there is no such thing as truth. one does not need a mythological god to enjoy art. both chaos and complexity theory deal very well with the chaos and complexity of human existence. and since you mention it: i pity your family having to deal with someone who is unable to love without an external illusion to help him, your article does nothing but display the depth of your inferiority complex.

Oh dear, Peter. This is where you always find yourself on shaky ground mate. Why not just embrace your belief system and stop trying to put it on the same pedestal as tested science? What deep seated insecurity you display. If you want to apply the same rules of tested hypothesis to your belief system just start at 1 Kings Chapter 18. If your belief system is "fact" or "truth" then you of all people can easily prove it using the test set forth in that Chapter of your "Belief Manual". I await the proof.

Another attempt at a neat sidestep, by our very own master of side-steppery.

>>It is “hard” rationality in that contradictions or paradoxes cannot be tolerated... a loving relationship cannot hold both love and hatred, devotion and resentment. Evils in the world cannot have a shade of good.<<

If this is the extent of your attack on "hard" rationality, Sells, it doesn't stand up to a great deal of exposure to real life. From most available evidence, the Christian view of life contains a great deal less flexibility in accepting difference, than that of the rationalist.

But hold on a moment.

Do you not, in your earlier offerings, rail franically against the liberalism that underpins the rationalist's viewpoint? Is your normal target not those wishy-washy folk who have no moral underpinnings?

"Liberalism stands for freedom, tolerance, fairness, self expression, choice and fulfilment. It stands against doctrine, discipline, self sacrifice and discipleship."

That's a quote from "The trouble with Liberalism" that you wrote a mere five months ago.

If your idea of being controversial is to change your mind twice a year, I'd say you were right on target.

Incidentally, I know you won't believe it, but non-Christians have non-linear thought processes too.

"How can they understand a poem? Or be deeply moved by an opera? Or understand the complexity and contradiction of characters in the great novels? How can they fall in love and rear a family?"

Amazingly, we somehow muddle along, Sells.

Your argument relies totally on the conflation of "non-Christian" with "computer". The idea that anyone unable to subscribe to your particular brand of mysticism, is somehow cut off from life.

Won't wash, I'm afraid.

And this, Sells, is probably the most arrogant statement that you have made so far.

"For paganism, individual human beings had no faces, they were resources, wives were incubators, slaves were non human, soldiers were fodder for battle."

The fact that you clearly have no concept of the sheer, blind, insulting, overweening arrogance contained in that sentence, by itself renders the entire article irrelevant.

Uh oh! Peter has done it again!

Peter is a repeter. Peter wrote: While paganism could only seek to escape from the material world of the body, Christianity, with its proclamation that God had become a man, affirmed the body and gave rise to hospitals and medicine to care for the body.

Dear Peter,

"Christianity, with its proclamation that God had become a man" adapted a pagan concept to make a religion that could be accepted by the pagan world. It was a retreat from Jewish quasi-rationality to pagan superstition. The Jewish God had by the time of Jesus had lost all anthropomorphic elements. When Roman soldiers broke into the shrine of the Temple they found it empty. A Roman chronicler ridiculed the invisible god of the Jews who didn't even have a statue to him.

Jesus was invented to appeal to the pagans. It is obvious that the miracles in the New Testament are myths. Possibly all the rest is also mythical. However, Christianity had invented a God that would appeal to the pagans.

Even the manner of his birth followed pagan myth with a spirit impregnating Mary as Zeus did to Leda and many others. This is truth? Nonsense is nonsense even though many accept it.

Always remember that your inherent heart-disposition wants and needs Infinite, Absolute, True, Eternal Happiness.

---- ooooo ----

Therefore, true religion must retire to Light!
The heart must be permitted to achieve a universal feeling-ecstasy.

---- ooooo ----

Happiness IS the Conscious Light of the World!

How/why does Sells keep repeating his dim-witted nonsense?

I guess most of you are tired of these references. All of which, in one way or another, point out that christian-ISM has helped, or really laid the foundations for, the current DISASTER. And that the drive or motive of the ideas behind christian-ISM is the drive to achieve total power and control over every one and everything.

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx

http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html

http://www.dabase.org/proofch6.htm (especially the 1st essay--Prophetic Criticism)

Sells also complains that science now dominates our current definitions and parameters re what is Real and possible.

This is entirely true.

But he doesnt seem to understand that his entirely EXOTERIC religiosity (and ideology) shares the same presumptions about what we are as human beings, and of Reality altogether, as those that mis-inform the ideology of scientism.

These references point out why and how. And also why the usual exoteric religiosity does not, and cannot, make any real difference to anything at all. At best they may offer a more positive hopefulness, and at the worst, the essentially psychotic nature of right-wing religiosity.

http://www.dabase.org/ilchurst.htm

http://www.dabase.org/noface.htm

http://www.dabase.org/nirvana.htm (chapter 1 The Purification of Doubt)

http://www.aboutadidam.org/newsletters/toc-february2004.html Right Human Life

Funny. I was just watching a video about the penchant of religious intolerants for trying to dictate what others believe without actually having a clue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oa_3HC8vdQ&feature=channel_page

Peter,

It's most saddening that you insist on delineating between "them and us" and continue to malign "science" as an opposing belief. 50 Nobel Laureates who are Christian support your thesis in what way?

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html

Or this?

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/original-sin.htm

I attended a Christian Brothers school, lived 2 doors from our local church and 5 doors from the Presbytery and bragged to mates with photos of my dad kicking back with the Pope. Running papal visit teams is definitely a leg up in Christendom. Sundays saw my home filled with Christians in what was a wonderfully warm community feel. Science dominated discussion. The themes you've raised here - "evidence" for bible stories - was discussed as proper: these are fables, none of it happened, the challenge is to not buy it because we loose our humanity. Nutshell? Magic 'aint real, we are. God does not interfere in our affairs, faith is in many ways doubt itself. Beware of "literalism", as your scam was known.

You actually mean, 1630 years since Nicene Council sittings. You claim the fish symbol as yours - Pieces. You're a Constantine Christian, not a real Christian. 'Ere ya go;

http://atheistage.org/?p=696

Google Antikythera mechanism for a glimpse into Greek science, suppressed by Rome. The gospels underscoring Christs Christianity - Paganism - were primarily destroyed. I shall spare lengthy descriptions of Christs celebrations, and forgo listing all the Popes who lived in utter debauchery during what you claim included "... texts and traditions that have been handed down over thousands of years."

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/187076.Sex_Lives_of_the_Popes

Without science your message would reach others in around 12 months - and then only in major centralised communities. If the messenger fell from his horse, he may lie for days in pain, then die perhaps as animals eat his flesh. Or a snake bite? Or an illness due to infection? Of course, you'd blame Satan and mumble something about God and heaven. So. Bite that hand. We'll catch you, care for you, pay for your privileges, suffer abuse of education and listen to lies. We understand our minds better than any god it can dream up.

2:-

"They said, “Master, you are […] the son of our god.”
Jesus said to them, “How do you know me? Truly [I] say to you, no generation of the people that are among you will know me.”

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/

Evidence Peter? Another problem is the insistence to have "evidence" that disputes "science", based on anthropogenic concepts such as evil, good, etc. Human nature is human nature.

I understand the fear of science when it threatens to deny the authority you've come to enjoy, but truth and humanity must transcend selfishness Peter. Surely you can see the benefit of accepting expressions of all human nature and embrace all humanity as secularists, non theists... call 'em whatever, presently strive toward. Your tribalism is disconcerting. Your evidence is flawed.

But please, don't insult science, lest you're prepared to turn your back on it Quaker style, ignore medical advice, resist medication when ill... indeed, live on the moon. Science even took us there. Many Christians to be frank. And they read... from the beginning of Genesis. Some became religious thanks to science.

To continue alluding to the falsehood that proper humane actions and morality is taught from a self contradictory book, peppered with barbaric absurdities and subject to centuries of uncontrolled editing remains perhaps the most unhelpful dynamic for those of us who seek to bridge gaps. This recidivist anthropomorphism of "science" is exposed easily as childish, discriminatory and divisive for Christians in entirety, much less human beings for whom you now purport to speak.

Science is often about being wrong, then moving on. It lacks subjectivity hence is immune to your claims. You fail to sustain an argument because you've presented "science" as a superstition or religion in competition with your interpretation. It's unrecognisable to the Christianity seen earlier or elsewhere.

Desperate for "evil" you're in the business of scape goating independent inquiry. Not much "good" can come from it. Fundamentalism rejects climate change, AIDS treatment/prevention and liberal drug policy. Another Nobel Laureate, Australian of the year, Peter Doherty labels these Crimes Against Humanity.

And you now argue for "the human"?

<<<<<<<<<<<< Everyone should be angry that Christians have commandeered all claims for truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>

A dummy spit by Sells,

No one taking your mumbo jumbo seriously?

Do you want to debate the nuances of christian theology with people who don't give a damn either way?

Reasonable people are sick an tired of being moralised to by people that are as often as not kiddie fiddlers, and the ethical compass of christianity is so far out of whack that most choose to ignore it.

If you don't like playing in the sandbox, move on.

Peter, you say “No amount of scientific study in psychology, anthropology, social science, and so on, will be able to approach that which is deeply human. They should, but often are not, cut off from the great cultural expressions of our society”

That which you regard as the “great cultural expressions of our society” is available to anyone curious enough to consider them. No-one is cut-off. Let me assure you as one who is familiar with your “great expressions’ that they are no substitute for the beauty and wonder of the world about us which better explain and validate our society.

"No credence is given to the great shift in culture that occurred with the rise of Christianity”

No Peter, the great shifts in culture around the world have been due to human Civilization, in spite of Christianity and the other religions that have and will continue to stunt culture and human development potential and cause the major divisions that blight human society.

Damm you, Pericles & David f. I had a great reply all written out & ready to post, then I read your reply & found that I would have unintentionally plagiarized myself.

Would wish to try and explain the difference between a normal Christian and a philosophical Christian.

The wonderful tale of the young Jesus, expressed in background so much in the Sermon on the Mount, but finishing humanly so sadly, yet so gloriously religiously in the Spiritual Outcome beyond the Crucifixion.

To be sure in philosophy we tend to follow history and the early growth of Christianity with minds mixed somewhat between legend and spiritual reasoning, mindful of the Thou Shalts of the disciples, heartful of the cruelty of the pagan Romans against the battling Christians, as well as experiencing a mixture of historicism and religiosity as the Roman emperor Constantine though never himself a Christian, not only gave the order to treat the Christians as normal citizens, but also took control over the Council of Nicea in which Christianity was declared not only spiritually powerful by Constantine but politically powerful.

However, as Christianity became more political, it was realised that the young Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount never talked about doing down or killing off the unbelievers, but even putting ourselves in the position of the so-called enemy, as was said to try and Understand our Enemies.

It is also interesting that it was that St Thomas was also a philosopher, having not only gained a Sainthood, but also had accepted Hellenistic Reasoning from early Islamics as a way to release early Christianity from the Dark Ages.

St Thomas was also the philosopher who organised the study which became the forerunner of all Western universities.

It is well to also remind that it was not long before the Thousandth Year after the Death of Jesus, it was decided to fake a document giving the now dead but Spiritual Constantine the gift giving Christianity the right to declare war, a document still held by the Catholic Church.

As every political historian should know, the fake document since known as the Donation of Constantine, also gave the right for Christian nations to practice the colonialism that has made Anglo nations in particular so strong ever since.

Regards, BB, WA

Pete,
"Ting!" goes the Christian piano and the " No Sale here" sign pops up like magic.

Have you ever considered a life of an ascetic hermit/prophet/saint in the desert? If you write down your ideas on scrolls date them 1500 BCE, in 2000 years time they'll be worth something....Imagine the angst you'll cause those pesky scientists then. True you won't be there to enjoy it but hey it's one form of immortality (of sorts).

thankfully all proper observation and science confirms the accuracy of Scripture and Jesus descriptions of mankind. Many of the above little gods mocking will look pathetically shallow on judgement day. The pseudo science used to enthrone the gods is full of holes and the fruit of their dogmas is very clear for anyone with a conscience to see. The plight of our young people, old people and aboriginals has never looked worst since our secularist decided that they would impose their dogmas on society. Thankfully their are millions in the world today who see through the pride and arrogance of man who shakes his/her puny fists at their Creator. The acceptance of Christ is not an intellectual problem as history proves His death and Resurrection. The problem is hard, proud lustful hearts that refuse to acknowledge their own filth.

peter, does it bother you that the only person who seems to write in support is a bitter-mouthed loon?

