published by TheBestSchools.org in January 2012; updated May 2016

Atheism tends to be a term of disrepute in the Western world, but we ought to do all we can to change this situation. The honest atheist is simply a person who has looked out upon the world and has come to believe that there is no adequate evidence that God is, or that there is good evidence that God is not. Very seldom does this make a man happy or popular… A man who has no practical belief in God may nevertheless be a good man. Sometimes it is the very goodness of a man which makes him an unbeliever; he is so superlatively honest, so eager not to accept anything without adequate evidence, so sensitive to the danger of believing what is comforting, merely because it is comforting… Such a man we can only honor.
Elton Trueblood (Quaker theologian), Philosophy of Religion

Not one man in a thousand has either strength of mind or goodness of heart to be an Atheist.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge (Christian poet, philosopher and literary critic who had deistic and Unitarian leanings but died a liberal Anglican), Letter to Thomas Allsop, c. 1820 (Note: Twenty years earlier in his life Coleridge wrote very negatively about atheism)

An atheist may be simply one whose faith and love are concentrated on the impersonal aspects of God.
Simone Weil (Christian mystic)

A Catholic Defense of Atheism

Atheism is clearly always a permissible view of man in a world in which God is not immediately evident.
20th Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism

A Christian Philosopher Tries to Explain Why There Are Still Atheists

Shouldnʼt we take seriously biblical portrayals of divine silence and hiddenness?… The Psalms are replete with references to divine silence and hiddenness. (See, for example, Psalm 10:1; 22:1-2; 30:7; 44:23-24; and 88:13-14.) The prophet Isaiah puts it bluntly: “Truly you are a God who has been hiding himself, the God and Savior of Israel” (45:15). Saint Anselm, the eleventh century archbishop of Canterbury, asks, “Why did he shut us away from the light, and cover us over with darkness?” Mother Teresa knew this darkness all too well, and it apparently prompted her at some points to doubt the existence of God. In a letter to a friend, she writes, “Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear.” What seems obvious here is that Godʼs existence is not obvious, even to some devout followers. As the seventeenth century French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal writes, “As God is hidden, any religion that does not say that God is hidden is not true… What can be seen on earth points to neither the total absence nor the obvious presence of divinity, but to the presence of a hidden God.”
Perhaps some atheists happen to be people particularly impressed by the dreadful silence of God—and unimpressed by the noisy, idle chatter expressed by far too many theists… We should acknowledge that we have our own powerful non-rational motivations for belief… We need to grant that our God is a God who sometimes hides and is silent. Finally, we need to concede that all of this does make a genuine evidential difference for plenty of atheists. Maybe that helps to explain why there are atheists.
Shawn Graves (Assist. Prof. of Philosophy at Cedarville University and a Christian), Why There Are Still Atheists: The heavens arenʼt the only proclaimers (and are sometimes silent), Christianity Today, March 28, 2011

A Leading Figure in the “Emergent” Church Movement Who Defends Atheism

I am so grateful for the edited collection of essays, God Is Dead and I Donʼt Feel So Good Myself: Theological Engagements with the New Atheism (pub. 2005). Atheism isnʼt just something to oppose or refute—it also can be a mirror, with much to teach us believers about ourselves and our distorted and unworthy ideas about God and religion. The atheist too is our neighbor, and God may want to speak to us all through the incisive insight of an honest atheist.
Brian McLaren, 2005
Nearly all religions—and certainly all monotheistic religions—seem at time hell-bent on inspiring people to kill each other, making atheism sometimes seem a more ethical alternative to conventional violence-prone belief. So we ask: Why does God seem so violent and genocidal in many Bible passages? Does God play favorites? Does God choose some and reject others? Does God [p. 20] sanction elitism, prejudice, violence, or even genocide? Is God incurably violent and is faith capable of becoming a stronger force for peace and reconciliation than it has been for violence in the past?… Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures do I find anything as horrible as… a deity who tortures the greater part of humanity forever in infinite eternal conscious torment… For this reason, I would grimly prefer atheism to be true than for the Greco-Roman Theos narrative to be true… On the subject of hell, see my “The Last Word and the Word After That,” and an extremely helpful and concise article by Nik Ansell, “Hell: The Nemesis of Hope” in which he quotes Evangelical patriarch John Stott as saying, of the conventional view of hell, “Emotionally, I find the concept intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterizing their feelings or cracking under the strain.”
Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, pg. 19-20, 98-99, Chapter 10, and Endnote 1,pg. 272

Christians Who Admit An Atheist Can Be a Truth Seeker

As you try to figure out what exactly his [atheist Hemant Mehtaʼs] agenda is, youʼll probably arrive at the same conclusion I did. I think heʼs simply after the truth.
Rev. Rob Bell in the forward to Mehtaʼs book, I Sold My Soul on eBay: Viewing Faith Through an Atheistʼs Eyes (2007)
If you blink, you might miss the significance of Bellʼs statement. So let me underscore it. He believes Mehta isnʼt sinfully suppressing belief in God. Rather, he really does want to know the truth. At first blush, this might seem too obvious to mention. But set against the stock Christian attitudes toward atheism and it really does constitute a quiet revolution.
Randal Rauser, author of the book, Is the Atheist My Neighbor? Rethinking Christian Attitudes toward Atheism (2015).

A Deist Who Asked, “Who is Responsible for Atheists?”

