Letter: A belief in the miraculous.
IT WAS with some amusement that I read J Knott's anti-Christian nonsense (Letters, July 2). He reiterates the comment of PR Jones that Christians "hold belief without adequate reason to do so". This, of course, is ridiculous.
The history of Jesus is more reliable than the history of anyone from antiquity. Gospels were recorded with Apostolic authority, authorship was confirmed by Apostolic Fathers such as Iraneus, they were written so early that legend is not a factor, and the Epistles were written even earlier .
Some scholars believe that 1 Corinthians 15 (Creed) may have been written by St Paul just five years after the Resurrection. Perhaps atheists need to consider why so many pieces of historical evidence regarding Jesus exist (24,000 in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, et ), why the Apostles died for their beliefs and why nothing from archaeology ha undermined the New Testament, etc, et .
JK puts forward a case for science without defining the term. Science is the study of natura phenomena by observation and measurement, and theories, hypotheses and laws must be capable of being falsified or tested.
I believe in science as long as i is confined to natural phenomena. Clearly God is not so constrained.
J Knott also mentions Darwin, understanding physics and ho the solar system was formed.
Firstly, Darwin in the Descent of Man makes several racist references: "the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savages races", and "the race differ . . . their menta characteristics are likewise very distinct".
With regard to the origin of the universe, I presume he is referring to the "big bang" that was neither big nor could it have made a noise being in a vacuum.
If we are to believe JK, then we must believe that something (the universe) was created from nothing, and I would rather believe in the miraculous than the ridiculous.
B Jowett, via email