On the contrary, with runner an exception, I find my support very challenging and well read. Have you not read Relda and crabsby?
My biggest support comes from people who do not write on these pages and they constantly assure me that I am on the right track and that the trolls who inhabit these pages are unbelievable.

There is one thing that you all seem to forget and that is my main career was as a scientist. Go to Google scholar and enter Sellick, P.M and you will find out that my scientific reputation is firmly established. It does not seem to occur to you that one can be a successful scientist and still entertain theological ideas. DUUUUR!

>> they constantly assure me that I am on the right track and that the trolls who inhabit these pages are unbelievable.

oh, nonsense. you're simply using "troll" to refer to all the people who write in disagreement. people like pericles and david f and bushbred are still writing long, considered pieces. given you never ever ever ever address such criticism with the respect it warrants, god knows why they bother. most, like me, who now respond trollishly do so because we're sick to death of your smug, unresponsive, insulting manner of lording it over us pagans.

>> It does not seem to occur to you that one can be a successful scientist and still entertain theological ideas.

huh? doesn't surprise me at all. i'm fully convinced you have the intellectual ability to reason. i'm just also convinced you're so wrapped up in the glory of your rightness and righteousness, you're too damn arrogant to bother.

Peter,none of us have the answers,not even you.If we did have them, as most religions pretend to have,then there would be no point to life.The challenge and the anvil of life is what moulds us into better people,albeit not perfect.

Once the human bean is defined Peter,it cannot germinate or grow.

My children and I have just returned from an Interfaith Network meeting. The main speaker was a catholic priest who had lived and worked in Pakistan for the last 30 odd years. The crux of his message lay in the word ‘faith’, ‘the commonwealth of believers’ or ‘searchers of the truth‘.

He naturally assumed that the small gathering was made up of people of faith, wrong in my case but less so with my kids. Why did I go? Because I felt they would benefit from supporting those good folk who saw as I do great importance in interfaith dialogue.

There was a further potential benefit, namely they would be able to recognise those intent on creating division and fanning religious hatreds.

So when Peter Sellick writes “While the gods of paganism were remote and cruel and perfidious” and “For paganism, individual human beings had no faces, they were resources, wives were incubators, slaves were non human, soldiers were fodder for battle.” it is probably important to know exactly how he defines paganism. Is it all faiths outside Christianity? Or all faiths outside the Abrahamic three? Or anything pre-Christian?

Is he a fanner?

To be fair we would probably have to ask davidf how interchangeable he sees the terms pagans and gentiles?

When Peter writes “In short, we are in danger of losing the human.” I get the sense what he really means is we are in danger of losing God. God is indeed fading though still looming large over us all. If we accept that a historical part of the human condition is a propensity to gather deity/ies then he might just have a point.

I’m happy as a non-believer to say that religions certainly make up that ‘rich tapestry’ of humanity as well as being one of the supreme examples of our creativity and I for one would be sad to see the back of them.

Now that is very interesting, Sells.

I can't actually be bothered to check, but I suspect that this may be the very first time that you have felt it necessary to defend your article within the first twentyfour hours of its appearance.

>>There is one thing that you all seem to forget and that is my main career was as a scientist. Go to Google scholar and enter Sellick, P.M and you will find out that my scientific reputation is firmly established.<<

Is this you, Sells?

http://en.scientificcommons.org/p_m_sellick

Your burst of scientific actiity in 1973 is quite interesting, and probably quite impressive to other scientists.

But how does it lend the slightest scintilla of weight to your statements about religion?

It's like suggesting that Pol Pot's scholarship to the École Française d'Électronique et d'Informatique qualifies as a counterweight to Year Zero.

Your arguments for Christianity and against logic need to be able to stand on their own two feet. Attempting to defend them by pointing to your credentials via a thirtyfive-year-old study into hair-cells in the mammalian cochlea is, to be blunt, slightly pathetic.

I have often appreciated your articles here, albeit only faintly, and only because they encourage me to try to understand more about what sort of people are susceptible to religion, and why they feel it to be important.

But this one I find ever-so-slightly offensive. It is gratuitously and pointlessly insulting, on a level that your previous efforts merely hinted at.

“The (atheists) who are most likely to go in front of an audience to proselytize their atheism seem to fall into two camps. One group are Brits. What is it about being raised in Britain that turns so many people vehemently against religion? The other group are those who have rejected a faith ...&#8232;I get the feeling that they are desperately trying to distance themselves from roots that they feel somehow embarrassed by, to try to fit into what they see as the mainstream—if not the mainstream of popular society, then at least the mainstream of the “scientific” society they desperately want to fit into. ... I’m not saying this is why they are atheists; there are plenty of good reasons to be an atheist—or not to be one. But this may be why it is so important for these proselytizers to be aggressively public about their lack of belief.&#8232;

We can all recognize that, of course, as the flip side of religious fundamentalism. It’s when you fundamentally lack faith in God’s salvation that you insist on saving yourself by following the minutiae of the law. ... It is exactly when you are insecure about your own holiness that you most feel the need to parade it, aggressively, in front of everyone else. That is what motivates a few of our more publicly outspoken co-religionists to heap abuse upon science, even as they show how little they understand it. Sadly, they are trying earn brownie points with God by scorning the study of the handiwork God loves.

Likewise, what I find in many of the proselytizers of atheism is a very naive understanding of religion. If religion were anything like the rigid brainwashing it’s often caricatured as, I would have no part of it either. ... People don’t want debates full of fireworks; they want an understanding of the complexities of good and evil that we all struggle to live with every day.&#8232;Clearly, the atheists aren’t providing that. But just as clearly, most of our pastors aren’t, either.“ [From “The Heavens Proclaim: Astronomy and the Vatican“ by Guy Consolmagno, 2009]

"Human nature"

As paganism describes nature religions, it is more human nature than anything else.

Thousands of years ago, when humans first made religion, it was paganism, a religion entirely based on nature - the seasons, the sun, the moon.

"Human nature" literally is paganism. christianity took much of its ideas from older ones, and even those were sometimes older. Even the old testament can be found in earlier times - noah's ark being a good example. It actually is from a much older tale, part of the Sumerian 'epic of Gilgamesh', where the gods sent a flood and a man, Utnapishtim, and his wife are told by the god Ea to build a boat and take all creatures of the land on to it.

All the pagan holidays were covered by becoming xian - yule or bruma became xmas; samhain became hallowe'en and all saints day; oimelc or imbolg became candlemas; and so on. The old gods became the saints and the idea of god as three in one comes from old ideas of the goddess as three - maiden, mother and crone.

So, in a way xians are pagan, so they can't say paganism is wrong, when paganism is "human nature".

What's wrong with this argument?

"1. My beliefs imply that rationalists cannot marry and raise families.

2. But I know rationalists who claim to have married and raised families.

3A. They must be lying."

What about 3B, Peter? -- "My beliefs are wrong."

This little piece of delusion follows exactly the same MO as all your others: find something that some Christians are good at and go on from there to claim that no non-Christians can possibly be good at it. It's a pretty obvious fallacy and by now you have well and truly done it to death.

You are losing it, Peter. Each new article is more and more offensive to all thinking people, and bushbasher's comment about allying yourself with fundamentalists like runner is spot on target. Get a grip, or in a few years' time you'll be picketing abortion clinics and writing threatening letters to Gay Pride organisers.

Do you really think OO views your work as a valuable contribution to a meaningful debate? Or have you become their decoy duck, set up to attract turnover in the form of potshots from people who see how easy it is to blow your pathetic arguments to pieces?

I found this to be a very disappointing article. For some reason, I thought it might be about defining Humanity; an admittedly dangerous discussion, but one long overdue.
I remember back in the 70's, all the fascination and wonder at the enormous brains of dolphins and whales. Was it possible they might be sentient? What thoughts would they have, without hands, without opposable thumbs, without fire? Were the songs of humpbacks epic poems to rival the Iliad?
I remember being deeply disappointed to see a video of killer whales, throwing themselves onto a beach to feed on seals. That part was great cinema, but watching the whales throw the seals in the air and play with them the way a cat plays with a mouse convinced me killer whales at least belong in the animal kingdom, and not in sentient society.
I would suggest the one characteristic that separates humans from the animal kingdom is the ability to empathise; to feel or at least imagine what it feels like to be in another's situation; even the situation of prey.
By this definition there are a number of critters out there who just don't cut it, and unfortunately a number of them in my experience call themselves Christian. I don't mean to imply all Christians are inhuman, just that being Christian doesn't appear to guarantee Humanity.
For instance, I keep getting a mental image of Runner standing just inside the pearly gates, looking out at us sinners, and going "nyah nyah na nyah nyah!"
And then getting kicked out.

What bushbasher said.

Sells: << My biggest support comes from people who do not write on these pages and they constantly assure me that I am on the right track and that the trolls who inhabit these pages are unbelievable. >>

No, Peter. It's you that's unbelievable.

Pete.

What concerns me is how you are prepared to degrade your reputation as a scientist by trying to link your current irrational opinion with that of real science.

Pericles is spot on.

It's a pity you don't apply the same scientific rigour to your current endeavours. I think it goes Measurability,Testability, Repeatability and Predictability.
Good luck with your new career at Hanger 19 anyway.

Hi George,

You've done it again! Well stated. You are the wisest amongst this bunch of crackers who are in need of psychotherapy.

Kind regards,

Constance

PS. Do you really live in Cologne?

Christians say the nicest things:

Runner: << The acceptance of Christ is not an intellectual problem as history proves His death and Resurrection. The problem is hard, proud lustful hearts that refuse to acknowledge their own filth. >>

Constance: << You [George] are the wisest amongst this bunch of crackers who are in need of psychotherapy >>

The esteemed scientist, Peter Sellick:

<< ...the trolls who inhabit these pages are unbelievable...DUUUUR! >>

and his judgement on those who prefer reason over faith:

<< ...How can they understand a poem? Or be deeply moved by an opera? Or understand the complexity and contradiction of characters in the great novels? How can they fall in love and rear a family? >>

And yet we do all of the latter and more, weep at the smile of a child, lose ourselves in a sunset, dream to the sublime sound of Mozart, create great art and architecture - all without a belief in any religion - even Christianity.

Finally Sellick claims:

<<... return us to pre Christian paganism but this time with a narrow rationality at its heart. In short, we are in danger of losing the human. >>

Peter are you claiming that before Christ not a single human being created, wept and loved? For 100's of thousands of years?

With every article you publish, your bitterness grows, your judgement more unbalanced with any compassion for those who do not subscribe to your beliefs.

Look to yourself, Deacon, you are in danger of losing your humanity.

Peter

When the religious knock on my door flogging reams of literature on the magical powers of a deaf, blind, sadistic and invisible mute, I usually answer the door accompanied by my very sensible and instinctively superior canine.

"Woof woof.......Grrrrrrrrrrrr...grrrrrrr...snarl......!"

Peter Sellick- <FOR PAGANISM, WIVES WERE INCUBATORS, IT IS THE MOVE BROUGHT ABOUT BY CHRISTIANITY AND ISRAEL BEFORE IT THAT SAW THE IMAGE OF GOD IN EACH HUMAN BEING THAT PRODCUED THE KIND OF SOCIETY THAT WE ALL NOW ENJOY>

No, it was actually women going to court to argue against the religious male hierarchy for contraception, that saved women from being incubators for the church to produce as many new followers as possible. Even to this day the Christian church refuses to accept modern contraception even though it cannot refuse to let the majority of its followers men and women who use contraception, admittance to its congregations for the simple reason that the churchs would be empty. The people have overridden the church on women being used as incubators and the church has been forced to acquiesce.

Jesus the sacrificial lamb, Who has not heard Jesus referred to on oaccasion as the lamb? That sure seems like a pagan way of appeasing the Gods, the sacrificing of humans and animals. Does Peter Sellick and other Chrisians not see the irony in saying this is enlightened nonpaganism?

Dear csteele,

You asked: "To be fair we would probably have to ask davidf how interchangeable he sees the terms pagans and gentiles?"

Since Sellick has used the word it is relevant how he defines it. He wrote. “For paganism, individual human beings had no faces, they were resources, wives were incubators, slaves were non human, soldiers were fodder for battle.”

I think Sellick has defined his own bigotry. Love, hate, humanity and empathy have never been correlated with any particular religious belief. A number of years ago I visited Delphi in Greece. It was in a beautiful setting ringed with mountains one of which I climbed. On the walls there were a number of inscriptions by the ancients telling what they wished to be remembered by. The most common inscriptions concerned freeing a slave. Although slavery was an accepted practice in ancient Greece many pagan Greeks were clearly uneasy about it and did something to assuage their guilt. However, the New Testament no place condemns slavery. In spite of that and the Inquisition, the Crusades, the wars of the Reformation, the Holocaust, the settling of the Americas with the destruction of the Indian civilisations and the importation of slaves from Africa I refuse to believe that Christians are all evil. There are many instances where Christians have departed from the pattern I outlined above and behaved quite decently. I firmly believe that Christians have the same capacity for love, hate, humanity and empathy that other humans have.

