Belief need not always be subject to reason. Once the first principle or pivotal concept has been accepted, kindred beliefs allied to it can also be accepted without question. An example can be seen in the Islamic faith. Muslim devotees accept the holy Koran as the inerrant word of Allah. They do not question it at all. To them, Allah, as presented in the Koran, is a fact beyond question. They believe that the Koran comprises the last and all-embracing unalterable divine truth. Their god, as distinct from the Christian god, is not the object of supplication, but of worship. The cry heard several times every day from many thousands of minarets scattered around the world is "Allah hu ackbar, la Allah ill Allah, Mohammed rasoul Allah" (God is greater, there is no god except god, Mohammed is the prophet of god). No reason is given, just a bold statement of belief as an unquestionable fact. Once this is accepted the rest of the faith follows automatically. The name of Allah comes into daily and constant use by every Muslim. The thought of Allah permeates their every action. Islam is a religion with its own strong logic and ethical standards which obviously satisfy its followers. Muslims appear to be far more committed and trusting of their religion than most Christians. Perhaps that is why very few Muslims are converted to other religions.

Martin Luther, the first Protestant, is reputed to have said, "The way in which God appears to man, depends on that man's frame of mind, as you think and believe, so you have him. If in your heart you paint him merciful or angry ... that is how you will have him." (Quoted by Lloyd Geering in "Faith in the New Age"). Think carefully about this. If the character of god is determined by our imagination of him, then it is our imagination which has created him.

A very wise statement was made by Hans Reichenbach in "The Rise of Scientific Philosophy". He says "Logic can thrive only in an atmosphere of perfect freedom. He who enquires into the nature of knowledge should keep his eyes open and be willing to accept the result that cogent reasoning brings to light, it does not matter if the result contradicts his conception of what knowledge should be".

In this respect there is a profound difference between religious dogma and the attitude of science toward doubt and investigation. Science demands truth that can be demonstrated. It welcomes those who invalidate as well as those who validate its hypotheses. Science uses doubt as an aid to finding the truth. It is always ready to abandon a line of enquiry in the light of further information. Its purpose is to find the truth regardless of what that may be. New knowledge, as it is acquired, strengthens or diminishes previous research. So the process of replacing the deposed or less functional with more perfect knowledge is ever active.

Descartes (1596-1650) is regarded as the father of modern philosophy. He invented a method of systematic doubt which became a useful tool when seeking scientific answers. He determined to believe nothing until it was proved beyond doubt. Perhaps, he reasoned, what could appear to be real, could be an illusion created by a demon. It may be highly unlikely but one could be the victim of deception. Finally he decided that there was one thing that even a deceitful demon could not create an illusion for, and that was his own existence, for if he did not exist, no demon could deceive him. He then made the famous and often repeated statement, "I think, therefore I am".

Each of us is entitled to start from the same undeniable basis, I think therefore I am. It is possible that our beliefs are mistaken. What we now believe may be doubted in the future or we may come to see things from a different point of view. Our beliefs are therefore tentative or present-time philosophical conclusions rather than dogmatic statements for all time. Let us therefore give weight to a scientific attitude that truth is a paradigm or model-concept subject to further knowledge and understanding.

This willingness to adapt can be seen on a practical level. By trial and error the Polynesians developed to perfection the science of bird traps, fishing nets and hooks, navigation systems and many other skills within the scope of the material available to them. The Eskimos developed the igloo, which was a scientifically perfect shelter using the materials obtainable. As more materials and knowledge became available, people have changed techniques to meet the new circumstances.

In marked contrast to science, religion is a belief system, usually accepted in childhood. Its origin is divine revelation passed down from spirits in a parcel or a series of parcels of fixed religious doctrine. Religions establish absolute dogma, and then seek to defend it. Some religions still prohibit books which could throw doubt on their doctrines. Such actions indicate a fear of change or perhaps arrogance, certainly not an open-minded desire to find truth.

In the past, the church has hounded and burned the doubters and their books. "That was ages ago", you will rightly say, "the church is tolerant and loving today and always interested in the truth." It is what is understood as "the truth" which concerns us. If believers equate "the truth" with divine revelation, then we are back to unsupported blind belief. As individuals, I am sure most present-day church members are honest. It is not individuals we seek to examine but the system of belief which is so different in character from an open scientific approach. We are seeking honestly to examine the belief system with the same open-mindedness we apply to scientific enquiry.

When Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" in 1859, all denominations of the Christian church united in condemning it as anti-Christian. Cardinals, bishops, pastors and lay-preachers thundered from pulpits and debating halls throughout the Christian world. The Bible said that god had created the heavens and the earth and all that was in them including mankind in six days. The Bible was the word of god, you could not believe in evolution and the Bible at the same time. Bishop Wilberforce in debating with Thomas Huxley resorted to sarcasm. He wanted to know if it was on his father's or mother's side that Huxley had descended from the ape.

But the spades of the archaeologists kept on digging up fossils which were much older than mankind and scientists increased in their understanding of our planet. They discovered irrefutable evidence that the flora and fauna had been developing over millions of years. Again churches slowly changed their position and gave up their fight for a literal interpretation of the Bible. Instead they now said that one could believe in evolution and be a Christian at the same time. In the light of advancing knowledge, the church has had to bend its beliefs or abandon scientific findings in favour of unsupported faith. Now and again one hears Christians declare that they want a faith and god which is changeless, something that can be trusted for all time and all circumstances. Islam offers that kind of unquestioning faith if you can accept the dogma. Surely, desires for changelessness spring from an emotional need for security, a dependency we talk about elsewhere. Change is, in fact, one of the principles of life.

Nearly all Christian churches have had to change, dilute and ameliorate their doctrines in the face of rationalism. The process of informed thought seems to move from interpreting the Bible as literal truth, to regarding it as symbolic truth. Some Christians begin to argue that indeed god created the world but the story in Genesis needs further understanding. They look at 2nd. Peter 3:6 which says "One day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day." Then they look at the creation story where it says that god created the world in six days, and deduce that each creation day was a period of time but not one of twenty-four hours duration. Each day could have lasted many thousands of years. Having accepted that concept, they can now say that the Bible does not seek to tell us the method by which god created the world. By this kind of manipulation of widely spaced texts, some arrive at a compromise, which allows them to accept the scientific idea of evolution and still hold on to the belief that god created the universe.

The next step away from literalism is to symbolise other difficult parts of the Bible. For instance, if there is a literal hell-fire in the next world, you would need to have something literal to burn. When the human body is dead and decayed, what is there to burn? So some conclude that hell-fire is a symbol for punishment and should not be taken literally. It is surprising how many portions of the Bible can be explained away as being symbolic without the believer giving up faith in a god.

According to Philo (30 B.C. to 40 A.D.), "All that the Scriptures (Old Testament) contains is true, and all truth is contained in them." By the time of Galileo it was becoming evident that all Scripture was not true, and not all truth was contained therein. Conflict between science and the Bible has continued and intensified in every passing decade. We can trace the decline of religious mysticism in the face of growing enlightenment which increasing knowledge and scientific investigation brings.

Finally, many like myself come after a long journey to accept the entire Bible as mythology and legend mixed with a measure of uncertain Jewish and Christian history and punctuated with some very good and ancient folk wisdom. Members of the Christian community are constantly seeking a solution to their inner uncertainty by moving toward the esoteric teachings of the eastern philosophers and charismatic churches, or piously leaning the other way toward uncritical fundamentalism. I have often thought that people are attracted to a particular church organization because of their emotional bias. Some feel comfortable with formal ritual, others crave a more stimulating environment where they can feel important and accepted into a special community.

Belief is mental or emotional persuasion, something we have very little control over. We believe something or we do not believe. Some of us have not made up our minds, and therefore do not yet believe. We are all victims of our belief. Only knowledge and education can change uncertainty into a different belief. Yet belief is a central demand of the New Testament. We are asked to believe without proof that there is a god, that Jesus is divine, that there is a heaven and a hell, and that humans will go to one or the other when they die. I do not find this kind of religious belief rational or see it providing anything of enduring value for the human race.

But scientific research is bringing enlightenment to humankind. Slowly the myths and superstitions of the ancient past are giving way to knowledge. More than that, we are beginning to understand the dynamics of the human animal. We are slowly coming out of the dark woods of ignorance; light is beginning to penetrate the trees. There still are many shadows but we see a widening path which promises to lead open-minded people to the bright sunshine of justice, peace and human dignity.