In most discussions about the existence or non-existnece of God no one bothers to define "God" for the purposes of discussion. I'm only familiar with theology's most basic definitions of God. But it appears to me that most people's idea of God - both for theists and atheists - is of an ominpotent, omnipresent, omnicient and infinitely loving being. However, Polkinghorne, in his admittedly modest attempt to explain the existence of evil in a world ruled by a benevolent God, essentially argues that evil must exist becasue of the complex construction of our non-magical universe. But why would a inifinitely powerful god construct a universe in such a fashion? Is God in fact not all powerful but instead merely the most powerful being in the universe (not a bad position to be in but it's still a demotion). Or does God place some goal or ideal above the suffering his universe inevitably produces. If so, what is that goal? And do we agree with his moral choices?

B., D.C.,

I request to rad the book "Revelation Rationality Knowledge and Trueth" by Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad.

Naushad, Dubai, U A E

In a recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza, Mr. Hitchens rightly pointed out the difference between faith and risk-assessment. The former requires the persistence disregard for one's sense experience, while the latter is dependent upon it.

It is this distinction that separates the rational, scientific view of the world from the theistic view of the world. It is for this reason that science and faith cannot have a mutually beneficial "dialogue".

Jeff Irvin, Stateline, Nevada

I have to correct my statement.

Dawkins does refer to the Muslims as 'malevolent' who tried to stir up religious hatred by drawing very blasphemous cartoons, and pretending they had been drawn by the Danish cartoonists.

Of course, Polkinghorne just quote-mined the word 'malevolent', and pretended that Dawkins was applying the word to more than the 1 in 200 million religious believers that Dawkins applied the word to.

Polkinghorned could do that with any book.

The Bible says Samson, David and Japhthah were 'heroes of faith', although they all killed people. Japhthah for example had his daughter killed.

Is it truthful to claim that the Bible is 'relentlessly rude' about religious believers, calling religious believers child-killers?

Will Polkinghorne now denounce the Bible for its 'relentlessly rude' attacks on religious believers?

By Polkinghorne's logic, he should do.

Steven Carr, Liverpool,

Religion, as we know it, has been a human construct for mostly manupulative reasons. 'True' religion should be one's personal relationship with The Creator through faith alone!

There are those who settle to live like one more creature subjected to time/space. And there are some of us who are just too ambitious to settle for such a pathetic fate!

TapintoyourDivinity.com

Dr. Wandemberg Ph.D., London, UK

Humphrys believes that the case for God made by the Abrahamic faiths is “riddled with holes”.

This article should be titled; 'The truth about abrahamic faiths'. It is highly improper to categorise all religions under the same umbrella.

Although I do respect his views to some extent, without careful thought, especially on the Vedic religions of the East, this article is surely incomplete.

Simon, London, UK

Many things made me react to this article, im to lazy to go through them all but there are 2 small things id like to point out. Mike Asacret has already answered one of them.

The second one is about when Mr. Polkinghorne writes "Attention is focused on inquisitions and crusades, while the significance of Hitler and Stalin is downplayed."

Well, religious people love bringing these two up don't they?
Im don't know that much about Stalin but i do know that Hitler wasn't an atheist and he frequently made references to god in his speeches, in a 1922 speech, he said: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which..."

Mattias, Norrkoping, Sweden

"Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word" said Jesus (Jn 8 v 43)

Suzy Andrews, London , uk

This kind of arguing is more than futile, it's rather more like defending an unsuitable lover to your parents. Jesus had it right: when he said, "They will not believe though one should rise from the dead."

Grace, Parksville, Canada

Lear is a distinctly shaky piece of work, I have no idea why it is held in such high regard. I would imagine that a sheaf of case-notes on senile dementia would be far more illuminating and more satisfying to read, the drama would almost certainly be superior too. Still, at least Hamlet wasn't used as an exemplar, that piece of theatre is almost as annoying, turgid and obfuscatory as Polkinghorne's prose.