I don’t see the words gentile and pagan as interchangeable although they are related. To me gentile means non-Jewish, and pagan means free-spirited among other things.

The word, gentile, comes from the noun, gens, the group of all those descending from a free male ancestor. The Jews had the idea that all gentiles would eventually see the light and become Jewish. Fortunately, the Jews saw the light and stopped missionising.

Pagan derives from pagus, a villager – someone remote from the city. The meaning, heathen, derived from the fact the villager was remote from the ‘civilising’ aspects of religion.

Wise words Fractelle.

Intuition is part of our human biology and in rational terms (hard or otherwise) is 'naturally' within us and starts probably with our first sucking instinct. Intuition not only derives from the senses but works sub-consciously making best use of previous experiences and is necessary for cognitive development.

Science does not deny intuition and in fact uses it to form hypotheses and in the pursuit of knowledge.

I am pleased that my Christian friends are not so harsh upon their species.

As for howling wastelands or moral emptiness - well one need not look any further than religious fundamentalism.

Thanks Pelican

People who hold beliefs as inflexible as Sellick's, deny you, me and everyone else our basic humanity.

Interestingly, none of my Christian friends share Sellick's view, nor would my other friends, from a mosaic of beliefs and lifestyles, even think to denigrate my innate humanity because I happen to be female, or (mostly) heterosexual, atheist or fair haired & blue-eyed. What is important to them is the measure of who I am, just as I value them for who they are, what they mean to me and my good fortune just to know them.

Many of the forum participants continually decry Peter Sellick’s so-called irrational or unscientific approach to religious or spiritual topics. Scientism, like religionism, is a curse to humanity. Effective ways of knowing are various among and within humans, and all deserve equal respect. There is much more to be said on this, but it must wait for another time.

For the moment let me say what many others have said on innumerable occasions: if we are to be fully human, the scientific method is not appropriate to every aspect of living. I cannot be in a purely logical-empirical way. The ground of my being lies in my examined relationship to both objective and subjective events. The trees outside my study window and the trees I dream about are both part of my experience. I derive value and meaning from both. In other words, I experience my being as a human in both subjective and objective cognition -- and most importantly in trying to reconcile the two. For me, this is spiritual work and Christian practice facilitates it.

I think Peter Sellick is probably doing this too, being a successful scientist and a theologian at the same time

“So to make a trade between a certain kind of rationality and so called intuitive understandings is to queer the argument right from the start. This is the kind of argument that is accepted by many today and Christians should be very angry that they have been so maligned. It is time the church spoke out about how the argument between rationality and religion has been framed…

The fact is that the modern world is based firmly on Christian understandings of what it means to be human. While paganism could only seek to escape from the material world of the body, Christianity, with its proclamation that God had become a man, affirmed the body and gave rise to hospitals and medicine to care for the body….These are the aspects of Christianity that produced a seismic shift in culture.”

True indeed, and very well-said.

There is gross ignorance about what the scientific method is. Those who say that science “proves” that there is no God or that it will invariably lead to atheism shows their ignorance about the matter, because atheism and theism are both faith-based belief systems.

Dr. Francis Collins the director of The Human Genome Project became an evangelical Christian through studying science. Collins was awarded the highest civilian US medal, the Presidential Medal of Freedom).

After listening to him for 2 hours it is difficult to see how science contradicts Christianity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y

Former atheist and brilliant scientist, Alister McGrath (currently Prof. of Historical Theology), completely demolishes Richard Dawkins to being a science fiction writer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxc0NpTZE18 (Dawkins vs McGrath)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0bUAImz-zw

(Dennett, Prof. of philosophy; one wonders why McGrath takes the trouble to debate him. An ‘A’ level student can easily poke holes in his arguments)

What too can one make of Peter's earlier OLO article:

"Environmentalists: the New Pharisees?"

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=488

And the "loving" Jesus said to the Pharisees:

“Woe to you scribes and Pharisee, you frauds! You are like white-washed tombs, beautiful to look at on the outside but inside full of filth and dead men’s bones.” Matt 23:27

“Thus you show that you are the sons of the prophets’ murderers. Now it is your turn. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?" Matt23: 31:33

Such hyperbole and aptly endorsed by Runner: "The problem is hard, proud lustful hearts that refuse to acknowledge their own filth.

It appears that as long as one is Christian, one is not "filthy" in the eyes of the Christian God and can trash the environment with impunity. Bleating Godbotherers, Bush, Howard and Blair thought nothing of wilfully killing off the Iraqi people (and beyond) with the use of depleted uranium thus violating all the laws of nature and using civilians as cannon fodder in perpetuity.

I suggest that Peter Sellick (scientist?) enrols in a crash course in Environmental Toxicology! He really needs to get out and about more!

Ah yes the USA medal of freedom.

It has been given to all kinds of people for all kinds of activities.

George the village idiot from Texas gave it to John Howard and Tony Blair for services rendered in the illegal imperial invasion of Iraq.

How many hundreds of thousands of people have died thus far?
And what about the traumatized survivors?
And the ruination of Iraq altogether?

And what about the long term effects of depleted uranium as a result of that mis-adventure.

Perhaps the good Francis Collins should commission a comprehensive study into the topic?

I also saw that the raving looney psychopath Edward Teller (one of the toxic fathers of the bomb and the big-time force in the development of the H-BOMB too) was awarded the medal by the village idiot too.

Why do people consider atheists as also being "faith based" ?
My interpretation of an atheist is having no belief in a god of any sort. How does that then give me some kind of faith ? Faith in nothing is hardly a belief.

Fractelle, I love reading your postings you put a lot of thought into what you say and you are erudite and articulate in quite a simple way sometimes. I wish more correspondents were so cogent and reasonable

I commend readers to (Bishop) Tom Frame’s article “Godless nation no longer beggars belief” in The Australian Literary Review of 5 August. This is about the implications for Australia of the widespread loss or positive rejection of religious belief. He writes:

“With the eventual discarding of Australia's Christian meta-narrative there will… be a void to fill. No replacement has yet been found despite claims for the existence of agreed values, conveniently ignoring their origin in the cultural legacy of the nation's Christian past. The world's leading atheists and anti-theists do not have a clearly articulated vision of what a godless world will be like. Most insist they don't need one.

"Although profess few common values or shared virtues, do not have comprehensive answers to the world's problems and are not offering a positive program of action to deal with greed and selfishness, betrayal and violence, they simply assert that a world without God is always and everywhere to be preferred. They ask that others trust their interpretations, accept their pledges and have faith in humanity. Accepting such an invitation is not without significant risk.

“In the absence of an underlying and unifying story capable of providing a set of values and virtues able to shape human behaviour, interactions between people will become increasingly reliant on the force and effect of contracts and regulations.

"With even less consensus about the point and purpose of human living, the public interest and the common good will become ever harder to determine as demands for individual fulfilment and personal satisfaction become irresistible. …

“Although they comprise a declining proportion of the population, religious believers will continue to participate in public conversations about what matters and what ought to matter in life. There will certainly be conflict between Christians and those who espouse what has been called positive atheism, the belief that there is no God. It cannot be any other way. Put simply: Christianity and positive atheism will never be indifferent to one another. … Christians want to promote their faith and share its blessings. Anti-theists abhor zealous evangelism and want it prohibited. ”

Constance.
Thank you for your kind words of appreciation, as undeserved as they are. I wanted to offer the following quote by Walt Whitman to Peter Sellick, but at second thought I think we all - perhaps especially Christians - can benefit from it:

“Have you learn’d lessons only from those who admire you, and were tender with you, and stood aside of you?
Have you not learn‘d great lessons from those who reject you, and brace themselves against you? Or who treat you with contempt, or dispute the passage with you?”

Yes, I do live in Cologne. Having been born in what is now Slovakia, I am too young to have other than childhood memories of WWII, but too old to remember the Stalinist and post-Stalinist times, where at school I heard for the first time most of the objections against religion and Christianity (paraded also on this OLO) thus developing a wish to better understand not so much the objections themselves as the persons raising them. I lived more than thirty years in Melbourne and consider Australia my real home, however because of my wife I am spending my retirement years in Germany.

Glorfindel wrote: Christians want to promote their faith and share its blessings. Anti-theists abhor zealous evangelism and want it prohibited.

Dear Glorfindel,

Too often in history Christians have promoted their faith to people who had their own faith. Charlemagne offered the pagan Gauls the choice of Christianity or beheading. Olaf, patron saint of Norway, offered the pagan Norse the choice of exile, the blood eagle (ribs detached and lungs spread on each side of the body), Luther offered the Jews his new faith (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism), and they refused as they had a perfectly good faith of their own. In 1543 Luther published "On the Jews and Their Lies" in which he says that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine." The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..." He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them." The Teutonic Knights mounted crusades against Lithuania where my grandmother came from because the pagan ruling house ruled a genuine multicultural society and allowed freedom of belief to all including Christians. In 1386 the Lithuanian royal house gave in and became Christian.

The Conversion of Europe from Paganism to Christianity: 371-1386 by Richard Fletcher, London: Fontana (HarperCollins), 1998, is a tale of great violence. Ireland is the only country during that period which became Christian peacefully. Christians murdered to correct the sin of not being Christian.

It is not just anti-theists who abhor zealous evangelism. Theists with knowledge of the suffering inflicted by zealous evangelism also abhor it.

george:

obviously, i can appreciate the whitman quote. but sorry, i found your quoting consomalgno silly. forget the fact that it's setting up a dubious "flip side" equivalence, and engages in a very questionable speculation about the origins of this purported equivalence. the main problem with it is that it doesn't relate to the issue at hand.

the issue isn't about belief versus atheism, unless you choose to make it so. that's not the claim of sellick's article, and i can't see anybody here making atheism the issue, other than christians. the issue is christianity (a la sellick) versus non-christianity.

crabsy:

>> Scientism, like religionism, is a curse to humanity.

perhaps, but who is arguing for scientism? who can you point to who actually practises it? in contrast, i can point to many christians who believe the earth is 6000 years old. and, i don't pretend you or sellick represent such silliness.

>> Effective ways of knowing are various among and within humans, and all deserve equal respect.

sorry, though i agree somewhat with the thrust, what you've said is either false or tautological. reading tea leaves is a way of knowing, but it does not deserve equal respect. ways of knowing deserve respect consistent with the power of the ways.

>> For me, this is spiritual work and Christian practice facilitates it.

fair enough. the difference between you and sellick is that you are not claiming that christian practice is necessary. you are not trashing others for an absence of christian practice.

glorfindel:

>> "[atheists] ask that others ... have faith in humanity."

sort of. the point is you have no choice. even on your terms. like it or not, humanity chooses the gods (or lack of them) to believe in. they've chosen some loving gods, and they've chosen some real stinkers, often with the exact same birth certificates.

all of you:

i'm not sure if these are meant to be defenses of sellick or not, and i don't presume it. but to the extent they are, they aren't. i think they're actually pretty damning with their non-existent praise.

Bushbasher:

<who is arguing for scientism?>

Well, in the current thread bitey, Firesnake and examinator seem to be saying that the topic Sells has tackled must be approached with the scientific method. For example examinator writes: “It's a pity you don't apply the same scientific rigour to your current endeavours. I think it goes Measurability,Testability, Repeatability and Predictability.” But I was referring also to many contributions to discussion of Peter’s other articles. Theology and spiritual experience can be investigated effectively with logic, but the scientific criteria (summarised by bitey) are irrelevant in this context.

<ways of knowing deserve respect consistent with the power of the ways.>
Yes, I agree. Of course that’s why I deliberately referred to “effective” ways of knowing.

<i'm not sure if these are meant to be defenses of sellick or not, and i don't presume it. but to the extent they are, they aren't. i think they're actually pretty damning with their non-existent praise.>

I’m in this forum primarily to discuss the article and its general topic, not to defend or damn a person.

crabsy,

*) firesnake et al can respond if they wish. but i would suggest that some of this is in response to sellick's "i'm a scientist" puffery, and some in response to his poor reasoning. just because the scientific method doesn't apply, doesn't mean that rules of logic and standards of truth don't apply.

*) o.k. effective ways of knowing. it doesn't alter the point, that ways of knowing only earn respect to the extent they are effective. there's no god-given equality.