If there are atheists, who is responsible but the mercenary tyrants of souls who say: “Believe a hundred things in the Bible either manifestly abominable or mathematically impossible; otherwise the God of mercy will burn you in the fires of hell, not only for millions of billions of centuries, but for all eternity.”
Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, entry under “Atheist, Atheism,” Second Section

A Deist Who Defended Heretics

All the heretics I have known have been virtuous men. They cannot afford to be deficient in any of the other virtues, as that would give advantage to their many enemies; and they have not, like orthodox sinners, such a number of friends to excuse or justify them.
Benjamin Franklin as quoted in Benjamin Franklin: His Wit, Wisdom, and Women by Seymour Stanton Block

A “Rational Christian” Who Preferred Atheism Over the Fear That One Might Be Asking Questions That Were Too Bold

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, dated August 10, 1787 (Jefferson favored something he called “rational Christianity,” a deistic view of Christianity)

He who begins by loving Christianity better than truth, will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Aids to Reflection, “Moral and Religious Aphorisms,” aph. 25 (1825)
Whenever philosophy has taken into its plan religion, it has ended in skepticism; and whenever religion excludes philosophy, or the spirit of free inquiry, it leads to willful blindness and superstition.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, cited in Allsopʼs Letters, Conversations with Recollections of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, 1836

A Believer in God Asks, “What Difference Does it Make?”

I believe in God, although I live very happily with atheists… It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God…
One day a man was asked if there were any true atheists. Do you think, he replied, that there are any true Christians?
Denis Diderot (1713-1784), cited in Against the Faith by Jim Herrick

Is It Ever Proper to Act As If God Did Not Exist?

There is a wonderful Hasidic story about a rabbi who was asked whether it is ever proper to act as if God did not exist. He responded, “Yes, when you are asked to give to charity, you should give as if there were no God to help the object of the charity.”
Alan Dershowitz, Letters to a Young Lawyer

Should We Use the Concept of God To Make a Better World?

I am not of the opinion that we should make use of the concept of God in striving for a better world. This, it seems to me, is incompatible with the integrity of a modern cultured person.
Albert Einstein

What Have Atheists (And Others Who Are Not “Orthodox Evangelical Christians”) Done For Mankind?

If it were not for a host of scientists who happened to be either lapsed churchgoers, unorthodox Christians, heretics, apostates, infidels, freethinkers, agnostics, or atheists, and their successes in the fields of agricultural and medical science, hundreds of millions would have starved to death or suffered innumerable diseases this past century. Those agricultural and medical scientists “multiplied more loaves of bread” and “prevented/healed more diseases” in the past hundred years than Christianity has in the past two thousand.
Also, it has not always been the most orthodox of Christians who have changed the face of charity worldwide for the better. Florence Nightingale (the lady who helped make nursing a legitimate profession, and taught that no one should be refused admittance to a hospital based on their religious affiliation, and no patient should be proselytized in a hospital, but instead they should be allowed to see whichever clergyperson they preferred) was not an orthodox Christian, but instead a freethinking universalist Christian. (Ms. Nightingale also wrote a few steamy letters that suggest she may have been bi-sexual or a lesbian.) The founder of the International Red Cross (now called the International Red Cross and Red Crescent), Andre Dunant, was gay. Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross, was another freethinking universalist Christian. Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who spend years in Africa as a doctor and helped to publicize the plight of suffering Africans, was a liberal Christian and author of The Search of the Historical Jesus in which he concluded that Jesus was a man who preached that the world was going to end soon. And, Helen Keller (the woman who lost her sight and hearing to a bout with Scarlet Fever when she was very young, but who learned how to communicate via touch, and who proved an inspiration to several generations of folks suffering from severe disabilities) was both a Swedenborgian, and a member of the American Humanist Society.

Atheists on Atheism

A person holding or doing something they love is not meaningless in the absence of any gods; on the contrary, the absence of any gods requires that we find meaning in precisely what we can hold and do. My views donʼt leave me with nothing - instead, they leave me with quite a lot which I can hold and do.
Austin Cline, Mailbag: Meaning of Life Sunday September 30, 2007
Let a woman (or a man) be on the Earth, and let them be surrounded by family, friends, and opportunities for growth and understanding. Let them live a human life with access to a range of human goods. How can a theist argue that such a life is meaningless? Even given the atheistʼs belief in lifeʼs finitude, such a life would still contain many important goods capable of carving a niche for meaningfulness in the face of suffering that that woman (or man) may endure along the way. Relationships, understanding and love are the ultimate sources of meaning for a human life. By themselves they give our lives their significance and value, so much so that even theists craft their idea of eternal beatitude from the idea of a life where the supply of these goods never ends.
-Di Muzio, Gianluca. “Theism and the Meaning of Life,” Ars Disputandi 6:1 (2006), pp. 138-139 [edited by EB]

An Atheist Who Prefers the Term “Earthling”

I give blood. I volunteer my organs. I donate to charities. I return my shopping cart. I never needed religion to puppeteer me through life and tell me how to feel about gays, abortion, and capital punishment or how to raise my kid. When people ask me what I am, I say Earthling.
William P.OʼNeil, “Playing the God Card,” Chicago Tribune, Feb. 10, 2000

An Atheist Who Argues That Donating Blood Makes Greater Practical & Moral Sense Than the Idea of “Blood Atonement”

I just returned from the Blood Connection in my home town where I spent an hour giving red blood cells and having the plasma pumped back into my arm. I was told that my blood might help save someoneʼs life. And, if it was someone injured by doing something stupid (such as driving while intoxicated and getting in an accident), I have (in effect) given my blood so they might have life, which is what Christians proclaim Jesus did. He shed his blood for our “sins” in which we “damaged our souls” irrevocably by breaking Godʼs law. The theological term here is “vicarious atonement” where one sheds oneʼs blood for the “sins” of others so that they may “live” and not “die eternally.” (I used the plural word, “others,” because I was told that products produced from my blood or plasma might be used to save the lives of more than one individual). And I have mentioned the parallels between my real-life blood donation and blood-letting metaphors in the Bible because I used to be a Baptist preacher, and spent six years in colleges and seminaries. In 1997 I was elected “Man of the Year” were I worked, however the supervisor told his secretary that he would not hand over the “Man of theYear” award to a “damned atheist.” So he gave the award to a Christian on the staff (so much for the separation of Church and State). Now nearly a decade later things are looking up for Harry the “damned atheist.” The Christian whom my supervisor gave the “Man of the Year” award, was fired; the supervisor died; yet here I am still alive and giving blood to save the lives of others.
Harry McCall, contributor to Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists [In all modesty, Harry, above, who is a friend of mine, neglected to add that he also gave one of his kidneys to save the life of one of his daughters.—E.T.B.]