I have to say I agree with the following:

"I'm delighted to see that the TLS is aiming to be a bit different from most literary review publications. The rest of the mundane pack might balk at having an ordained priest reviewing books on the topic of atheism, fearing that this might cause the review to be monstrously biased. The TLS, on the other hand, sees past the need for objective reviews - we can, after all, see those anywhere - and presents us with a religious polemic so we may be entertained at its lack of any intellectual grounding. Well done!"

Thank you Marcus Hill.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

A teacher I worked with made a valuable distinction between 'Esoteric', which he defined as 'the study of the inner teachings of the great religions' and 'Exoteric' which he defined as the politicised power structures of the Churches.

Esotericism is much to do with Mysticism (Swedenborg, Jakob Boehme, Hildegard of Bingen, Idreiss Shah, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky et al).

My teacher explained that Jesus was a gnostic teacher. If you study 'The Other Bible' which includes many other texts about Jesus that were banned by the Church, you will find it becomes even more clear that Jesus was advocating Gnostic teachings. 'Ask and ye shall receive'; 'Seek and ye shall find', 'Knock and the door will be opened unto you'; and 'Let he who has ears to hear, listen'. These urge those on the quest to open themselves directly to the word of God, and explain that we don't need the power structure of Church to find our relationship with God. Elaine Pagels explains this in "Gnostic Gospels".

trevor, Marulan , Australia

All this talk about God - its our mythology - our ancestors potty ideas about who we are and how we got here.

Science is not responsible for phrases like "the laws of science" - which so confuse those who know nothing about science - the so called laws are merely are best most accurate guess to date - and guesses about some aspects of "science" are more accurate in some fields than others.

When we get into the area of Quantum Physics - thinking about stuff millions of times smaller than we can actually see - some aspects of "science" diverge. The mathematics remains very accurate, but the explanations really are guesswork - the very best minds on the planet are struggling to understand what is going on. The term "understanding" is not accurate - despite what anyone says - whoever they are. As I say, the maths works on a practical level, but nobody has any better idea than a guess - and the guesses are remarkably varied - almost unbelievably varied.

I am an atheist Christian!

George Taylor, Oxford, UK

Capricious magician is about the kindest thing you can say about the God of the bible. It is full of exactly the kind of stuff the reviewer says God can't do. Raising the dead, loaves & fishes, water to wine, burning bushes. He can't intervene in a good way, but he's not to shy about bringing down worldwide floods and plagues upon us How intellectually dishonest!.

John C, Toledo, OH USA

Actually, substituting religion for science is more like swapping King Lear for a history of the british royal family.

philip, Brooklyn, NY

Polkinghorne: "Yet there are some arguments, not discussed by either Humphrys or by Dawkins, which offer modest help as theologians struggle with the problems of theodicy. Interestingly, science is of some assistance in this regard. Its understanding of how the world works shows that natural processes are inextricably entangled with each other. They cannot be separated out, so that those with good consequences could have been retained by a competent creator who, at the same time, eliminated those with bad consequences. The integrity of creation is a kind of package deal."

And yet, surely an all powerful creator could have dispensed with these entanglements and come up with another framework. The argument here is that, given how the world works, God couldn't have done it any other way. But given by whom? If God is constrained, then by what? And if there are prior laws which He must obey, then why bother with theism at all?

And he accuses Dawkins of lacking imagination...

Mark Fournier, Ottawa, Canada

"For example, the process of genetic mutation produced new forms of life, but it has also resulted in malignancy. You cannot have the one without the other. Humphrys asks why there are not repeated divine interventions to avert evil consequences. Such things could only happen in a magical world, and that kind of world is not this one, because its creator is not a capricious magician. Only a world with sufficient reliability for deeds to have foreseeable consequences could be one in which moral responsibility was exercised."

Only a deeply confused man such as Polkinghorne would argue for morality by using random mutations as his example. Usually I'm willing to give theology, and other attempts at deep religious thought, credit for a sort of myopic internal logic. But all Polkinghorne seems capable of is highly condensed obfuscation. What he offers readers is undiluted Christian Kool-Aid.