*) yes, i believe you are a respectful person, and wish to play the ball not the man. unfortunately, in this case the "ball" is sellick's article, one in a long, long series of divisive and insulting articles.

in response to my earlier dig, sellick dismissed his critics as "trolls", but that he found "support" from, for example, you and reida "challenging". (sellick is right about me - at this stage i have no hesitation in trolling sellick. but george's whitman quote comes screaming to mind).

if sellick is going to enlist you in support, it seems fair enough to point out that your "support" does not seem so supportive. for that matter, it doesn't seem so "challenging" either. i see criticism of sellick's critics, but i don't see the same people much addressing sellick's article at all.

sorry crabsy. i respected your post, agreed with a lot of it, and i'm not trying to pick on you. but the reality is, sellick sets the tone.

bushbasher,
>> i found your quoting consomalgno silly<<
That is your prerogative, and I could respond by saying that I also find some of your posts silly. However, that is not my way to express an alternative opinion.

I have not read Consolmagno‘s book - so I cannot say what he “engages in” as you seem to know - but I somehow suspect his insight into the problems of religion vs science, faith vs “unfaith“ is deeper than what I have read from you on this OLO. Apologies if you have read his book and know otherwise.

You are right, the quote does not relate directly to Sellick‘s article: the middle paragraph relates to runner, the rest of it to those contributors on this thread (and on others as well) who attack Christian world-views with indeed a very naive understanding of religion.

I accept that you do not see the quote as being relevant; please accept that at least one other reader of this thread does.

I agree, the issue is not about belief versus atheism. Sellick presents an interpretation of Christianity that I do not share to 100%, and I have been engaged with him on these issues in the past. However, I have learned more from him than from those who “treat him with contempt, or dispute the passage with him” to return to Walt Whitman. Yes, he writes sometimes disrespectfully of atheists, “pagans“, etc., but please do not ask me to make a count and compare places where he uses abusive language aimed at atheists with the pieces of abusive language (on this and other threads) aimed at him personally, or Christianity as such.

So how do you define Human Being, Sells?
Unlike the very thoughtful article by Stephan Chelada, your contribution focussed entirely on the 'how', while completely sidestepping the 'defining'.
You have told us yet again what a Christian is, and what non Christians are not. Are you ready to take the final step, and define Human Being according to religion?

Sells,
Whilst we certainly don’t agree on all matters, it is true to say crabsy and I give general support to you being “on the right track”. Again, an article you write attracts considerable attention and also angst for many of the ‘sensitive souls’ who frequent here.

Those who take a literal and linear approach to Christianity (e.g. the Jehovah’s Witnesses) continue to argue that mainstream Christianity has departed from original Christianity due, in part, to Pagan influences. For those here at OLO who move beyond a general trite understanding will realise Christianity was not a sudden and miraculous transformation, springing forth full grown as Athene sprang from the head of Zeus, but it is a composite of slow and laborious growth.

At around the 8th century "Beowulf" was an early and almost unfathomable piece of literature in the European vernacular. It is an uncanny visitation from a dark lost corner of our history, an era caught between paganism and Christianity. Fate, a pagan concept, plays a role in this story - "fate, the master of us all, must decide this issue". The pagan concept of vengeance is also found in Beowulf - the cause of Beowulf's battle with the dragon. However, these concepts are also linked to the Christian ideals of humility and unselfishness – ‘the proper bearing of man’. A strong sense of heroic pride within Beowulf is at times in direct conflict with these values and we see the dichotomy of pride vs. humility and sacrifice vs. selfishness.

Interestingly, in Beowulf, contrast is made between the pagan and Christian cultures for as stated (to Beowulf), "Have no care for pride, great warrior". The cause (hubris) and effect (a fall) are as true today as they were so many years ago. Many here fail to realise a central theme to Christianity - some, perhaps, for good reason but others, certainly, too proud for its acknowledgement.

Subjects such as these that Sellick raises always reminds me of how far we have to go in strengthening those binding ties that we all share as humans first and foremost. Inevitably it comes down to them and us which is a shame.

What gains do we make as HUMANS in defining those who do not share your opinion as "trolls", "sensitive souls" or at worst "filth". (Although I don't acknowledge runner as representative of all Christians).

The onus or burden of proof should not lie with those who question or might be sceptical in the face of unsubstantiated claims. To explain this disparity in terms of intuition is to over-simplify the issue.

As for hospitals (someone mentioned Christianity's role in tending the sick) well wasn't it the pagans who first practised herbal medicine and fostered alchemy? Are we to believe that the sick were cared for only after the advent of the Christian belief?

Atheists don't deny (in the main) that our moral framework has been largely derived through Christianity including our legal framework (in the West at least). Christians should consider the concept that Christianity itself is a construct of man to perhaps enable this moral framework.

This would suggest there lies a natural altruism inherent in man. Christianity as a concept is not responsible for altruism - if it is not inherent it cannot be manufactured. Christianity might have been the vehicle by which this humanity was delivered at a time of great turmoil (albeit not always delivered in a humane and compassionate way and was not without corruption, dominance and power).

Do we really need the concept of a God (or many Gods) to make us human?

Pelican, bravo. This must be a much more interesting and fruitful discussion than Sells' interminable 'Christians good, everybody else bad'.
Christian slave owners justified their actions by defining humans as white. People who weren't white, weren't human, therefore it was permissible to treat them like animals.
I'm still interested to learn how Sells defines 'Human Being'. Does one have to be a Christian, to qualify?
Can only sentient beings conceptualise Gods? I've found dogs get a certain look in their eyes...

Like most discussions on comparative religions Pete's tends to follow the well worn tradition of starting with a conclusion and then seek to justify that conclusion. Note I didn't say hypothesis.
Apart from the usual search for supportive evidence (?) (read conformational reasoning) add the bias of the applied logic.
He manages to offer two more fatal flaws, Christian arrogance and he has no real understanding of the alternative(s) either factually or conceptionally.

To be fair few in the west really grasp many of the concepts/unique logic in Shaman 'religions' (?) . Which is the antithesis of 'mass civilisation' logic.
IMHE Pete displays the above flaws in his erroneous declarations he makes about both women and the individual. Generalisation (one size fits no one) is a perversion/feature of mass civilisations/religions where the individual IS reduced to a number.
They tend not to think in these concepts i.e. there are 18 words in shamanic based Arabic for camel and 52 word for smoke in koori the same lack of abstractions/generalisations is true of most of the literal languages in PNG. The consequences on their language/conceptualisation or reality is immense. To understand them adequately one needs to jettison mass concepts logic and adopt their mentality. A tall order.
As I have said before I do not have the skill with words to be able to do more than token service to this.
Consider trying to describe the colour Red to someone who was born congenitally blind. Our reference points are too different.
Mass religions/cultures/civilisations assume supremacy and in the case of religious missionaries are so imbued with this arrogance that they create more problems that they purport to solve.
Shamanistic cultures do not make the separation of religion, spirituality (sic) , natural law , taboos and reality. They have evolved to suit their circumstances even cannibalism.

Yet they are considered primitive which often extends to their genetic existence.
Which (child substitution) proves wrong. Nature abhors a waste filling/ every possible life supporting niche... Ask yourself “why then the waste of genetic IQ potential why hasn't it been jettisoned?”
Pt1?

Well said, pelican. I'd also add that Islam was providing medical care within its communities while Christians were still slaughtering Jews as a remedy for the plague, and that the "moral framework" of Christianity owes far more to the intellectuals of old Greece than to the anything in the bible.

A quick look at history reminds us that Sells is simply making up a version of Christianity which suits his supremacist opinions, rather than examining the Christianity which actually exists.

As for relda's "sensitive souls", yes: I'm sensitive to essays which declare that the majority of human beings are in fact soulless zombies incapable of appreciating beauty, sensing profundity, or having sensibilities more civilised than Ghengis Khan's. It's uncomfortably close to the type of screed which religions have used throughout history to class non-believers as expendable cattle. It would be laughable if there weren't so many self-obsessed elitists (such as runner) who are completely receptive to Sells' message.

It begs the question: what is Sells' and runner's experience of the world? When they see someone kiss their child, or a crowd queing for an opera performance, do they assume that all those people are devout Christians, and thus able to give love or appreciate art? If Christianity is a prerequisite for any sort of morality or culture, do they think that millions of Australians spend their days at home in orgies of violence and sadomasochism?

We get horrified at extremist beliefs in Islam, but for examples of surreal hatemongering we need go no further than Sells' local church.

“Do we really need the concept of a God (or many Gods) to make us human?” - A fully balanced view of our anthropogenic history would clearly suggest the affirmative. Unless we are about to enter a brave new world with an ‘imagination deficit syndrome’ (my phrase), the concept of God is more than likely to remain.

Paul Tillich (whom Sells finds “impossible”) perhaps had the intention of stirring controversy, but with a point in the following:
"God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

"God is the symbol for God"

"The God of theism is dead"

His remark that "God is the symbol for God" may lead many to conclude that he regarded God as merely symbolic (i.e., not real). However, Tillich was simply conveying the fact that human language can never fully grasp the ‘ineffable glory of God’, since our "superlatives become diminutives" when applied to God.

Thomas Aquinas gave a meaning for ‘truth’ as intrinsically linked with the notion of being – in many ways he parralells Tillich. He proceeds from an ontological understanding of truth, which is, as such, indicated by his conviction that ‘being’ is the first conception of the intellect (quod primo cadit intellectu est ens). The conceptual horizon from within which Thomas approaches the question of God is taken from the ‘Greek’ philosophical inquiry into the ultimate nature and truth of reality.

Since the entire universe is said to be divine in the Vedic texts, Hindus worship every form of nature as God. The Vedic texts, however, clearly say that one should not believe that a form of the universe itself is the God, but it is just a part of the divine wholeness. God is in everything and everything is in God – Tillich undoubtedly would agree and further, give embellishment from a Christian viewpoint.

Davidf:

You say "Theists with knowledge of the suffering inflicted by zealous evangelism also abhor it." Well, not quite - it depends on what you mean by zealous evangelism.

The history of forced conversions, under the unity of church and state, is an indelible stain on humanity - like the crimes of all totalitarian belief systems. It belies man's understanding and internalization of the VERY MESSAGE of Christ. Luther's antisemitism is vile. As a contemporary, evangelical Christian (though certainly not of the "Religious Right") I don't own that history. Christians are enjoined to be salt and light, to give savour and set a desirable example to the world. Conversion by the sword absolutely misses the point.

Zealous evangelism by Billy Graham or Peter Jensen or William Booth cannot be compared with past violence, or present-day jihadism in Islam.

Lithuania, Europe’s last pagan state, was converted to Christianity in 1386, almost 400 years after Kievan Rus’, when to keep the Teutonic Knights at bay, Lithuanian Grand Duke Jagiello and Polish Queen Jadwiga wed, creating a monarchial union beginning the Jagiellonian Era of Polish history. Before then, the Lithuanian-Russian state was a benign coexistence of paganism and Christianity.

At the time, three quarters of Lithuania's population was Russian. After the Mongols destroyed Kievan Rus' in 1237-40, Russian principalities predominated in Lithuania and the Lithuanians keenly borrowed from the culture of Kievan Rus’. Lithuanian princes preserved Russian customs and adopted the Orthodox religion, they married Russians, gave their children Russian names and often spoke Russian at home. Lithuanian princes spoke of themselves as the heads of a Lithuanian and Russian Principality, and Russian princes coexisted with Lithuanian princes in appanages under the Lithuanian Grand Prince. This is why the Lithuanian-Russian state was a real rival to Moscow as the candidate to re-gather the Russian people, and remained so until the Union of Lublin (1569) fused not just the thrones but the countries of Lithuania and Poland, imposing monolithic Polish Catholicism upon the Orthodox population.

This is a quirk of history, and doesn't really prove much. Nero (pagan) persecuted Christians viciously.

Not a single Christian poster here has clearly, succinctly and unambiguously stated:

That Peter Sellick regularly denigrates non-Christians,

nor

that non-Christians are as human and humane as Christians.

Now I'm not expecting anything like the above from Runner, however a phrase from the last line in Relda's (apparently) moderate post does indicate a certain sense of superiority of her Christian beliefs over that of others.

<<< God is in everything and everything is in God ...... give(n) embellishment from a Christian viewpoint. >>>

The above, perhaps, goes partway to answering Pelican's question as to whether we need a god or gods to be human. If "god is in everything" then s/he/it is present in us all irrespective of our individual beliefs. Which obliquely contradicts Sellick.

BUT

Then Relda goes and spoils it all by saying something specious like 'the Christian viewpoint giving embellishment' - unlike any other religion or philosophy, apparently.

OK, I accept that Christians believe their religion is the bee's knees of religions, but millions of other people don't and we get tetchy when told we are lacking in value or virtue for not being Christian. And, personally, I find the tacit support of Sellick's extreme views frankly hypocritical.

