Both speculation and reason have their place

IT is often said that two subjects one must not debate in polite society are politics and religion, for both can land you in hot water, so welcome to your bathtub Stan Green (Newbury Weekly News, January 21).

Taking his first point, Charles Dickens could hardly be seen as ‘puerile’ simply by referring to a single novel.

Charles Darwin was certainly a great scientist, but he largely contained his scientific work, as he states, on the Evolution of the Species.

But it is that ‘evolution’ where Mr Green contradicts himself.

Deities of almost any persuasion have evolved alongside the same evolution, going back thousands of years.

If one looks closely at science and theology today, it becomes much clearer, that they travel parallel pathways.

Quite an impressive few practice a faith of one kind or another today. I wouldn’t mind betting that Darwin was one of them.

There is no need for acknowledgement that religious practice is an imposition. ‘By birth’ it may have been in the not too distant past.

When independent thinking matures in adulthood, people have a choice, in this case Christianity – continue life in their faith or become secular.

The reasons why church attendance is thin on the ground these days can be laid squarely on the doorstep of grandees of ecumenical hierarchy.

In my view the foot soldiers have almost abandoned their respective parishioners.

There’s no longer a knock on the door for a chat and cuppa or a Guinness as there was when I was young.

Of course, reason has in large part given way to speculation.

I have no axe to grind with secularism. It is perhaps evolution – bound to happen one might argue.

But both reason and speculation have their place in universal thought.

There is so much we don’t fully understand about the evolution of the cosmos, but there is a lot of theoretical reason – and speculation.

So why might it be wrong, for example, to reason and speculate about an afterlife, as mankind all over the world has done for eons, whoever they perceive as God?

Reference to the Almighty in impolite conversation is very often heard in the heat of an argument – ‘Oh for Christ’s sake!’ – ‘Jesus Christ Almighty’ – ‘'good God’ and the more ubiquitous ‘OMG!’. Secularism is not afraid to express these terms any more than anybody else, so I wonder when evolution will see them disappear and what might replace them?

Finally, when individuals face fear, collectively or individually, who do they turn to for help and comfort? I think the answer is clear.

Secularism yes – but don’t knock faith. PETER ROBINSON

Northcroft Lane

Newbury