Tony Gill, Washington , DC

Religous truth - now there's an oxymoron if ever the was one! You bet we are rude, unapologetic, and loud! We have had more than enough of the religious cant and sophistry of all the bishops, cardinals, priests, immams, clerics, mullahs, ayatollahs, rabbis etc. All religions abhor science, logic and reason, and demand instead unquestioning obedience,
subservience, and denial. Remember, the smallest hint of theocracy neutralises the very essence of democracy. To this cleric's plaintive cry that we should study theocratic texts before issuing condemnation, I say, theocracy is not a subject, one does not have to study nonsense to know that it is nonsense. A simple examination of its claims reveals its incredible and supernatural basis. This cleric may well be an intelligent thoughtful person, but despite this he is still pursuing religion's cause, that of subjugation of reason, logic, and intelligence. I prefer Dawkins, Gisburne, Hitchens, and Onfray!

Adrian Ryan, Donegal, Ireland

'Dawkins is relentlessly rude about religious believers. They are said to be “malevolent, barking mad, mendacious, deluded” and much more.'

A quick search of 'The God Delusion' reveals that Polkinghorne is being mendacious here. No religious believers are referred to as 'malevolent'

I admit though that The God Delusion refers to Joseph Smith as 'mendacious'.

Thank God Anglical priests are prepared to speak up for the veracity and downright honesty of Joseph Smith.

Dawkins writes 'I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent. We should also dismiss it as barking mad, but for its ubiquitous familiarity which has dulled our objectivity.'

So Dawkins refers to 'atonement' as 'barking mad' and John (Liar, liar, pants on fire) Polkinghorne says Dawkins refers to religious believers as barking mad.

Why do Christians feel the need to lie so much? Don't they know how easily they will be caught out?

Steven Carr, Liverpool,

Discussion of such issues is made more difficult than it need be by a general failure to acknowledge a semantic issue - lets first explore what we each mean by the term 'God'. It seems likely to me that in most discussions of this nature, advocates of each side each hold different conceptions of what the term 'God' means. And if this is so, how can we have meaningful discussion? It is not surprising that the theists (of which there are many flavours) generally talk at cross purposes with atheists (of which there are also many flavours).

How about if I suggest a definition of God being "All that is" and "There is nothing, other than God". That is, God is the summation of the universe, and all of the mysterious and wonderful processes that make it so, including our own rather complex lives?

That is a nuanced definition that may contrast with the conception held by the atheist of my God. Exploring definitions first is surely a good way to break down our misunderstandings.

Ray Soper, Sydney, Australia

Sadly, a lot of people do not find it possible to take the teachings of G. I. Gurdjieff seriously. Yet the cosmology that he teaches of the Ray of Creation offers a very viable answer to the problem of theodicy. His Endlessness is compelled to create the universes because of some problem He has with Time. The creation is hierachical in a Fall from level to level, becoming ever more mechanical as it unfolds. Organic life on Earth is near the bottom, the Moon being the lowest level. Things are the way they are because they really cannot be otherwise. The teaching shows what our only options are, what our attitude can be in this vale of tears. I suggest that P. D. Ouspensky's 'In Search of the Miraculous' be taken seriously by those who seek real answers.

Peter Klok, Farum, Denmark

Science is not a creation,it is just telling the reasons behind the facts. Religion goes beyond the science by telling about creation. For example Science is saying that day and night becomes because world is turning around, but it doesnt make the world turn around just reveal it. However religion says that ' we created day and night to make people think about death and being alive '. A simple example:imagine that there is a room and there are some ingredents of a medicine which is a cure for cancer. And somehow they drop theirselves to ground and mix together and becomes a medicine. If you say that there is not a chemist behind that just the ingredents mixed together in correct range ,it would be telling the reason of the event not the fact of creation. Nothing can exist without an arthitecture and science is revealing the arthitecture of space and unknowns.

murat, Istanbul, Turkey

All these arguments are proving/disproving various concepts of God that the proponents have. The concepts have nothing to do with the real God, who is existence itself, beyond any philosophy or science, and even beyond time and space. He is the Truth that existed before any religion existed. You can therefore disprove a religion, but you cannot disprove Existence. Be quiet, close your eyes, and look inside your heart for the source of the 'I' and God will be revealed to you.