How do we define human being?
1. As the creators of the gods or god, old gods new gods, bad gods or worst gods! It is not easy to create a god, exept if you create a primative one!
2. As the animal which thinks first, plans first and after acts.
3. As the champion of all species on planet earth!
4. As the conquer of planet earth
5. As the only hope to save the live beigns of planet earth!
6. As the only live beign which can jump in his past and dream his future, who understand his present as a continues pass from his past to his fiture!
7. As the only live beign of the earth which can make deep changes (genetic engineering)on him self and his environment
8. As the crazy animal which is a permanent threat for him self and the whole life on planet earth.
9. As the explorer and colonist of the space!
10. As an arrogant animal which need a good leson but he did not find yet his teacher!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

LOL "God cannot be three persons in one"... couldn't read any more after that I had tears in my eye's and my belly hurt.

Fractelle and anyone else:

Every person is born with the potential to be fully human and humane.

I think Sells is implying this when he writes of seeing “the image of God in each human being”.

I admit that his writing is not always as clear as I would like. However, my reading of this article (and some others) is that he believes the “hard rationalists” who attack religion and faith per se apparently don’t realise that their philosophical standpoint is at odds with their real life. He is pointing out that on the one hand, like all human beings they love, they care, they imagine, they enjoy beauty, they hope; yet on the other hand they de-value all this subjective life by their demand that only logical empiricism leads to truth, understanding and improvement in the world.

By the way Fractelle, what do you understand by the word “embellish”? To me it means something like “to enrich with adornments”. I think Relda was simply saying that Paul Tillich would agree with the Vedic belief and express it in the language of the Christian tradition. I wouldn't call that "specious".

Ho Hum

It is a political move to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Tony Blair. But for the non-politicians one should not begrudge their receiving the medal.

"Collins's work in his highly active lab demonstrates that research emphasis, which is devoted to finding the genes that contribute to adult-onset, Type 2 diabetes."

"On July 8, 2009 President Barack Obama nominated him to the position of Director of the National Institutes of Health."

He probably did not receive a Nobel prize because he is a strong advocate of Christianity.

>> He is pointing out that on the one hand, like all human beings they love, they care, they imagine, they enjoy beauty, they hope; yet on the other hand they de-value all this subjective life by their demand that only logical empiricism leads to truth, understanding and improvement in the world. <<

That's a false premise. Logical empiricism DOES lead to truth, understanding and improvement in the physical world. That's why only Sellick, runnner, and the Taliban are fighting for a return to the ignorance of the Dark Ages.

Where are the people claiming that love and beauty can only be appreciated through scientific observation? They don't exist.

Religion provides institutionalised comfort against the fear of death and uncertainty, but every claim the bible makes about the physical world has been proven wrong. Sellick is afraid that it will continue to demonstrate the falsehood of his beliefs, leaving him nowhere to hide. His reaction is to claim a Christian monopoly on the non-physical and intangible and denounce everyone who disagrees as subhuman.

Imagine what it means for Sellick if he's wrong. Imagine that atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, and new-age spiritualists feel the same depth and profundity that hardline Christians do. It leaves him with nothing. No serious contention for a young, flat earth, no geocentric universe, and no claim that Christians experience a deeper spritual life than anyone else.

Sellick is barricaded in the last tiny refuge available to the superstitious, while the real world bashes at the door. This article is a last, desperate attempt to justify remaining locked in a comfortable intellectual ghetto.

Glorfindel wrote: "Christians are enjoined to be salt and light, to give savour and set a desirable example to the world."

Dear Glorfindel,

Some Jews interpret the Chosen People idea to mean they are chosen to set an example for others.

I really think it is arrogant for anyone to think they are good enough to set an example to others. If you think you are, then you are guilty of the sins of self-righteousness and excessive pride.

Non-Christians may be living a more righteous life than Christians.

Non-Jews may be living a more righteous life than Jews.

Do the best you can, and let others do likewise.

Try to be as righteous as you can be and curb your arrogance.

snake: "Why do people consider atheists as also being 'faith based'?"

Let R be the set of faith-based-belief system i.e.

R = {islam,judaism,buddhism,...}

the empty set is a member of R, i.e. { } is a subset of R

so it must follow that atheism is a member of R, ie a faith-based system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set

Steph puts it very clearly in her blog.
http://stephiblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/atheist-faith/

If you do not want to have anything to do with faith-based belief system, be an agnostic

DOCTRINES are the real problem. The belief that our God and the story of our God is the right one. Why is it that if people want to believe in some kind of spiritual power in the Universe (God),that they don't just leave it at that?

This business of our group knows the truth and yours doesn't,because our holy men recorded history this way is just so typical of human schoolyard behaviour. Dispense with the holy men, the priests,the imans,the Popes. The Pope is just a silly old duffer,and yet you see all these stupid people who don't know the first thing about the man treating him like he's God himself. He's is nothing like a God in any way shape or form. No man on this earth is anything like a God if such an entity does exist so stop giving them the power to rule your lives.

They are no better than the witch doctors which I see are resurfacing again in their more primitive guise in some tribes in New Guinea and still exist in cultures in different parts of the world. They might wear modern robes today and be more modern in their schooling but they are one and the same. The more mankind thinks things have changed the more they stay the same. Just wearing a different disguise that's all.

Mark Twain said that "Faith is believing what you know ain't so".

Science flies you to the Moon but Religion flies you into buildings.

Perhaps a human being is somebody who is less inclined to see things as they really are, but more as how they think they should be.

A human being is a walking talking member of the human race, and is both a spiritual and a physical being. The spiritual spark in the carbon unit that we call a human, is what sets us apart from lower forms of life. Our spirituality makes us love and hate, worship God, or money, be fond of our children or violently disagree with them, but it is passion that makes us human.

As a society passion is essential, and anger is necessary. Unless something makes a person angry, it will be tolerated, and some things are intolerable. Sometimes as in the former Soviet Union, a philosophy is imposed that treats humans as chattels, and those that disagree are murdered, but it is still passion, and man’s inhumanity to man, is as much part of being human as compassion and love.

There has been an eternal war between love and hate, that the scientists have tried to define, and assisted one side to take out its vengeance on another but man’s humanity continues to break through. In man I include the females of the human race, though they often hate more and are more passionate in many ways than the men are.

There is an electricity that emanates from a human being, that creates a bond between two humans and when it fuses then there is a natural progression towards procreation. This passion is harnessed and directed by Christianity, and the collective prayers of a mass of people can be an enormous force for good. The internal God, the image of our maker in whom we are created, is what makes us human, and when that spark is extinguished, we cease to be.

The spiritual side of mankind is essential to humanity and defies science. Mind over matter is the defining characteristic of a human. Some people are able to harness that enormous power of the Holy Spirit, and it is what makes us free. When two or three come together, the Holy Spirit descends, and that is why a Court without a jury, cannot be a Constitutional court

From now on, any time I hear the mantra:

"Religion is just another way of knowing..."

my response will be "Knowing WHAT?"

Let's have just ONE undeniable fact, expressed in plain English, which has been discovered or derived from religion and not from science, logic, reason or empirical common sense.

Just ONE.

Well?

Fractelle,
I fail to see how I’ve “spoilt” anything by a complimentary association of two religions – you seem, however, to be denigrating one above the other. Crabsy clearly and simply saw my meaning, one which you seem unable to comprehend.

If you wish to label me or any other for being a hypocrite, where we endeavor to: Try to live in peace with everyone, to be humble and gentle, be patient with each other, making allowance for each other's faults because of our love, and to pursue a godly life, along with our faith, love and perseverance etc. then there is little more we can say.

Jon J,
Interestingly science is suggesting to us, roughly speaking, that we tend to develop “two minds.” There is our “symbolic intelligence,” where all the thoughts we have are in words and mathematics but the biggest part of our brain, however, is for “subsymbolic intelligence,” or our ‘mouse’ brain - all it has are images, senses, actions and feelings, and actions come from the subsymbolic brain. Two “minds” would suggest also two different types of 'knowing'.

Conventional religious beliefs are beliefs expressed in words, propagated in words, and thought about in words. Our ability to think in words and in mathematics is only a recent development and to master this process effectively we need to work at it. Certain scientific conjecture has it than we are evolving towards a new kind of brain, which may be called “the sapient brain.” In the sapient brain, the symbolic and subsymbolic intelligence are more integrated. They work together smoothly and seamlessly (to the extent that intelligence can ever be smooth).

Those who adhere religiously to the oppressive symbolic way of thinking (e.g. religious fundamentalists) are forever doomed to be total hypocrites and forever cut off from anything truly real in the spiritual realm. Their only hope is to give it up (as did Aquinas in his later life) and ground themselves in the real roots of life, completely, without barnacles. These real roots belong to all of humanity, and all life on earth.

relda, I suppose I should thank you for supplying an example of a statement of Sells, which I could actually agree with.

"Paul Tillich (whom Sells finds “impossible”) perhaps had the intention of stirring controversy, but with a point in the following:
"God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

I suspect Tillich was an admirer of Descartes. To me, Descartes second most memorable assertion was along the lines of "Those who agree with me are merely demonstrating they have the wit to understand me. Those who disagree, are demonstrating they do not."
The way to win a philosophical argument is to come up with an inarguable (or insufferable) statement, even if it adds nothing to the discourse.
I was raised 'in the faith', and while I reject even the remote possibility of a 'personal God', I still have just a feeling that there is something more.
I suspect faith is nothing more than the inability to escape a deeply rooted paradigm.

Doesn't this strike you as just a little self-serving, relda?

>>"Do we really need the concept of a God (or many Gods) to make us human?" A fully balanced view of our anthropogenic history would clearly suggest the affirmative.<<

This "fully balanced view" would of course be your own.

On the other hand, a "fully balanced view" might equally suggest that mankind has simply invented an external force that he calls God in order fill a knowledge gap.

You - possibly inadvertently - admit this.

>>Unless we are about to enter a brave new world with an ‘imagination deficit syndrome’ (my phrase) [sic], the concept of God is more than likely to remain<<

Here, you clearly suggest that God can only exist in the imagination.

No imagination. No God.

However, I think you really meant to echo Sells, in his effort to arrogate the entire spectrum of non-linear thought to his religion.

"How can [atheists] understand a poem? Or be deeply moved by an opera? Or understand the complexity and contradiction of characters in the great novels? How can they fall in love and rear a family?"

The argument that imagination, and emotions, and feelings, and dreams, are all the sole prerogative of Christians does not hold water, I'm afraid.

Back in the real world, the manner in which religion is practised strongly suggests that it is the precise opposite of "imagination".

A belief in a god or gods is the position to which an individual retreats when they actively desire to be rid of imagination, and settle back into blissful ignorance.

This state is characterized by an unwillingness to accept the reality of our short span on this earth, and a disinclination to explore horizons any further than the convenient myth they have invented for themselves.

It matters little to anyone else that you choose this path, relda.

But your - and Sells' - continual harping on the inadequacy of the non-religious is nothing short of offensive.

Peter once again exhibits his fear of scientific rationality and "atheism" and rallies against these "foes". What he fails to mention is that his kind of old time Christianity is doomed, not because of Humanists, Atheists, Pagans and modernity but because of people like the Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, South Korea. With about 830,000 members (2007), it is the largest Christian congregation in South Korea and in the whole world. It reflects the trend in the US and much of the world towards churches which advocate personal wealth (and health) through belief and prayer. A complete aberration of the kind of Christianity Peter believes in these churches represent the Christian religion of the future.
Peter, I would take you concerns about threats to your belief system more seriously if you could identify your enemy better. No atheist to my knowledge has claim "wealth" or "health" benefits or claims to hold a a superior moral position to yourself. We do not hold meetings to condemn you or influence political parties. There is no federal or state budget for a "fight" against religion. Your problem is with other believers, not us.

Peter Sellick: extremist.“What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.” from Bobby Kennedy found here http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/08/17/time-to-talk-about-extremists/#comments

One thing I love about theologists, is their ability to use their religion to justify genocide, war, ethnic cleansing, slavery, torture among other things, as morally commanded by their true living gods and then claim non-believers need to come to their true living gods or die. As some Hawaiian said, when the missionaries came we had the land and they had the book. Today, we have the book and they have the land.

Peter, I completely agree with the general thrust of your article, but not with the sentence "The fact is that the modern world is based firmly on Christian understandings of what it means to be human".

I am sure we would agree on the Christian understanding of what it means to be human. But the modern world's understanding is (to put it a little crudely) that the human is the one true god, there being no known higher being. Though, of course, many do not go along with it, it must be regarded as the "official" view of the powers of this world. And I do agree that there is some vestige of Christian understanding in there somewhere, but pretty much buried under all the rubble.