Doubt may have “some divinity” about it.
Atheism may be comparatively popular with God himself.
Let God alone if need be. Methinks, if I loved him more, I should keep him-I should keep myself, rather-at a more respectful distance. It is not when I am going to meet him, but when I am just turning away and leaving him alone, that I discover that God is. I say, God. I am not sure that is the name. You will know whom I mean.
When a pious visitor inquired sweetly, “Henry, have you made your peace with God?” he replied, “We have never quarreled.”
Henry David Thoreau as quoted in Henry David Thoreau: What Manner of Man? By Edward Wagenknecht

Believing hath a core of unbelieving.
Robert Williams Buchanan: Songs of Seeking

I donʼt believe anything, but I have many suspicions.
I suspect that this world shows signs of an… intelligence [that] acts via feedback from all parts to all parts and without centralized sovereignity, like Internet; and that it does not function hierarchically, in the style of an Oriental despotism, an American corporation or Christian theology.
I somewhat suspect that Theism and Atheism both fail to account for such decentralized intelligence, rich in circular-causal feedback.
I more-than-half suspect that all “good” writing, or all prose and poetry that one wants to read more than once, proceeds from a kind of “alteration in consciousness,” i.e. a kind of controlled schizophrenia. (Donʼt become alarmed — I think good acting comes from the same place.)
I sometimes suspect that what Blake called Poetic Imagination expresses this exact thought in the language of his age, and that visits by"angels" and "gods" states it an even more archaic argot.
These suspicions have grown over 72 years, but as a rather slow and stupid fellow I do not have the chutzpah to proclaim any of them as certitudes. Give me another 72 years and maybe Iʼll arrive at firmer conclusions.
An evangelical Christian once told me, “Only Jesus Christ can save man and restore him to his lost state of peace with God, himself and others.” Yeah, sure, and only new Pepsi can make you feel really happy, and only our brand is better than the competition, and only our country is the best country. It is truly amazing to me that people can utter such arrogant nonsense with no humor, no sense of how offensive they are to others, no doubt or trepidation, and no suspicion that they sound exactly like advertisers, con-men and other swindlers. It is really hard to understand such child-like prattling. If I were especially conceited about something (a state I try to avoid, but if I fell into it.), if for instance I decided I had the best garden or the handsomest face in Ireland, I would still retain enough common sense to suspect that I would sound like a conceited fool if I went around telling everybody those opinions. I would have enough tact left, I hope, to satisfy my conceit by dreaming that other people would notice on their own that my garden and/or my face were especially lovely. People who go around innocently and blithely announcing that they belong to the Master Race or the Best Country Club or have the One True Religion seem to have never gotten beyond the kindergarten level of ego-display. Do they have no modesty, no tact, no shame, no adult common sense at all? Do they have any suspicion how silly their conceit sounds to the majority of the nonwhite non-Christian men and women of the world? To me, they seem like little children wearing daddyʼs clothes and going around shouting, “Look how grown-up I am! Look at me, me, me!”
There are more amusing things than ego-games, conceit and one-upmanship… I suspect that people stay on that childish level because they have never discovered how interesting and exciting the adult world is.
If one must play ego-games, I still think it would be more polite, and more adult, to play them in the privacy of oneʼs head. In fact, despite my efforts to be a kind of Buddhist, I do relapse into such ego-games on occasion; but I have enough respect for human intelligence to keep such thoughts to myself. I donʼt go around announcing that I have painted the greatest painting of our time; I hope that people will notice that by themselves. Why do the people whose ego-games consist of day-dreaming about being part of the Master Race or the One True Religion not keep that precious secret to themselves, also, and wait for the rest of the human race to notice their blinding superiority?
The experts on Heaven disagree about which conglomeration of religious believers will qualify, but they always seem to think that they personally belong to that elite group. An eternity with people that conceited seems intolerable to me.
An idea, which has terrified millions, claims that some of us will go to a place called Hell, where we will suffer eternal torture. This does not scare me because, when I try to imagine a Mind behind this universe, I cannot conceive that Mind, usually called “God,” as totally mad. I mean, guys, compare that “God” with the worst monsters you can think of-Adolph Hitler, Joe Stalin, that sort of guy. None of them ever inflicted more than finite pain on their victims. Even de Sade, in his sado-masochistic fantasy novels, never devised an unlimited torture. The idea that the Mind of Creation (if such exists) wants to torture some of its critters for endless infinities of infinities seems too absurd to take seriously. Such a deranged Mind could not create a mud hut, much less the exquisitely mathematical universe around us.
If such a monster-God did exist, the sane attitude would consist of practicing the Buddhist virtue of compassion. Donʼt give way to hatred: try to understand and forgive him. Maybe He will recover his wits some day.
Thoughts of Robert Anton Wilson

We are children of this planet… we have come forth from it. We are its eyes and mind, its seeing and its thinking. And the earth, together with its sun… came forth from a nebula; and that nebula, in turn, from space. No wonder then, if its laws and ours are the same.
Joseph Campbell

You are an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself… We do not ‘come into’ this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean ‘waves,’ the universe ‘peoples.’ Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe…
Itʼs like you took a bottle of ink and you threw it at a wall. Smash! And all that ink spread. And in the middle, itʼs dense, isnʼt it? And as it gets out on the edge, the little droplets get finer and finer and make more complicated patterns, see? So in the same way, there was a big bang at the beginning of things and it spread. And you and I, sitting here in this room, as complicated human beings, are way, way out on the fringe of that bang. We are the complicated little patterns on the end of it. Very interesting. But so we define ourselves as being only that… as one very complicated little curlique, way out on the edge of that explosion. Way out in space, and way out in time. But billions of years ago, you were a big bang, and now youʼre a complicated human being. We donʼt feel that weʼre still the big bang. But you are… Youʼre not just something thatʼs a result of the big bang. Youʼre not something that is a sort of puppet on the end of the process. You are also still the process. You are the big bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are. When I meet you, I see not just what you define yourself as—Mr so-and- so, Ms so-and-so, Mrs so-and-so—I see every one as the primordial energy of the universe coming on at me in this particular way. I know Iʼm that, too. But weʼve learned to define ourselves as separate from it.
Alan Watts

