I went to a tutorial on Tuesday evening, as part of an OU course I am doing called ‘Introduction to the Humanities’. It has elements of Literature, Philosophy, History, Art, and Art History that I find very interesting and educating. It also has Religious Studies as part of the course content, and last night we covered religion. Nothing is guaranteed to cause more debate. Once the group had got over the initial ‘must be careful not to offend anyone’ situation, we had a very lively debate. A couple of the atheists in the group were somewhat dismissive of religious groups. Then Richard Dawkins came into the debate (author of the God Delusion). So I suggested that atheists, as a group that held the belief there was no divine being, and with an unofficial leader such as Dawkins, resembled a religious group (collective belief, and a ‘spiritual’ leader)…. this didn’t go down well.

Fortunately nobody challenged me on my beliefs. We are all touched by religion in some way or form throughout our lives, so it is difficult for anybody to be entirely objective – because we are in a way all tainted, or influenced whether we like it or not. I have always found the leap of faith required to be a firm believer in the almighty a difficult one. I like to see evidence or proof in most things. A historian will always look for primary sources to validate an event. The same with the scientist who likes to prove something through fact. The ‘leap of faith’ can  therefore be difficult for a lot of us.

It’s an interesting topic. But fortunately the next assigment will offer two options, one on religion, and one on history of science. I intend to stay on the religious fence and do the assignment on history of science.

The good thing is, that the religious topic has occupied my mind, and allowed me to ignore my team losing again last night. The back is still sore, and a collegue remarked to me today that I ‘walked like an old man with a poker up his arse’. Nice.