Charles, Bristol, UK

After an admittedly quick read of this article, I cannot possibly agree that the 'child abuse' that Dawkins talks about could or even should be linked to sexual abuse, not even by an angel!! Surely the child abuse Dawkins refers to is the abuse of the childs privilege to make up its own mind and not be coerced into slavishly following the superstitions of its parents. A small point from a long article, but one that really annoyed me.
MA

Mike Asacret, Cambridge, England

"Religion does not have access to absolute proof of its beliefs but, on careful analysis, nor does science. "

The difference is that religion CLAIMS to, and is wrong.

Tony Quinn, Tulsa, OK, USA

This whole debate between theism and atheism misses the more important issue: namely, what counts as knowledge? How does knowledge differ from belief and how can we ever be sure that what we know is certain? I think David Hume understood the problem best by showing that empirical claims taken to their limits result in an absurdity equal to religious claims. Although realizing that superstitious belief was not a recommended alternative to empiricism (because of its dogmatism), nevertheless all knowledge is really just belief, and that we must satisfy ourselves with the reality that we are not capable of being certain about what we know. Life requires us to apply a healthy skepticism to everything we encounter. It is only those, whether scientist or priest, who claim they are certain they are right and everyone else is wrong, who become a danger to us all.

Jon C. Miller, Ottawa, Canada

I see no problem in believing in a creator since all things with which we have experience have been created, usually from pre-existing forms but created nevertheless. I think the problem arises when the religious assume that this creative agency has to be 'good', in their meaning of the word. This in spite of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of 'good' intentions on the part of this deity.

So, keep the creator but don't insist that he be good. Perhaps
indifferent might be more accurate since that has been the human experience.
But it seems that if they cannot have a 'good' one then most people would rather deny its existence.

Patrick MacKinnon, Victoria, Canada

If you acknowledge the essential mystery of existence - then you are already in the camp of the religious, though maybe not in one particular tent. If the world does not appear to be a mystery - merely a puzzle you have not yet solved - then you are in the camp of the atheists.

its too bad that so many of us have had so many bad dealings with religious fanatics - this leads reasonable people to become the mirror image of that which they find so abhorrent in others. Dawkins obviously has had too many of these interactions and has now become one of them (albeit with different verbage to berate others with)

have a good day,

Z

z, los angeles,

Idea of God is created by us. The concept of God is very very old. Ancient time when every thing is mystry naturally man created idea of some superpower who created this universe.
My humble openion, this concept of God will remain for ever, because science also not given all answer of this universe.One thing is cleare we have no remady for Death.Man tremendiously afraid to death, till death is there idea of God must be there, no one can destory to it.No use to destory the idea of God.

Ramesh Raghuvanshi, Pune 411030, Maharastra [India]

But isn't a capricious magician what all major theistic religions believe God is? The "proof" of a religious theory is usually based in some sort of miracle: a resurrection, divine inspiration in scripture, visitations by apparitions, divine interventions affecting nature. In fact, "faith" in something always requires an initial experience that required no faith for the first believer. In other words, God came to Abraham, to Mary, to Mohammed, but he doesn't come to each one of us. Rather we are left to be tested by our "faith." But what is the value in trusting hearsay, when the original founders of the religion were not expected to do so?

I believe that the best argument against theistic religion is not that there is evil in the world. Rather, I ask, if God indeed desires us to worship him and follow his moral code, why does he not just appear to us and let us know? Either he doesn't exist, or he wants us to be blind followers of other erroneous humans.

John Capone, Chicago, U.S.