The Oddness of Existence

The extreme oddness of Existence is what reconciles me to it.
I got up with Stoic fortitude of mind in the cold this morning; but afterwards, in my hot bath, I joined the school of Epicurus. I was a Materialist at breakfast; after that an Idealist; and as I smoked my first cigarette I transcendentally turned the world to vapour. But when I began to read The Times I had no doubt of an externally existing world.
So all the morning and all the afternoon opinions kept flowing into and out of my mind; till by the time the enormous day was over, it had been filled by most of the widely-known Theories of Existence, and emptied of them.
When, now and then, on a calm night I look up at the Stars, I reflect on the wonders of Creation, the unimportance of this Planet, and the possible existence of other worlds like ours. Sometimes the self-poised and passionless shining of those serene orbs is what I think of; sometimes Kantʼs phrase comes into my mind about the majesty of the Starry Heavens and the Moral Law; or I remember Xenophanes gazing up at the broad firmament, and crying, ‘The All is One!’ and thus, in that sublime assertion, enunciating for the first time the great doctrine of the Unity of Being.
But these Thoughts are not my thoughts; they eddy through my mind like scraps of old paper, or withered leaves in the wind. What I really feel is the survival of a much more primitive mood-a view of the world which dates indeed from before the invention of language. It has never been put into literature; no poet has sung of it, no historian of human thought has so much as alluded to it; astronomers in their glazed observatories, with their eyes glued to the ends of telescopes, seem to have had no notion of it.
But sometimes, far off at night, I have heard a dog howling at the Moon.
Thoughts of Logan Pearsall Smith, All Trivia

Peopleʼs Beliefs Are Multi-Faceted

There appear to be multiple sides or facets to all of our beliefs and how we feel about things. Thatʼs because our minds are constantly in motion, weighing, assessing, hypothesizing, re-weighing, re-assessing, re-hypothesizing, over and over again.
As Neil Gaiman puts it…
I can believe things that are true and things that arenʼt true and I can believe things where nobody knows if theyʼre true or not.
I believe in a personal god who cares about me and worries and oversees everything I do. I believe in an impersonal god who set the universe in motion and went off to hang with her girlfriends and doesnʼt even know that Iʼm alive. I believe in an empty and godless universe of causal chaos, background noise, and sheer blind luck.
I believe that anyone who claims to know whatʼs going on will lie about the little things too.
I believe in absolute honesty and sensible social lies.
I believe that life is a game, that life is a cruel joke, and that life is what happens when youʼre alive and that you might as well lie back and enjoy it.
Neil Gaiman, American Gods

Which of These Four Gods Do You Believe In?

Using conclusions drawn from the Baylor Religion Survey first published in 2006, two Baylor University professors theorize that Americansʼ view of God can be characterized as one of four basic types:
  • Authoritative (different from Authoritarian?)
    28% of Americans believe in an authoritative god that is very judgmental and engaged in the world. These types of believers tend to be evangelical and male.
  • Benevolent
    22% of Americans believe in a benevolent god that is very involved in the world, but is loving and not stern. These tend to be evangelical women.
  • Critical
    21% of Americans believe in a critical god who is removed from daily events but will render judgment in the afterlife. There is a tendency for African Americans and people who have lower levels of income and education to believe in the critical god.
  • Distant
    24% of Americans believe in a distant god who set the universe in motion but then disengaged. People who say that they are spiritual but not religious tend to believe in the distant god.
By knowing which of the four types of God an American believes in, these scholars can predict that personʼs views on many of the pressing issues facing the country.
As an antidote to the prevailing but simplistic dichotomy between religious and nonreligious Americans, this thesis is more nuanced. But it, too, has its limitations. Itʼs not clear that people stick to one view their whole lives, and it doesnʼt fully account for the views of those who occupy middle ground, somewhere between a judgmental and forgiving God. Still, the fourfold God typology is a step toward better understanding how Americans regard morality, how they understand the presence of evil, and what narrative they tell about their lives. See also the review here.
Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, stated in response to such research that God encompasses all of the four types. Though I hope Mohler also admits that human beings do not appear to encompass all four types of God equally in their minds. Perhaps Mohler himself does not. I wonder what his results would be if he took the online test to determine which type of God he envisioned?

“The most zealous defenders of the inspiration of the Bible admit that there are parts of it of less importance than others. This is a great admission, because another is involved in it, namely that we ourselves must be judges of the comparative importance of these different parts.”
Thomas Erskine, Scottish Christian

What Could Be More Divisive Than The Gap Between Theists & Atheists? How About the Gap Between Exclusivists & Inclusivists? Between Damnationists & Universalists?

Some believe that people get sorted into one of two radically different places after they die, with no hope of repentance, learning their lessons, or resumption of harmonious relations throughout eternity.
Others believe or at least hope that the vast majority, if not everyone, will eventually arrive at the same destination after they die.
  • Type a) includes conservative religious believers or spin offs from conservative religious belief.
  • Type b) includes very moderate to liberal, or highly inclusivist to hopeful universalist religious believers.
  • Type a) often have trouble understanding, empathizing or getting along with people in “rival” religions and “cults,” or even with those in their own Christian denomination or church whose “rival” biblical interpretations or views of ecclesiastical authority can often escalate into fears that “others” (including close family or friends) might be on a slippery slope into “hell” for disagreeing with them on this or that matter of faith or practice.
For instance, Christians have remained throughout history the foremost debunkers of each otherʼs biblical interpretations, ecclesiastical rites, and social agendas. See, “Are You a True Christian?
  • Meanwhile, Type b)ʼs tend to get along well with people in other religions as well as with atheists. Those who are highly inclusivist, or universalists (including those who hope that the vast majority, if not all, will eventually wind up in heaven) even seem to get along well with agnostics and atheists.