Hmm, I presume there are still some Native Hawaiians, or did the Christians kill them all or just enslave them?

Perhaps they would have been better under the Vikings or the Maori, or perhap the Imperial Japenese or as an Emirate?

At least they probably have a birth certificate, unlike Obama?

Relda

We will have to agree to disagree.

I concur with Pericles that:

"However, I think you really meant to echo Sells, in his effort to arrogate the entire spectrum of non-linear thought to his religion."

You are an erudite and articulate writer, but digging through your posts to a clear meaning, leaves one empty-handed. There is no critique of Sellick's claim of non-Christians lacking humanity, which I would expect from any reasonable human being. Therefore, I reiterate your tacit approval of his heavy handed and offensive arguments.

This is why I claimed "hypocrisy".

You have demonstrated the 'doublethink' that is essential for religious belief. I prefer honest words to pretty writing.

Peace to you.

An ideal test for some of the assumptions might be to pop along to the multiple activities held over Science Week.

http://www.scienceweek.gov.au/Pages/index.aspx

Of note is the complete, unambiguous and unavoidable lack of any claim *against* religion, or even *about* religion, much less Christianity. Indeed, if any position is presented it is that one is encouraged to make up ones own mind, with respect to available evidence, beliefs, existing knowledge and so on. I might point out that religion is the opposite. "No, here is the *only* way to approach situation X."

If we accept Peters thesis then the wondrous and fascinating exhibitions that continue to improve thanks to knowledge and applied science [as in say - computer graphics], wouldn't exist. Simply, the same story told for 1600 years.

True, theists get annoyed when astronomers present informative and beautiful 3D movies on our galaxy, without saying "God made...". Yes, I've heard the USA case arguing that this knowledge equates to internalising overwhelming "insignificance". Realising we are "insignificant", scientists thus have no reason to not kill all and everything. Such an argument was presented via "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". Interview here;

http://atheistage.org/?p=1154

Quietly at tax payer expense, Access Ministries continue to teach Christianity in public schools, outraging parents who consciously avoid religious instruction. Sadly, "instruction" now includes telling the kids mum or dad is lying or [and I quote] "Mrs. X says Jesus loves me more than you do". "Jesus watches me on the toilet".

Access Ministries - write it down when you hear of their "Values Education". Please beware it's biblical fundamentalism.

Museums are satanic because they are not anti-science, homophobic, anti-abortion, anti-divorce, etc. I refer specifically to evolution, and more broadly to critical thought surrounding democracy. Eg; admitting Melbourne had a red light district in Little Lonsdale St. and prostitution was once associated with poverty, whilst not invoking "god or satan, good or evil" and this silliness of calling Australia a "Christian nation".

Is there an anti-religious equivalent at Science Week, and the malignant anthropomorphism of "science"? No. So, why has "Christianity" seen fit to attack neutral human beings?

One of the corner stones of Sells argument is that because humans experience beauty and love, and because these things are not rational, that humanity has a spiritual side as well as a rational side.

This is an emotionally persuasive argument, however, not rational.

The existence of beauty and love does not imply that there is any inherent spirituality or deeper meaning.

Otters mate for life, and raise families, but cannot be considered "human".

I can enjoy music, art and sunsets without having to ascribe a higher meaning to the feelings they evoke.

I can only assume that the deep belief Sells has leads him to believe that these feelings of joy and beauty can only come from a deeper power, however, his assumptions and lack of rational analysis leads him to lay claim of behalf of Christianity to a portion of humanity that is complex but not devine.

Sells we need a stronger argument than "it must be"

Davidf:

Why do you so spoil for a fight? I said "Christians are enjoined to be salt and light, to give savour and set a desirable example to the world." I didn't say we necessarily live up to what Christ enjoined us to do. But he did exhort us thus. How is my quoting that, arrogant?

I've said elsewhere that of course it's quite possible for an atheist or secular humanist to live a decent ethical life. Some do, some don't. Same thing can be said about professed Christians. Lots of people are cultural Christians, same as lots are cultural Muslims, and so on. It depends on what's inside .... Not the label, or the tribalism of cultural identification.

I've read of an American t-shirt that said "Jesus, save me from your followers". Sad, but undeniably fair comment about some people.

None of this vitiates what Christ actually said and taught. George Bernard Shaw said in his Preface to Androcles and the Lion:

“If it could be proved today that not one of the miracles of Jesus actually occurred, that proof would not invalidate a single one of his didactic utterances; and conversely, if it could be proved that not only did the miracles actually occur, but that he had wrought a thousand other miracles a thousand times more wonderful, not a jot of weight would be added to his doctrine."

More important is how we interact with others. That is where Sellick falls down - he proselytizes about the 'goodness' of faith while at the same time casts judgement over those who don't support his worldview.

For some, human connections might be formed through religious commitment and belief. For others it is not but is no less valid.

To try and explain, as an atheist I see the absence of a belief in the supernatural as something intrinsically pure. As very human. The path for understanding ourselves in a natural way without indoctrination (inteference), dogma or agenda.

What is it about a poem or a sunset that might hold us in awe? It is not relgious belief but the beauty and magnificence of nature which is all around us. The first time I looked into my baby's eyes, the overwhelming unconditional love that could bring you to tears is not supernatural but so very very natural.

Human-ness is not measured by something so far apart from ourselves but from our very depths - from the inside.

Despite what some might accuse, this is not evil nor is it delusional but is at the heart of being human.

It is NOT as some might offer a belief in individualism - or the Human as the Centre. Comments like this are nothing but kneejerk reactions to scepticism. ie. if I condemn the detractor I validate myself.

It is the most natural path for human beings to connect with each other. We are not a perfect species and have not been perfect even under heavy religious influence. Extremist dogma of any nature does more harm collectively than good.

I would not deny the right of any religious person to seek the HUMAN through their God.

It is not a contest to see whose path is the most worthy.

No matter our beliefs it is ultimately the outcome that matters. And our actions that speak for us rather than our words.

relda,
>> There is our “symbolic intelligence,” where all the thoughts we have are in words and mathematics but the biggest part of our brain, however, is for “subsymbolic intelligence,” ... - all it has are images, senses, actions and feelings .... Two “minds” would suggest also two different types of 'knowing'.<<

I find it rather interesting what you are saying here. I understand it as a distinction between symbolic, conceptual “knowing” (especially through mathematics) and direct “knowing” through intuition, mysticism, etc., your “subsymbolic intelligence”.

There are situations where the first way of “knowing“ prevails, like those studied by theoretical physics, and there are situations when the second way prevails, like situations that religion is concerned with, always directly or indirectly involving the “knower”. Nevertheless, intuition is also important in physics, and conceptual, symbolic, constructions in religion.

My personal experience is more with “dwelling“ in the symbolic world of mathematics, so perhaps therefore I would not call “oppressive” the symbolic world of religions, either as represented in some sacred texts or through metaphysical constructions/speculations.

I know there are parts of pure mathematics that are pure speculations, completely irrelevant to the “real”, physical world, though there is always this Wigner‘s “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” (e.g. speculations about the existence of the “non-existent“ square root of minus one led to complex numbers without which we could not have contemporary science and technology).

And there are certainly purely speculative symbols, stories (myths) etc associated with various religions, and while there is no equivalent of Wigner’s maxim, some of us are open to (religious) faith, a kind of supra-scientific knowing that involves the subject, the “knower“, more than any knowledge mediated by science (the Copenhagen interpretation of QM notwithstanding), a kind of “knowing” that today few can follow or even understand.

Reading these many posts, it seems to me Peter has again shown that he is a good “catalyst“: a substance that increases the rate of a “chemical“ reaction without itself undergoing any permanent “chemical“ change.

Dear Glorfindel,

Setting an example means to me that Christians regard themselves in some way better than non-Christians and entitled to set an example. The Crusades, the conversion of Europe by violence, bringing in the Dark Ages as they killed the spirit of enquiry when the Roman Empire became Christian, the Wars of the Reformation, the Inquisition, justifying the despoiling of the Americas because the Treaty of Tordesillas divided the new discoveries between the Spanish and the Portuguese with the injunction to spread their faith, the Holocaust partially inspired by the centuries of Christian hatred and other examples of Christian misbehaviour show that it is ridiculous for Christians to talk about setting an example for others. Clean up your own act including apologies for the evil Christianity has brought on this earth. Christianity should take the example of the more tolerant pagan world and other groups who have behaved more humanely than Christians.

The bloody history of Christianity gives little basis for Christians to set an example.

Dear Glorfindel,

I have a Marxist acquaintance who counters mention of the Marxist crimes by a reference to Marx's great vision. You have responded to my mention of the Christian failings making Christians not suited to set an example by referring to the words of Jesus. What difference do the words of Jesus make if Christians don't follow them?

However, I know the way Jesus advised one to know about a group. Matthew 7:20 By their fruits shall ye know them.

That is exactly what I have done. By their fruits Christians cannot reasonably set an example. It is sheer bloody arrogance for Christians to claim otherwise.

Glorfindal, wasn't it G.B. Shaw who also said: "Yes I think Christianity is a wonderful idea. I just hope someone tries it one day."
At the (admittedly, quite small) country school my children attended, only 2 families didn't make their children attend scripture classes.
A koori family just said bluntly that Christianity was a bunch of hypocritical crap. After attending one class, my children said they didn't want to go again, because the scripture teacher was 'just nasty'. I had to agree with my blackfella mate. In fact, at the time I offered him the same quote.

Peter,
The only difference as I see it between us and the rest of nature is that as humans we can Articulate and punt on what and where our molecules might be in the Future, or have done in the past .

Eventually, we will find out that all our Forms, our minds' Thoughts and Actions [good and bad ] are simply Automatically Generated responses to ours and the World's Past events.

No real "Evil" no real "Good",just stuff going on.

John Koski,
How nice to have an intelligent comment from someone who does not hide behind a screen name! Of course you are correct. This article was written rather hastily and I did not pick up on my use of the word "modern." The argument about how much of the modern is underwritten by Christianity goes on. I think we have not yet reached that dark time when it is completely extinguished. We still, for example, understand each individual as being inalienable even though the language of human rights has replaced that of being made in the image of God. It does now seem that all the discussion about postmodernity was premature, we are still largely in the time that had its beginning in the seventeenth century. The theological problem with modernity is yet to be completely articulated, but one thing is for sure, we will not make progress in evangelism until it is and we are freed from its misconceptions.

Peter Sellick

Grim,
Faith actually enables one to escape a deeply rooted paradigm.

Pericles,
“The argument that imagination, and emotions, and feelings, and dreams, are all the sole prerogative of Christians does not hold water, I'm afraid.” It is certainly not my argument (perhaps tell me where I may have said or inferred it in a previous post), and if anyone on this forum is to argue it, I’d agree, it doesn’t hold water.

True, “the manner in which religion is practiced strongly suggests that it is the precise opposite of "imagination".” Read my reply to Jon J, i.e. “Those who adhere religiously to the oppressive symbolic way of thinking (e.g. religious fundamentalists)…”. This is the way religion, unfortunately, is often practiced - with words and the symbolic given only literal value, these symbols become dull and lifeless.

My statement, “Unless we are about to enter a brave new world with an ‘imagination deficit syndrome’ (my phrase), the concept of God is more than likely to remain” merely suggests that we might imagine God, whether he ‘exists’ or not. As per usual, you add a rather dogmatic but incorrect inference, i.e. your, “No imagination. No God.”

What lies at the centre of Christianity is certainly “non-linear”, despite its presentation by some as linear. Perhaps the label, “Christianity” gets in the way for you because of its mal-presentation.

If you were to carefully read my posts you’d certainly understand that I don’t subscribe to a “God of the Gaps” where he retreats to the merely ‘unexplainable’.

A fully balanced view will take on board the experiences, disciplines and knowledge of many others. As can you see, my sources are many, but my views are obviously my own – to which you may or may not disagree. You take offence far too easily.

George,
I enjoyed your chemical reaction analogy. A lot of fizz and bubble occurs here with no real change in the basic molecular structure.

What's it mean to be human.

A Simian with an opposable thumb. Nothing more nothing less. All else is conjecture.

Grim wrote: "A koori family just said bluntly that Christianity was a bunch of hypocritical crap."

Dear Grim,

Your remark was most interesting. I belong to Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR) and have met many Aborigines. I have asked them about their feeling toward a religion that was pressed upon them. Everyone I have asked about it assured me that although it was pressed upon them they are all devout believers now.

I recently read a book called "The Elephant in the Room". It is about the culture of denial that exists to some degree in all societies. These are the open secrets that everybody knows but nobody admits. I started the string about the very poor in Australia as I think there is a culture of denial concerning that. Those who brought in cases of people living well even though their liabilities are greater than their assets are part of that culture. People who live well are not part of the culture of poverty regardless of what their financial worth is.