From the article "...evolutionary thinking offers us some partial understanding of this, with its concepts of kin altruism ...... Humphrys rightly sees that these concepts fail to offer insight into the kind of radical altruism which, to use an example he discusses at some length, led Irena Sendlerova "

wrong in a way that simply displays lack of understanding. Evolution provides for the inner mechanism of altruism, and provides extensive variability of humans. Extreme cases occur based on events, genetic makup, and upbringing. The existence of 'radical' happenings does not demonstrate existence of god any more than the pathologically selfish person (the other, very real extreme). Evolution merely selects for characteristics that reproduce sucessfully.

Evolution did not select for the ability to walk on the moon, but it is within human capability.

jay, S. Bound Brook, NJ

It is not the mysticism of religion that is important but the morality that it attempts to convey.

Jim Alderson, Elgin, Illinois, USA

Is it only me who notices that science IS a religion, with its God of "Reason". It has its revelationary texts (the BIG theories - quantum and relativity) its Pope (First one was Isaac Newton, it's probably now Stephen Hawkins). It has its missionaries (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al) who are trying to convert everyone to the new "Church of Reason" exactly like religious missionaries of other churches.

And get this quote from Sam Harris: 'Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them.' So, people, when the Church of Reason finally triumphs, get ready for the new Inquisition.

Where's a true atheist like me supposed to find his philosophical home?

Charles Anthony, Melbourne, Australia

A major problem here is that both Polkinghorne and those he analyzes share the false dichotomy of "either a supernaturalistic transcendent god or complete atheistic materialism," a dichotomy foisted upon us by Christians themselves like Robert Boyle. A theism without omnipotence and omniscience is available for consideration (process theology), and with it some bridge-building might well be possible. It is ironic that Polkinghorne himself has already gone far down this road, but he cannot bring himself to close those last tiny gaps into which he tries to squeeze his supernatural god, apparently for fear of having his Orthodox Christian membership card revoked.

David J. Krause, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Science does not profess absolute truth, Religion does. Science is a continuous process for discovering the best theory to explain an observation or problem. A given theory will be discarded if at any stage a better idea comes along that more fully addresses the issue at hand. Religion on the other hand is essentially a static process, ideas within it to evolve to a degree however they are always bound back to the overall framework prescribed by some sort of "book of god"

James, Auckland, NZ

How many times do we have to explain to people who need ABSOLUTE TRUTH [today, and can't wait for tomorrow] that science does pretend to offer it, and doesn't even pretend to be seeking it.

People like Polkinghome, who write as if they never read anything but Thomas Aquinas, start arguments on points for which there is no point of contention.

If one chooses to believe in a superstitious manner (this being the "methodology" of religion, provided one understands that superstition does not rule out the use of logic, only the impairment of it) then a scientist has nothing to say. Your belief is merely a phenomenon in search of theory and data. There is no contention, beyond that.

Jon Monroe, Blue Hill,

The best sentence of the review is: "Only a world with sufficient reliability for deeds to have foreseeable consequences could be one in which moral responsibility was exercised" which shows why the material world matters in moral terms, thus bridging the gap between the obvious presence of the material world and a hypothetical psychic/spiritual one. The core of the religion/science debate is: is there something out-there like a non-material way of existence, as humans seem to be programmed to somehow assume. If convincing proof were available that, for instance, human consciousness is possible without the help of a material body, a consciousness that observes & processes information, then the existence of something like a 'God' is no longer 'impossible'. There is much evidence available which points towards the existence of consciousness operating outside the human body (like near-death experiences) or operating unhindered by material limitations (like telepathy). Important hints....

John Borstlap, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Name one atheist persecuted before 1550.

John Brown, Cape May, New Jersey

I will concede that the recent spate of books by atheists are rude, but this is historically a very recent phenomenon. For some thousands of years, the atheists were tortured and executed by the theists.