The Criminal History of Christianity by Karlheinz Deschner

Richard Dawkins and Karl Heinrich Leopold Deschner

Karl Heinrich Leopold Deschner (born on May 23, 1924, in Bamberg, Germany), is a German researcher and writer who has achieved public attention in Europe for his thorough and critical treatment of Christianity (and Catholicism in particular) as expressed in articles and books (that have appeared thus far in Spanish, Italian, Polish and his native German), culminating in his magum opus The Criminal History of Christianity (Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, Rowohlt Verlag GmbH, Reinbek) which is planned in 10 volumes, of which 9 have been published so far.

Hans Kung (bestselling Catholic theologian) speaking about Deschner:

During the time of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) the Catholic Church enjoyed a generally high public standing. At the beginning of the third millennium after Christ, however, it is being attacked more than ever in some quarters. Granted, Rome has recently been asking for forgiveness for the monstrous errors and atrocities of the past—but in the meantime, the present-day church administration and Inquisition are producing still more victims. Scarcely any of the great institutions in our democratic age deal in such a despicable way with critics and those of other views in their own ranks, nor does any discriminate so much against women—by prohibiting contraceptives, the marriage of priests, and the ordination of women. None polarizes society and politics worldwide to such a degree by rigid positions in matters of abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia, positions always invested with an aura of infallibility, as if they were the will of God himself. In view of the apparent inability on the part of the Catholic Church to correct and reform itself, is it not understandable that at the beginning of the third Christian millennium the more or less benevolent indifference widely shown to the church around fifty years ago has turned into hatred, indeed, public hostility? Antagonistic church historians and critics are of the opinion that in the churchʼs two-thousand-year history no organic process maturing [of doctrines and dogmas] can be detected, but rather something more like a criminal history. A once-Catholic author, Karlheinz Deschner, has devoted his life and so far six [now nine, with a tenth on the way] volumes to such a history. In it he describes every possible form of criminality in the churchʼs foreign policy and in policies relating to trade, finance, and education; in the dissemination of ignorance and superstition; in the unscrupulous exploitation of sexual morality, marriage laws, and penal justice… and so on, for hundreds [now 8,000] pages.*

*Though Drescherʼs works have translated into several European languages only a few paragraphs have thus far been translated into English (see below)—but if one is interested in present-day religion-related abuses and crimes, click here.

Synopsis Of Christianityʼs Criminal History, Volume 7, 13th and 14th Centuries by Karlheinz Deschner:

“The Middle Ages,” noted Nietzsche, “is the era of the greatest passions.” How these passions expressed themselves in the 13th and 14th Centuries is related by Karlheinz Deschner in the newest volume of his Christianityʼs Criminal History.

At the beginning of this epoch stood Emperor Henry VI, who claimed for himself dominium mundi, world rule—with or without the blessing of the Pope. At the end stood Emperor Charles IV, who ruled the Holy Roman Empire until 1378. The most powerful ecclesiastical opponent of this imperium was Pope Gregory IX (1227 to 1241), who demanded from the emperor his right to crusades and who managed internal security by means of the Inquisition.

Events of this period: the decisive power struggle between emperor and papacy, the fall of the Hohenstauffen and the end of papal universal domination, the papal bull “Unam Sanctam,” the Mongol Invasion, the Sicilian Vesper, the “Babylonian Captivity” of the popes in exile in Avignon, increasingly devastating anti-Jewish pogroms, crusades in every direction, among them that of Frederick II, the Crusades of Louis I the Holy to Egypt and Tunis, the Crusades of Christians against Christians, against the Albigensians, the Stedinger, the grotesque Childrenʼs Crusade, the destruction of the Templars, the destruction of the Pastorells, the notorious terrorist regime of the German Order, the extermination of the “heathen” in the Northeast of Europe, the suppression of the Balts, the Prussians — and not least the totalitarian Inquisition meant to suppress every stirring of intellectual freedom.

Deschnerʼs meticulous, irrefutable presentation of evidence from eye witnesses who were previously silenced or distorted reveals the very Christian Middle Ages as the high water mark of ruthless power politics involving both secular thrones and the Holy See.

Excerpts From Christianityʼs Criminal History, Volume 7, 13th and 14th Centuries by Karlheinz Deschner:

In the course of sacred history punishments became more and more severe and salutary. The Councils of Reims in 1157 and Oxford in 1160 had imposed facial branding on heretics. Even Innocent III threatened the Albigenses at first “only” with banishment and confiscation. But thereafter capital punishment became more and more frequent with various forms of execution appearing. In Cologne, Nuremberg and Regensburg “heretics” were occasionally drowned, in Würzburg beheaded, but death by fire became the rule for such an offense.

Death by fire, usually on a holiday, became a demonstration of the Churchʼs virtual omnipotence, as a grandiose ritual sacrifice, more popular than any other religious holiday. This human sacrifice was given a Portuguese name, autodafé, which in Latin is actus fidei. It was “an act of faith,” unquestionably the most ardent in the history of religion. Special couriers spread the invitation, the condemned were led forth before crowds of onlookers, special prices were paid for window seats, and every good Catholic who could bring forth wood for the fire was certain of a welcome absolution. This splendid opportunity has been denied the Catholic world since the 19th Century, for the last autodafé was probably celebrated in Mexico in 1815 (the first in 1481 in Seville).

Spiritual and worldly princes participated. The Grand Inquisitor handed over the condemned to the civil authorities following high mass and a sermon in a public square or house of God, not without expressing his heartfelt wish that the “life and limbs” of these people might be spared. The condemned were brought to the place of execution, usually wearing a foolʼs cap to symbolize their mindless perversity, clothed in bright yellow sackcloth and covered with the most outrageous images of the Devil, so that even the most dimwitted Catholic might easily recognize the spiritual father of these miscreants. These bystanders would often express their brotherly love in the usual fashion: by beating the condemned with canes, pinching them with glowing tongs and sometimes chopping off their right hands. In order to spare the delicate sensibilities of Godʼs people, the “heretics” were often gagged to muffle their screams, so that nothing could be heard but the almost cozy crackling of the flames and the chanting of the priests. And while the victims, depending on wind direction, either suffocated or slowly roasted to death, the assembled Christian community, nobility, common people and clergy, all sang: “Almighty God, we praise Thee.”