Can the remark you cited be like that of the little boy who noticed that the emperor was naked?

Davidf. Everyone I have asked about it assured me that although it was pressed upon them they are all devout believers now.

Yes of course. All primitive native peoples throught the world have bee brainwashed to some form of religion. Once they were happy, healthy peoples until the missionaries stepped in. Now they have; no land, poor health, poor hygine, wear whitemans torn dirty clothes, drink alcohol to excess, sniff petrol, bash wives & rape children & on & on. None of which happened before the whiteman turned up with his Christian GOD. What a great con job that was. Well for the whitie anyway.

the great thing about sells threads is that you can be absent for days, and the discussion hasn't advanced an inch. (pretty much a definition of theology).

no time to really address anything, but:

george:

the underlying problem was the passage you were quoting was silly, even on its own terms. sorry, but it's true. but i was very amused by your catalyst analogy.

reida:

the image of sellick causing "angst" was the humour highlight of my year. he creates all the angst of an unswattable march fly.

everyone:

i think jayb is winning. "simian with an opposable thumb" is a damn good place to start

bushbasher,
>> the passage you were quoting was silly ... sorry, but it's true.<<
No problem, after all e.g. runner also likes to promote his personal opinions as true.

Relda,
"Faith actually enables one to escape a deeply rooted paradigm."
(?)
I'm sorry, should I regard this as an argument, or an axiom?

David, very much so. My mate is both a very practical and very spiritual person, who believes Koori spiritual beliefs are just as valid as European ones. His problem with Christianity was, growing up in the Wilcannia district, he heard a lot of preaching but didn't experience much of it in practice.
Let's face it:
Christians going to war?
Military chaplains?
Love thy neighbour, much less love thy enemy?
I sympathised with my children, because I remember my own scripture classes as being largely about Biblical history, with very little on morality or ethics. I remember my scripture teacher as being a most uncharitable, unforgiving martinet.
JayB and Bushbasher, I thought all simians have opposable thumbs.

Jayb, Bushbasher, Grim

As you have pointed out so succintly, science has a simple, useful definition which unambiguously identifies humans. Theology has no such definition which is why so-called Christians could regard other races as sub-human, subject people to slavery and condone the extermination of 'heathens'.

We are also learning through science how dependent we are on each other and on the maintenance of our environment. We are learning that everything is connected to everything and as humans we are deeply involved in the interconnectedness of things in a way that Christian theology has rarely approached.

What Sells is calling the 'deeply human' is the experience of being vulnerable and dependent. Religion, however, identifies dependence on God as the ultimate dependence. Science is exposing our vulnerability and drawing our attention back to more immediate concerns such as whether we are destroying the environment on which we depend so much. Science is revealing the urgency of the situation and making it obvious that we need to cooperate on a global scale. Cooperation has never been a Christian strength.

Sell's assertion that Christianity is to be thanked for our current understanding of what it is to be human is partly true but 'embellished' to mythical and absolute proportions. It is true that science cannot tell us how to love, cannot explain the aesthetic dimensions of art and music and so on. But these are things that pre-date Christianity by a long way and are not limited to the Judaeo-Christian world.

There may be a place for Christianity in the world of the future but only if it loses its dominant culture mentality and develops into the inclusive community that I believe Jesus envisaged.

It's difficult not to sometimes, relda.

>>You take offence far too easily.<<

I have noticed that in order for a religionist to feel good about their own beliefs, they frequently find it necessary to i) decry the religious beliefs of others or ii) ascribe unfavourable characteristics to non-believers.

In this case, it is the "atheists are emotional cripples" riff that I objected to.

>>“The argument that imagination, and emotions, and feelings, and dreams, are all the sole prerogative of Christians does not hold water, I'm afraid.” It is certainly not my argument (perhaps tell me where I may have said or inferred it in a previous post), and if anyone on this forum is to argue it, I’d agree, it doesn’t hold water.<<

The inference, as I pointed out in some detail, was in your support for Sells' cadenza...

"How can [atheists] understand a poem? Or be deeply moved by an opera? Or understand the complexity and contradiction of characters in the great novels? How can they fall in love and rear a family?"

...via your claim that atheists suffer from a "imagination deficit syndrome".

You accuse me of "a rather dogmatic but incorrect inference", but fail to provide an adequate alternative interpretation.

>>[the phrase] merely suggests that we might imagine God, whether he ‘exists’ or not<<

I fully accept that it is possible to imagine God, whether he 'exists' or not. You are yourself living proof of this.

But by positing a world in which imagination does not exist - your "imagination deficit syndrome" - and which is peopled entirely by atheists, there are only two possible conclusions.

One, as I pointed out, is that you are suggesting that without imagination, there is no God. "No Imagination. No God"

The other, that I also offered, is that you choose to believe that atheists are without imagination, in that the disappearance of "God" is the result of a world in which imagination does not exist.

Is there a third possibility that I have missed?

Pericles

My understanding of Sells’ argument is not that atheists can’t appreciate poetry or opera, but that science and scientific study is not adequate to equip us to appreciate them.

In other words, there are different types of knowledge, and different ways of understanding and experiencing what it is to be human. Scientific method serves us extremely well in progressing understanding of some things, but not everything. Faith, along with poetry and opera, belongs to that category of human knowledge and experience that are true or valuable in ways that are not adequately described or explained by science or rationalism.

The conflict between science and religion arises when either strays into the domain of the other – for example, when religious fundamentalists argue that evolution must be wrong because the bible says the world was created by God in seven days; or when rationalists argue that the absence of material proof of God demonstrates that he doesn’t exist.

Our culture holds scientific method and the benefits it has produced in high esteem, and for very good reason. The risks I think Sells is pointing to are twofold – that we see science and rationalism as the only sources of knowledge, and hence discount or disregard those things that can’t be properly understood through them; or that we look to science and rationalism to solve problems that are beyond their competence.

Sells tells us that the "theological problem of modernity has yet to be completely articulated".

This statement just aint true.

And besides which the left brained power and control seeking mind that is at the root of ALL theology is incapable of truly Understanding anything.

Meanwhile the "problem of modernity" was thoroughly answered when the first edition of this book was published in 1972

http://www.kneeoflistening.com

The author then spent 36 very patient years discussing every possible aspect of human and cosmic existence. The results of which are thoroughly summarized at this reference.

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon

Peter has known of this extraordinary Wisdom Teaching for almost a decade now, and yet he continues to write the same completely unmodified dim-witted nonsense year after year (with no change whatsoever)

Plus this reference gives an insight into the authors relation to the Great Tradition altogether.

http://www.dabase.org/divemerg.htm

Rhian, that's simply not credible.

>>My understanding of Sells’ argument is not that atheists can’t appreciate poetry or opera, but that science and scientific study is not adequate to equip us to appreciate them.<<

You extract this understanding from the same text that I read.

"It is “hard” rationality in that contradictions or paradoxes cannot be tolerated. God cannot be three persons in one, Christ cannot have both a divine nature and a human nature. But on a more common level, a loving relationship cannot hold both love and hatred, devotion and resentment. Evils in the world cannot have a shade of good. Hard rationality does not give us a language that can deal with the world human beings inhabit, that world of moral complexity, relational fragmentation, a beauty hidden beneath the ugly. In particular it cannot deal with a crucified God.

Those who strictly adhere to this kind of rationalism must find themselves at odds with the human. No amount of scientific study in psychology, anthropology, social science, and so on, will be able to approach that which is deeply human. They should, but often are not, cut off from the great cultural expressions of our society. How can they understand a poem? Or be deeply moved by an opera? Or understand the complexity and contradiction of characters in the great novels? How can they fall in love and rear a family?"

Given the full context, including the part about science not being able to accept that "God cannot be three persons in one, Christ cannot have both a divine nature and a human nature" or "deal with a crucified God", how is it possible to escape the fact that Sells is talking about non-Christians?

What clues does he provide that he is actually referring to Christians who find themselves ruled by logic?

Are there such people?

Given his own protestation that there "is one thing that you all seem to forget and that is my main career was as a scientist", how can we avoid the obvious conclusion?

Sorry, Rhian.

Doesn't ring true.

Sells seems to deny that non-Christians have the exquisite feelings and sensibilities of Christians. My King James Bible is 1078 pages. The Jewish Bible or as Christians call it the Old Testament takes up the first 815 pages or 76%. Jews wrote it without thought of Christianity. Mistranslation of Isaiah served the Christian mythology. In the Hebrew almah (a young woman) shall give birth. The Greek version has parthenos (a virgin) giving birth. The rest of the Bible was all written by Jews with the possible exception of Luke. Luke takes up 35 pages. About 3% of what is called the Christian Bible was actually written by Christians.

The Bible is a non-Christian book. What would Sells replace it by?

Pericles,
>>in order for a religionist to feel good about their own beliefs, they frequently find it necessary to i) decry the religious beliefs of others or ii) ascribe unfavourable characteristics to non-believers. <<

I agree to a point. I would have agreed 100% had you written
" in order for some people to feel good about their own beliefs/unbeliefs/world-view, they frequently find it necessary to i) decry the beliefs/world-views of others or ii) ascribe unfavourable characteristics to non-believers or believers, especially Christians."

One just has to read not only Sellick's article and runner's posts, but ALL post e.g. in this thread.

Waterboy and Rhian,
If it were up to me, I would sack Sells, and give you the job. You seem to be much better (and fairer) at his articles than he is.

By George ,
It was not I that that condemned the Believer or Unbeliever .

Fundamentalist experience seems to produce fear and a hidden uncertainty in man and woman - this is probably our Human Nature working for us in the background checking to see if we really are on the right track to make it through to tomorrow .

Pericles

My reading of the first quote is that “hard rationalism”, is unable to cope with paradox etc, not that atheists can’t.

The grammar seems a little lacking in the next quote, so maybe it could be read as:

- the disciplines of anthropology etc are unable to approach the deeply human;
- students are unable to approach the deeply human through these disciplines; or
- “those who strictly adhere to this kind of rationalism” are unable to approach the deeply human.

I took Sells to mean the third of these, but even the other two reading don’t seem to me a condemnation of (e.g.) anthropology or anthropologists. They merely claim that social sciences cannot describe to totality of what it means to be human. If that’s what Sells means, I agree with him.

He probably says it more clearly here:

“…to exclude the humanities and rely on science alone is a recipe for anomy and despair because the narratives that are created out of science do not touch the human soul.”

A kind of analogy – I have some economics training, and economics is based on a particular understanding of human nature, motivation, values etc. This provides a useful and effective working model for many purposes, but I’d be the first to admit that the economic model doesn’t capture the breadth or depth of human nature

“For paganism, individual human beings had no faces, they were resources, wives were incubators, slaves were non human, soldiers were fodder for battle.” – Sells

To the pagans, the Christians were uncivil atheists. Uncivil, because the catechumen in the early centuries, before Nicaea, went on rampages sinning up-front before commitment. Atheists, because, they would not pray for the good of Rome. In 248, some Roman cities experienced famine and the Romans were under threat by the Goths. Decius, as restitutor sacrorum, issued a decree, to make peace with the gods, when the Christians refused the superstitious locals fell upon the Christians. In the persecutions that followed, the Christian laity were highly exposed, because the bishops ran away and hid.

Regarding slaves, a pagan slave, who felt mistreated, could stand next to a statue of the Emperor and expect adjudication by a magistrate and possibly be allowed into public service, away from the Master. Christian slaves would go to clerics for help, but would be returned to the Masters, based on Biblical teaching.
Highly competent soldiers could raise to the highest ranks in the Roman government.

Christian armies?

“Contemporary chroniclers of the crusade also described siege cannibalism by the Christian troops … Fulcher of Chartres, for instance, includes the following in his report of the siege of Ma'arra in 1098: "I shudder to say that many of our men … cut pieces of flesh from the buttocks of the Saracens lying there dead. These pieces they cooked and ate, savagely devouring the flesh while it was insufficiently roasted. In this way, the besiegers were harmed more than the besieged.” (Price) Christian, Richard the Lionheart, also ate a Saracen head:

"'Etes, and southes off the browys swote, brows {sweat} Thorwg grace off God it schal be youre boote. {benefit} Beffore Kyng Rychard karf a knygte: He eete ffastere than he karue mygte. The kyng eet the fflesch, and gnew the bones, And drank wel afftyr, for the nones {occasion}'” Price

Apart from the crusades and other religious wars, we should also recall Christian involve in he slave trade over the centuries.