I am struck by how familiar and hackneyed these theistic arguments are. 'What about Hitler and Stalin?' It would be easier to prove that fascism and communism ARE religions than to use their existence to disprove atheism. 'Doubt is the essence of faith.' That's absurd. 'Religion is all about discovering the truth.' That's false. All the major religions preach a revelation that, by its very nature, must be considered to be true for all time, and any finding that undermines it simply cannot be entertained. Finally, that old chestnut: there must be evil and suffering so we can have God's gift of free will or, in Polkinghorne's formulation, "moral responsibility." But what is so great about moral responsibility? Apparently it exists only for us to use it to cope with God's gift of evil.

Stephen Kennamer, Durham, North Carolina, US

Revelation is the worst kind of privileged belief; empiricism the only available foundation for an epistemologically sound worldview. I would be made glad if one morning I woke up and folks had ceased parroting the claim that Kuhn, Polyani, et al, have demonstrated otherwise. The insufficiency of Polkinghorne's argumentation astounds me every time I see that yet another editor has offered him a stump from which to proclaim how lovely are the emperor's new clothes.. It's embarrassing for all involved -- or would be, if candor and self-inquiry were in wider circulation.

Zachary Bos, Boston, MA, USA

"Religion does not have access to absolute proof of its beliefs but, on careful analysis, nor does science. "

Yes, but the accuracy of science's (contingent) beliefs and processes are all around us. When science says, "Wash that cut and it won't get infected," it proves to be correct. When religion says, "Pray over that cut and it won't get infected," it's more often wrong than (in spite of itself) right.

If religion's fallback defense is, "well, it's better than child sexual abuse, innit?" I think we all know what that's worth.

Ellis Weiner, Studio City, CA/USA

I was weeping as I read this review, recovering from yet another night of Vodka and orange juice. I’m dying a broken man and medical science cannot stop that from happening.
Still I do not believe.
Dawkins offers us no comfort and some of us hold that as our last source of self-worth. But it’s easy to understand why people wish to believe, need to believe. Life is too much to endure for many, many people. Until Dawkins truly understands that his arguments will inevitably ring hollow.

John, Los Angeles, CA

Anyone who thinks that religion for the most part is charitable and life-affirming has never lived in the American South as a Jew, Catholic or Afro-American. For all of the temperate, reasoned scholars and believers, the mass of followers in the mega-churches and revival halls embrace forms of hatred that make Dawkins observations seem pretty mild.

Bob, Na, USA, Texas

The science-religion dichotomy is so easily and so often mis-characterized. Science is more of a process than a set of fixed ideas -- a willingness to constantly challenge one's beliefs in the face of experience and information. The real issue at the heart of the matter is whether faith is a mature basis for one's outlook on life. For some people, faith is simply not a possibility. For others, it's irresistible.

But faith has nothing to do with one's ability to experience creativity or a broad range of moral ideas or emotions. And it is also separate from one's ability to appreciate King Lear or beauty or meaning in life.

This new school of atheists are taking an unfortunate approach that lends itself to gut-reactions. But this article conflates so much too.

There is as much pathos and spiritual longing in Rilke or Whitman or Nietzsche as anything any theist has ever written. And I think it's wrong to assume to know how Shakespeare viewed God either.

Anthony, Brooklyn, NY

The main difference between science and religion is that there is +no+ absolute truth in science. Scientific "truth" is permanently changing. As soon as there's new empirical evidence, there's a new truth. Read Popper.

How can believers believe that there's an eternal truth?
Religion is arrogance, science is modesty.

Tim, Karlsruhe, Germany

My car starts most of the time, but I don't know anyone who died and went anywhere.

Michael Griffin, Indianapolis, IN

Unfortunately the 'Great Science Professor in the Sky' that any thinking theist will reject is precisely the god that the vast majority of Christians and Muslims believe in. If a training in theology is necessary to understand religion, then obviously Polkingthorne could benefit the world much more by explaining to his unenlightened fellow believers exactly why so many of them are so wrong, rather than by scoring trivial debating points about atheists -- who, after all, share his beliefs about the intangibility of god, merely taking them one step further to their logical conclusion.