The courts of the Inquisition were the noblest courts of the Church and shielded from every profane influence. They were deemed immune to corruption; they usually adorned themselves with the attributes “holy” and “most holy.” For the filthier something is, the more it must be verbally rid of filth, embellished, ennobled, elevated to glory and majesty.

Official Church proclamations glorified the Inquisition, as did popes such as Innocent IV and Clemens IV in their papal bulls of March 23, 1254 and February 26, 1266. The inquisitors themselves were placed in an illustrious line of descent stretching back to an entire gallery of glorious Old Testament gangsters, with Saul, e.g., with David (I, 85 ff.!), Joshua (I, 83 f.) and others. But even Jesus, John the Baptist and Peter were numbered in the inquisitorial pedigree. Indeed, God Himself, the expeller of Adam and Eve from Paradise, was viewed as nothing less than the first “inquisitor.” These murdering thugs were in any case agents of the pope. Their derived their plenipotentiary authority everywhere and at all times from him alone.

Prisons of the Inquisitions, Places of Unspeakable Cruelty

The courts of the Inquisition were opened by an invocation to the Holy Spirit [whom, it is promised to believers in the NT, “will lead you unto all truth”].

Prayer also preceded the pronouncement of judgment.

The verdict, however, even in cases of extreme doubt, was not subject to appeal to secular courts, which functioned merely as an executive tool of the Church courts, whose sentences they were to carry out “blindly” (coeca obedientia) and “with closed eyes” (oculis clausis).

Numerous papal bulls sharply admonished the princes to damn well do their duty. Not only the doges of Venice were finally obliged by their oath of office to burn heretics. Otto IV of the Welf dynasty promised “effective support” in the eradication of “evil heresies” as much as his opponent, Frederick II of the Hohenstaufen dynasty, who in fact went further and demanded of all his subordinates, consuls, and rectors that “they in their respective lands make every effort to exterminate everyone designated by the Church as a heretic.” This obligation was confirmed by a public oath, under penalty of deposition and loss of their lands. These oaths proved to be effective.

The popes did everything in their power to ensure that the demands and orders of the inquisitors be quickly obeyed, that the inquisitors themselves be granted armed escort, and especially that the inquisitorial decrees be incorporated into the secular law codes. Innocent IV wrote in his bull “Cum adversus haereticam” of May 28, 1252:

“As the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick has pass certain laws against the heretical evil, by which laws the spread of this plague might be hindered, and as we desire that these laws be observed for the strengthening of the faith and the salvation of the faithful, so we order the beloved sons who are in authority to incorporate these laws, whose exact wording is attached, into their statues, and to proceed against the heretics with great zeal. Therefore we order you [the inquisitors], when these authorities fulfill our orders carelessly, to force them to compliance by means of excommunication and interdiction … We utterly curse those who have fallen from the Catholic faith, we pursue them with punishment, we rob them of their fortunes, deny them succession and revoke any and all their rights.”

The usual punishment for “heretics” was incarceration, often for life. In a partially preserved register of sentences of the Inquisition in Toulouse from the years 1246 to 1248, of 149 prisoners six were serving 10 years, 16 an indeterminate time based on the discretion of the Church, and 127 were serving life terms.

The prisons of the Inquisition were places of unimaginable cruelty, dark and confined by papal prescription, usually without any light or ventilation but full of filth and stench. The clergy filled these places to the point that Gregory IX ordered the building of more and promised generous indulgences to Christians who would contribute to their construction. Sentences served in these hellholes were far worse than any quick death by fire at the stake. Men and women often languished for years without being sentenced or acquitted. A man by the name of Wilhelm Salavert was first interrogated on February 24, 1300 and finally sentenced on September 30, 1319, after 19 years of uninterrupted misery. A woman in Toulouse was “reprieved to bearing the Cross” after lying in the local prisons for 33 years.

(from Karlheinz Deschnerʼs Christianityʼs Criminal History, Volume 7, p. 260 ff.)

Torture, the Most Compelling Instrument of Christian Brotherly Love

Of the three types of Inquisitorial conviction—purification, recantation, torture—“torture is the most suitable. Because heresy is difficult to prove, the judge of the Inquisition should be inclined toward the use of torture: ad torturam judex debet esse promptior.” (Antonius Diana, Consultant to the Sicilian Inquisition)

Augustine, both saint and doctor of the Church and the archetype of all medieval “heretic”-hunters, had already allowed torture against the Donatists, defending it as a trifle when compared to the agonies of hell. He called it a “cure,” an “emendatio.”

Bishop Anselm of Lucca among others in the 11th Century further developed Augustineʼs “heresy” argumentation. Expelled by his own clergy in 1080, he had a quite correct understanding of Augustine: proceeding against evil is not persecution but an expression of love. And Bishop Bonizo of Sutri, blinded and maimed by his own Christians in 1089, called for “combating” schismatics and worse dissenters “with all vigor and weapons.” He did not hesitate to attribute to Augustine the view “that all those are blessed who persecute for the sake of righteousness.”

This most compelling instrument of Christian brotherly love was already being employed north of the Alps during the Carolingian period but did not being to flourish until the 13th Century when Innocent IV, in his bull “Ad exstirpanda” of 1252, called for the use of torture and its canonical regulation in the fight against “heretics” in northern Italy. This policy expanded to include all of Italy in 1256 and was confirmed in the following years by Popes Alexander IV and Clemens IV.

In 1261 Urban IV allowed inquisitors, under whose robust manner of opinion research delinquents might expire, to mutually absolve one another. It was after all not permitted to torture to death a person being questioned. In such a case the inquisitor would face excommunication, from which he could be immediately freed, however, by a priest of the Inquisition uttering the formula: “Ego te absolvo.”