Jon Jermey, Blaxland, Australia

Granted, Science and WISDOM are not the same thing, but simply by not being every kind of knowledge science does not erase the personal sphere, as Polkinghome suggests. Mr. Polkinghome is thinking about particular methodologies here, and confusing the whole of science with some sort of statistical demon that's out to get us.

And I do hope there is more to inspired creativity than mere superstition... Good Lord! What don't we lose when we lose God! Do we really lose King Lear when God is kicked out the door? Perhaps yes, but only if we started by assuming that God is necessary for inspiration (more circular arguments from the people who brought us... God). {On the other hand: if no creativity, then where did God come from? [Of course, God comes from the "transpersonal reality of God" -- Heaven, i.e.]}

"He fails to acknowledge the subtlety and truth-seeking character of theological thought." -- One is unable to stop laughing at this point.

Jon Monroe, Blue Hill,

Yes, religious faith is motivated by desire to believe the content of the faith. That's what is so corrupt about it. Also why training a child to commit to such faith is child abuse..

The modesty of science arises from being willing to give up what you wish were so in favour of what the evidence insists is so. Polkinghorne is spectacularly wrong to claim that the resulting world view has no people in it. The view from science embraces billions of people, while thousands of scientists enthusiastically study how those diverse human minds & bodies work.

Peter Brawley, McComb, MS USA

I don't want to go into questions of evil in a world created by a just and loving God, just to say that a religious person could say that this God has placed within the human heart the goodness that over time can overcome the evil. Whether this is true or not, it seems that with a certain degree of modesty this belief could go a long way. Notice I did not say humility, which seems to make one small rather than making the universe big. Where did this goodness come from? Well, isn't evil self-destructive in the long run? I think faith isn't simply the conviction that a number of intellectual ideas are correct without needing to question them, it is the idea that underlying the ideas is an underlying truth they embody. If you are modest and follow your heart, and love your fellow beings in this universe you can make the best of this life, whatever this is. Now is this a religion or a philosophy? Does it matter?

Christopher Hobe Morrison, Pine Bush, Ulster County, NY, USA

I agree Richard Dawkins and other atheists tend to strongly voice opinions. Their scientific training convinces them that non-scientific opinions are invalid. Rev. Polkinghorne suggests he would prefer a thesis more reasonably argued. I have written such a thesis.

In my book, THE ORIGIN OF THE GODS, I trace the stories of the Bible back to their sources. I have shown the Bible, Greek, Norse, Egyptian, and Hindu mythology have a common source. The Garden of Eden is the same place as Norse Midgard. The biblical God is the Indo-European sky-god invented at the beginning of the Bronze Age to explain the phenomenon of the sky (He was the Hittite Weather-God). He is the hurler of the lightning bolt; his voice is the thunder. The Roman pronunciation of "Jove" was 'Yoweh'; the biblical God was called "Yahweh", and the name means 'The Jealous One' as maintained by Joshua. Our English word 'Jealous' comes from the same Indo-European root 'Ya-'. Ironically, the Hebrews were Aryans.

E. Peter Battey-Pratt, Kingston, Canada

To acknolowdge the mystery of the world is a religion per se. Because God is a mistery. You don´t know it?

Barnie, san sebastian , spain

Responsible philosophers of science never (at least since the foolhardy, chastised and abandoned logical positivists of the early 20th century) speak of proof. Indeed, Thomas Kuhn forced scientists to yield the fact that they had irrefrangible locks on truth in any guise. Kuhn was building on the legacy of Anglo-American philosophy with its over-whelming critique of empiricism (which is dead as a door-nail except as a historical topic). Philosophy of science may not be a haven for theists, but it certainly isn't any comfort to simple-minded scientistic thinkers such as the authors considered in this review.

Of course most of the raging atheists don't read much in philosophy or history — they don't know Kuhn, don't know Polkinghorne, don't know Polyani, don't know Francis Collins, don't know the many scholars who have pioneered the encounter between religion and science for the last 50 years — and they don't want to know. No, the red-faced rants of the atheistic automatons suffice.

G.K. Thursday, New York, New York

The review of John Polkinghorne seems to be tilted in the favor of the theists as he happens to be one of them. The problem with the religious belief is that it never questions its ground which is generally based on a type of logic unlike that of science. When you believe something to be true, you can’t be scientific at the same time because our scientific knowledge begins from questioning. Faith stands for accepting something without questioning. It is never possible to state the reason of someone’s faith in God.

Raghuvanshmani, Faizabad, UP, India

Commenters unable to imagine what Polkinghorne's motivations for belief in God might be would do well to check out one or another of his many books. By all accounts, he is a careful, clear thinker.

John Hobbins, Lomira, USA

This is a key section of the review, and epitomizes the arguments of religious apologists:

"Religion does not have access to absolute proof of its beliefs but, on careful analysis, nor does science."

This strikes me as a sort of fake out, a bait and switch. Who is talking about "absolute" proofs? Scientists typically don't. Yes, they speak in terms of proofs, evidence, facts, experimentation, but its rare when they throw in the qualifier of absolute.

The reviewer, by using that word, tries to get religion off the hook for never finding any proofs whatsoever for its own beliefs. As in, no proofs are available to those who espouse faith in the Christian god, who is just one more god in a long line of gods, for which there is no proof.

If we compare the availability of proof, between science and religion, science wins hands down. It strikes this reader as rather cowardly to hide behind "absolutes".

Berto Raphael, Takoma, United States

If the ultimate aim is to go to heaven, why do we have to go through the pain and suffering that is prevalent in life? To test us to see if we have faith in God? What is so important about us having faith in God? Does the supposed God have low self esteem? Did God just decide one day, wherever it is is he supposedly resides, to have a little experiment by creating a little planet called earth (an almost unfathomably small part of an ever expanding Universe). Did he then decide that for millions and millions of years there should be predators roaming the earth surviving only by eating each other? Was it only then that decided us humans should come along, who he made in his image? I could do on with the questions.

Some may criticise me of asking "schoolboy" questions, but they are the questions that the religious seem to have most trouble answering. For me it is the general ridiculousness of the religious story that settles the issue.

Joe, Dublin, Ireland

case notes on senile dementia will certainly help people with dementia. while King Lear is a beautiful piece of literature, we'd do badly to rely on it for our understanding of history.

would a better analogy have been "like reading poor reviews rather than the actual book you're criticising"?

alex, edinburgh uk,

I'm delighted to see that the TLS is aiming to be a bit different from most literary review publications. The rest of the mundane pack might balk at having an ordained priest reviewing books on the topic of atheism, fearing that this might cause the review to be monstrously biased. The TLS, on the other hand, sees past the need for objective reviews - we can, after all, see those anywhere - and presents us with a religious polemic so we may be entertained at its lack of any intellectual grounding. Well done!

Marcus Hill, Manchester, UK

I have the same difficulty as George Jelliss. What provides the motivation for a "motivated belief"?
Eric Barnes, Hong Kong

Eric Barnes, Hong Kong, China

Religious believers often claim that there is no conflict between faith and reason. But how can this be if "faith" is, by the usual definition, belief in something without evidence. Dr Polkinghorne offers a definition here:

"Faith is a commitment to a form of motivated belief, differing only from scientific reason in the nature of the subject of that belief and the kind of motivations appropriate to it."

Unfortunately it's in rather too convoluted or condensed a form for me to understand. Can anyone translate it for me into plain English?

George Jelliss, Leicester, United Kingdom

Polkingthorne's arguments simply fail to take into account the scale and gravity of human suffering particularly when one considers the holocaust and other genocides of which he seems simply oblivious or is that conveniently oblivious? - to prey to the architect of such suffering can only arouse astonishemnt in those mindful enough not to live in absolute denial of such horrific events and yes if Dawkins expresses his anger at those who continue to employ primitive thinking then good for him. To acknowledge the mystery of the world requires no religion at all.

julian behrman, radlett, UK