(from Karlheinz Deschnerʼs Christianityʼs Criminal History, Volume 7, p. 266ff)

REVIEWS of Deschnerʼs “Christianityʼs Criminal History”:

“How a religion of love became a religion of worldly power—provocative, discomforting, richly detailed: Karlheinz Deschnerʼs ambitious Christianityʼs Criminal History”—Prof. Ludger Lütkehaus, Badische Zeitung, 29.11.1988

“A shocking panorama of fraud and deceit, blood and murder under the sign of the Cross … The author recounts conscientiously, even in pedantic detail, the multitude of clerical, Christian crimes dating back to the earliest days of the Church. He demolishes with crushing blows monumental figures such as the great Constantine … The venerable doctors of the Church such as Athanasius, Ambrose, and Augustine lose their halos entirely… . Of course there is another side to the story… But that does not negate Deschnerʼs account. He brings to light what has been diligently suppressed, falsified, and played down through two Christian millennia.”—Heinz Schönfeldt, «Mannheimer Morgen»

“Deschner doesnʼt believe in wounding blows. He goes for the throat … And what is the result? A mammoth project. The crowing completion of a lifelong altercation: Christianityʼs Criminal History.”—Dietmar Bittrich, «Hamburger Abendblatt»

“A standard work based on a thorough study of the sources… The absolutely breathtaking descriptions, whose factual content are irrefutable, present a single, massive indictment of Christianity and show to what astonishing degree the gospel of love and mercy preached by Jesus was betrayed again and again. A book which will challenge and shake those above all who cherish a heartfelt commitment to the message of the Gospel.”—Lieselotte von Eltz-Hoffmann, «Salzburger Nachrichten»

“Deschner is not a modern Don Quixote, nor a Michael Kohlhaas. He is a modern proponent of the Enlightenment who still believes in the power of reason. He does not perceive the necessity of a new myth to replace a demystified Christianity no longer able to offer salvation. This fact distinguishes him from some modern critics of the Church who still feel allegiance to some interpretation of primitive Christianity. Deschner is without compromise in this regard.”—Rolf Gawrich, «Frankfurter Rundschau»

“Christianityʼs Criminal History is the name of this work which has now expanded to two volumes and which will eventually encompass a few more volumes as an opus maximum: in its projected entirety probably the most comprehensive critical history of Christianity ever. The title is intended in its absolute, literal sense. Deschner is set on laying forth an uncompromising account of Christianityʼs ‘history of crime.’ The spine title, formulated perhaps out of publication considerations, expresses extenuating circumstances which the book itself does not offer. And ‘Christianityʼs Criminal History’ is also to be understood in the sense of criminal detection, proof and exposure of the crime and the culprits. The halo which has customarily surrounded said criminal history is relentlessly attacked by Deschner as a monstrous hypocrisy.

The monumental figures of sacred history are in fact toppled right and left: the church doctors, the dogmatic patriarchs, the early popes, the “most” Christian emperors: Ambrose, Augustine, Athanasius, Basil, Clemens, Eusebius, Jerome, Irenaeus, Lactantius… A litany of saints of blessed memory becomes an unholy litany of scoundrels one would prefer to forget. Volume 1 is already in its fifth printing and covers the time from Old Testament origins to the death of Saint Augustine. Volume 2 deals with that period from the Catholic “children emperors” to the extermination of the Arian Vandals and Ostrogoths under Justinian I. What these two books reveal is a blood-drenched trail as remote as one can imagine from a message of love and mercy, not a story of salvation but a monstrous catastrophe. In this context, the expression “Christian persecutions” acquires a painfully ironic twist: out of the victims arise the oppressors.

Marshalling arguments against this awful compilation of factual evidence will be difficult. It may be that Deschner in cases of doubt always decides against the accused. As a whole, however, this massive study, whose origins date back to the 1950s, is painstakingly thorough and researched with a scholarly diligence without equal. The first two volumes contain almost 2,000 secondary titles, 130 pages of footnotes and annotations, in addition to a user-friendly, detailed index, all of which makes this compendium of crime a fatally effective reference work. This impressive apparatus also conveys a simple message: the author knows that in spite of all the recognition heʼs received — in 1988 he received the Arno-Schmidt-Prize for his uncompromising literary production — he is not going to be easily, at any rate not voluntarily believed.”—Prof Dr. Ludger Lütkehaus, «Freiburger Universitätsblätter» herausgegeben im Auftrag des Rektors der Albert-LudwigsUniversität Freiburg

“Deschnerʼs Christianityʼs Criminal History should not be absent from any serious scholarly library. It is a standard work, an organon including all the major themes, a necessary corrective of great value belonging on the shelf next to the works of Augustine, the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas and the Lexica für Theologie und Kirche of our own day.“—Helmut Häußler, Freigeistige Aktion, Hannover

“I am reminded of 18th Century proponents of the Enlightenment such as the Frenchmen Pierre Bayle, Claude Helvetius, and Voltaire or the German poet Heinrich Heine. Now the 20th Century also has its book, Deschnerʼs Christianityʼs Criminal History.… Thanks to Deschnerʼs back-breaking research, the suspicion that Christianity has skeletons in its closet becomes an absolutely certainty. Widely known facts are beginning to replace mere suspicions, and what we learn about reality exceeds even the products of our fantasy.”—Prof. Dr. theol. Horst Herrmann, Der Spiegel

“The Criminal History is a massive work, a lifeʼs work, perhaps the centuryʼs work. So brilliant is the analysis and captivating the style, bold, cutting, skilful, never looking back or down; independent, creative greatness at work.”—Volker A. Zahn, Kölner Illustrierte

“Deschnerʼs Criminal History not just fills a huge gap. It is THE standard work of alternative church history. With his stupendous, comprehensive grasp of detail, the author of this work of the century makes a pressing, existential issue out of the lives and views of those who have defied the Church through the centuries.”—Prof. Dr. theol. Hubertus Mynarek

Quotations from Drescher:

My skepticism keeps me from becoming a fanatic, which is something no faith has ever achieved.

“I would rather err with the majority than in my own way,” so thought St. Augustine. I am just the opposite.

The superstition that a belief based on faith is different from a superstition is the greatest superstition of all.

SNIPPETS from Drescher, cited in someone elseʼs article on the web:

“The Churchʼs efforts of putting an end to the common practice of plundering shipwrecked sailors in the Middle Ages, didnʼt include Arabs or other infidels. The Church didnʼt see any wrong in sending non-Christian prisoners of war into slavery. In the 17th century the Scottish clergy teached that one under no circumstances whatsoever should give food or shelter to a hungry human being if he didnʼt have an orthodox Christian faith (Deschner).

The ninth commandment of not bearing false witness seems to be a tough one for God himself since he tells lies via his own prophets (1 Kings 22:23, 2.Chr. 18:22. Jer. 4:10, 20:7 Ezek 14:9) and deceives(2.Thess 2:11-12). St Paul also admits using lies and deception to spread the word of God (Rom 3:7, 1.Cor 1:19-23). The biblical texts also forge the very word of God (Jer. 8:8). Jehovah also admits this in Ezek 20,25 “Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.” Even the noble Church Father Origen thinks it should be allowed to lie and deceive to save souls. According to Origen Godʼs love justifies him using lies. Church father John Chrysostom (Golden mouth) thought lies were necessary for saving the soul (Deschner Karlheinz, 1972: ”Abermals krähte der Hahn” Stuttgart, p. 30). Bishop and Church historian Euseb of Cæsarea (ca 265-430 AD) claimed openly that the Church should use deception and fraud if it was in the interest of the Church. The founder of the Jesuit order, Ignatius Loyola, wrote in the 16 th century ”We should always be open for what seems white to us, in reality is black if the leaders of the Church should decide so.”

Additional Books by Deschner

Why I Left the Church (1970)—a book of testimonies from people who left the fold. With contributions by G. von Frankenberg, K. Port, R. Mächler, J. Bjorneboe, F. Vester, G. Zwerenz, K. Harpprecht, W. Baranowsky, O.F. Gmelin, W. Beutin, H. Wollschläger, J. Kahl

Memento! (1999)—A Little Lesson About the “Great Act of Atonement” of the Pope in the Holy Year 2000. In the Holy Year 2000 the Pope asked forgiveness for his organization in a “great act of atonement” from all the millions of victims of crimes committed in the name of Christ through the centuries. Deschner helps the Holy Father search his conscience. Every line of this deeply disturbing litany of crimes cries out “Remember!” - “Memento!”

TV Program About Deschner, on Youtube.com, in Seven Parts (in German)
1/7 Die hasserfüllten Augen des Herrn Deschner

New Book: Philosophers without Gods (nineteen leading philosophers open a window on the inner life of atheism)

Philosophers without gods

Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life by Louise M. Antony (Oxford University Press, 2007)

Book Description [from the publisher]
Atheists are frequently demonized as arrogant intellectuals, antagonistic to religion, devoid of moral sentiments, advocates of an “anything goes” lifestyle. Now, in this revealing volume, nineteen leading philosophers open a window on the inner life of atheism, shattering these common stereotypes as they reveal how they came to turn away from religious belief. These highly engaging personal essays capture the marvelous diversity to be found among atheists, providing a portrait that will surprise most readers. Many of the authors, for example, express great affection for particular religious traditions, even as they explain why they cannot, in good conscience, embrace them. None of the contributors dismiss religious belief as stupid or primitive, and several even express regret that they cannot, or can no longer, believe. Perhaps more important, in these reflective pieces, they offer fresh insight into some of the oldest and most difficult problems facing the human mind and spirit. For instance, if God is dead, is everything permitted? Philosophers Without Gods demonstrates convincingly, with arguments that date back to Plato, that morality is independent of the existence of God. Indeed, every writer in this volume adamantly affirms the objectivity of right and wrong. Moreover, they contend that secular life can provide rewards as great and as rich as religious life. A naturalistic understanding of the human condition presents a set of challenges—to pursue our goals without illusions, to act morally without hope of reward—challenges that can impart a lasting value to finite and fragile human lives. Collectively, these essays highlight the richness of atheistic belief—not only as a valid alternative to religion, but as a profoundly fulfilling and moral way of life.

About the Author
Louise M. Antony is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. She is the author of A Mind of Oneʼs Own and Chomsky and His Critics.

Related Works

The Cambridge Companion to Atheism
Cambridge Companions to Philosophy
(published Oct. 2006)
by Michael Martin

Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of Americaʼs Nonbelievers
by Bruce E. Hunsberger & Bob Altemeyer

Like Rolling Uphill: Realizing The Honesty Of Atheism
by Dianna Narciso

Nothing: Something to Believe in
by Nica Lalli

My Pilgrim Way,
The Case Against God,
Something Understood—An Autobiography,
Who needs the Church? (The 1982 Barclay lectures), all by Gerald Priestland

What I Believe
by Anthony John Patrick Kenny

Works that Contains A Wider Range of Testimonies

Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists
(nearly three dozen testimonies edited by Edward T. Babinski)

Leaving Fundamentalism (to be published Dec. 2007)
(fifteen testimonies edited by philosophy professor, Dr. G. Elijah Dann)

Walking Away from Faith:
Unraveling the Mystery of Belief and Unbelief
by Ruth A. Tucker

Amazing Conversions:
Why Some Turn to Faith & Others Abandon Religion
by Bob Altemeyer & Bruce Hunsberger

The Courage of Conviction [a collection of varied testimonies from the Dalai Lama to Jane Goodall to Billy Graham]
editor Phillip L. Berman

This I Believe [a collection of varied testimonies]
editors Jay Allison & Dan Gediman

What I Believe:
13 Eminent People of Our Time Argue for Their Philosophy of Life
editor Mark Booth

Journeys in belief (Unwin forum, 2)
editor Bernard Dixon