Freedom of the Third Estate (Common Man) was freedom from the Church and State, with its aristocrats and clergy, was hard to achieve. This is where the Enlightenment has its roots in the eleven century and its fulfilment in the eighteenth century. In the West, after the tyranny and bloodlust of the Christians, we find Locke in “Two Treatises of Government arguing, Man is endowed by nature with natural rights. Great thinkers, including Diderot, Voltaire and Montesquie further developed this theme, wherein “being human” was not to be vassal. Rather, individuals have great worth.

Sells, like it or not, there are many who believe in “The Declaration of the Rights of Man”, which reads in part:

“The advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief, and freedom of fear and want, has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people” - United Nations

The Declaration also states that Peoples should act with “reason” and “conscience” and “brotherhood” and that no State or other group (the Churches) should act to destroy these Rights.

Perhaps Sells would take us back to before the Enlightenment, to the days of absolute monarchs, clergy and lords "over" the laity; A world that might find Sells, a bedfellow in von Treitschke:

“Forgetting himself, the individual must only remember that he is a part of the whole, and realise the unimportance of his life compared to the common weal."

Of course subodination does not apply to Popes and Kings!

Alternatively, individualism leads us to esteem of others, and to respect their individuality, or, as Carl Rogers, put it, “unconditional positive regar towards others".

We can be a community of reasoning and loving individuals with sovereignty with the People "over" overState and, allowed to believe or not believe in God. In today's West, the Churches, have a valid may place for some. But the Churches must never again define humanity or control human beings in a sovereign manner, as in the histories of old.

rhian, it's off your main point but i'd be careful.

>>The conflict between science and religion arises when either strays into the domain of the other ...
>>when rationalists argue that the absence of material proof of God demonstrates that he doesn’t exist.

i don't know anyone who argues that, though they may question *why* anyone would believe in god without some such material proof. what some people do argue is that, to the extent that religious beliefs imply material beliefs, then those religious beliefs are then indeed open to question by science. for example, if one believes that the earth is 6000 years old, or that jesus was born of a virgin, etc.

It's more than that Bushbasher. Rationalists argue that the monotheistic God can be conclusively disproven by philosophy and logic alone. The disbeliever does not have to delve into hardcore science, although she may.

I recommend Victor Stenger's books on the impossibility of the monotheistic God.

George, your point is well taken.

>>" in order for some people to feel good about their own beliefs/unbeliefs/world-view, they frequently find it necessary to i) decry the beliefs/world-views of others or ii) ascribe unfavourable characteristics to non-believers or believers, especially Christians."<<

However, it is very rare to find the non-religious writing regular articles on OLO, boosting their own lack-of-religion by decrying the beliefs of Peter Selleck. What you see here in the responses to Sells' piece is a reaction to his, frankly, perpetually insulting attitude towards non-Christians.

Similarly Rhian, you were correct to point out that the text itself does not fully support my position.

On reflection, my interpretation of this particular insult is reached, not by isolating and parsing the paragraphs on their own, but by locating them within Sells' standard pattern of behaviour.

Your point is valid, to the extent that it may well be argued that he is merely proffering his opinion that

>>“those who strictly adhere to this kind of rationalism” are unable to approach the deeply human.<<

But you must also ask yourself whom he has in mind when framing this particular aperçu

Who are these “hard rationalists” that he targets? How do we recognize them, these steely-eyed slaves-to-logic?

What separates them from the normal warm, feeling human beings that we meet every day? Those people who “understand a poem... [are] deeply moved by an opera... understand the complexity and contradiction of characters in the great novels... fall in love and rear a family”?

If Sells has no particular cohort in mind, his “hard rationalist” is pure fantasy, an elaborate straw man.

But given the history of his output here, and his general disdain for anyone not as deeply immersed in the minutiae of academic theology as he, I would suggest that the image before him on the page is of us benighted, bewildered, emotionally-stunted, barely-existing atheists.

Wouldn't you agree?

TR, i'm not sure who you are including with the word "rationalist" but your claim sounds improbably universal. some may attempt to disprove god on the basis of logic alone (which on its face sounds as silly as the varied arguments *for* god), but i doubt that it's common.

in any case, though there may be sophisticated arguments one may come up with against (or for) god, it doesn't change my very unsophisticated response to rhian: religious belief is open to question by science when religious belief implies (or amounts to) a material belief.

Bushbasher
Yes, science has every right to question seven-day creation, virgin births, walking on water and any other statement that Christians may make about the operation of the natural world derived from faith or biblical interpretation. In fact, I think science does Christians a favour in affirming that these are not historical accounts or statements about the operation of the natural world. The bible is not a science textbook, and we are wrong if we treat it that way.

Pericles,
I agree, Sells’ “hard rationalist” is a straw man, and there are no “steely-eyed slaves-to-logic”. But I think that’s the point - he’s painted this deliberately as a caricature to highlight its implausibility. The argument is not that atheists (or even rationalists) don’t appreciate poetry or love their families. Rather, he is pointing out that no-one lives their lives by rationalist calculus alone. The issue is to understand where this form of thinking is useful and illuminating, and where it isn’t

Dear Peter Selick,

Humans had beleif systems in historic and prehistoric times. Every civilisation had a beleif system that underpinned it and motivated it, whic halso involved some kind of sacrifice or self-denial.

As John Ness so eloquently pointed out (OLO 15th July 2008), humans have built in sense of moral values before any organised religion came on the scene.

The historical and pre-historical eforts to understand the nature of human self-denial, self-discipline or sacrifice, should not be derided, but should be held as a source of wonder.

There are several points why so many people in Western societies are turning away from what passes as the church's teachings.

The meaning of "love thy neighbour as you love yourself", or "love thy enemies as you love yourelf", is not clarified. The modern meaning of "love" has different connotations to what it was than the original Greek word "agape". Yet no attempt seems to be made to alter the public's perception of that word. "Agape" means something akin to care, concern, loyalty, or empathy. Therefore the saying "have concern for others as you have concern for yourself", or turning it round, "as you understand yourself, so you will understand others", - sound completly different.

The other claim that Jesus died on the cross so others may live, - happens to be in a language the church was using when addressing a population of illiterates or at best, semi-litterates. What Jesus most likely to have demonstrated is for humans to do their duty, to do their best, to have self-sacrifice and discipline, irrespective of the dangers, and to work towards something outside of any human person, and greater than them.

Why this "outside of them" has to be personified, as the gods of the ancient Greeks were personified in their myths, is a bone of contention by many, not just the confirmed atheists such as Richard Dawkins. He and his fellow atheists may just rail against a perception of a deity of their own making.

Regards, Stephen J. Cheleda

'TR, i'm not sure who you are including with the word "rationalist" but your claim sounds improbably universal. some may attempt to disprove god on the basis of logic alone (which on its face sounds as silly as the varied arguments *for* god), but i doubt that it's common.'

Remember that I am talking about the monotheistic God here. Not the the non-descript deistic style God. It is very common for modern philosophers to completely debunk Jehovah/Allah. David Hume and Bertrand Russell started the modern trend and it hasn't really stopped. The latest entries into the mix are Victor Stengers 'God: The Failed Hypothesis' and the excellent 'Atheism Explained' by David Ramsay Steele

bushbasher,
When you say, “ … he[sells]creates all the angst of an unswattable march fly”. I’ve obviously misread your previous postings – a passionate and often colorful diatribe, ie., “Sellick, what is the point of your writing, for the twenty-fifth time, your ignorant and divisive and pointless, special-pleading claptrap? … sellick is simply a dishonest,divisive,arrogant,insulting,self-aggrandizing two-bit preacher… posts certainly don't get up my nose like sellick's crap… etc. etc.” Is it, you find the common “unswattable march fly” to be annoying-to the point of extreme provocation?

grim,
“I'm sorry, should I regard this as an argument, or an axiom?” Neither. But the axioms of a ‘faith’ given in reply to Fractelle easily take on the hypocritical for the half-hearted practitioner – something of which we’re all guilty.

Pericles,
As I’ve pointed out in other posts, some of my closest friends are declared atheists – they are far from being “emotional cripples”. Your statement with regards to atheists is therefore simply irrelevant to me, and as Rhian has given good commentary on sells’ article, this would hardly be a part of his (sells) “cadenza” either – although this continues, for some reason, to form a prominent part of your perception of him.

Again, Pericles, you make incorrect inference by saying, “I claim that atheists suffer from a "imagination deficit syndrome", and you continue to reinforce my initial “accusation”. My point isn’t that a good imagination is available only to an elite few but that god, more often than not, has figured prominently within man’s imagination throughout history.

Our imagination, however, can only be a part player in finding reality. Often, as with any story told, Biblical narrative uses metaphor to help an audience “shape” its experience. “But the attempt to ‘make sense’ of the world elides with dangerous ease into the attempt to make the world, in our imagination, conform to how we would have it be.” (Gerardus van der Leeuw: Sacred and Profane Beauty).

I’d suggest Tillich’s statement, "The God of theism is dead" would make room for all sorts of possibilities – including one for atheists.

reida, the thing is that sellicks' arrogant attacks are repeated and irritating, but meaningless. that's why suggestions of "angst" are silly, and comparisons to annoying bugs are appropriate.

Pericles,
I reacted to your sweeping statement about "religionists" , not just Sellick, so I extended it further to include all people who feel a need to "insult" those they do not agree with.

I agree that Sellick has had more articles here promoting his world-view than others promoting world-views built on atheism. However, I do not think that the capacity to insult those who are prone to feel insulted depends on the length or frequency of your contributions here. I also maintain that if you want to "sell your product" you have to make clear that you think your "product" is better than that from the competition; it is a matter of debating skill and sense of tolerance to do this without deranging, ridiculing, calling immoral or irrational etc. other world-views or insulting their carriers.

Unfortunately, there is no objective criterion for deciding whether statement A is more insulting to people of world-view X than is statement B to people of world-view Y. Another thing is that as far as I can tell, many of the same people here who feel insulted by some of Sellick's unfortunate formulations, have been arguing that "the right to offend, to insult" was, as part of free speech, one of the basic rights in a free democratic society, (or did they mean this only when Christians or Muslims were being targeted?). I do not subscribe to a "right to insult", but as I said, what is insulting to whom is a rather subjective matter.

My experience here has been that if one argues defensively to explain a world-view compatible with the Christian outlook, without attacking those one disagrees with, one is accused of "mental gymnastics", "intellectual gymnastics", "sophistry", "condescension", etc. (I have been accused of all these things on this OLO). I do not know whether this could be called insulting - I certainly do not see it that way - but it points to difficulties when one wants to argue rationally with people who can easily offend/insult and feel offended/insulted (these two propensities somehow tend to come together).

To be clear, George, I do not take Sells' insults personally.

>>I do not subscribe to a "right to insult", but as I said, what is insulting to whom is a rather subjective matter.<<

But I do feel that using insults as the backbone of an argument is unhelpful in the extreme.

But it seems to be his style.

>>the trolls who inhabit these pages are unbelievable.<<

Each clarification seems to serve only to confuse the issue further, relda.

Perhaps it is time that we asked Sells himself to explain the force of his sentences, as a break from his cohorts rallying around to provide their views on what he might have meant.

"How can they understand a poem? Or be deeply moved by an opera? Or understand the complexity and contradiction of characters in the great novels? How can they fall in love and rear a family?"

Who are the "they" here, Sells?

And some expansion on this little gem would also be helpful.

"For paganism, individual human beings had no faces, they were resources, wives were incubators, slaves were non human, soldiers were fodder for battle."

Since the headline to the thread invites us to discuss the definition of "human being", and the audience is clearly divided along the lines of religious belief, some additional precision would be most welcome.

But in 350 words or fewer, please

George,

Across several OLO posts Sells seems to prefer a pre-Enlightenment humanity with regards its relation to the Church. He seems to see individualism as something selfish, rather than a vechicle of expression and a complement to mutualism. Unlike, the history books Sells, I think, does not see Western emanicipation emerging from the eleventh century, when nobles and clergy ruled the laity. Moreover, his world-view seems to elevate the the role of the institution.

As I have said before, Sells lives, or, would choose to live between 325 - 1760, that is, between Nicaea and the Great Divergence respectively.

- Do you see Sells' perspective on "being human" typical of the modern Christian. Or, perhaps my analysis is flawed?

Sells,

Do you not realise that if it were not for the Enlightenment you would be neither a scientist nor a writer? The State and Clergy in days of old kept common people like us ignorant, for their gain and power lust.

As mentioned in other threads in its dominion over Man, the Church acted to be the source of all knowledge not merely religion. Owing to the Enlightenment, Science linked episte to techne, and, humanity developed more in three hundred years than in the previous twelve thousand years.

Today's West renders knowledge to universities and religion to churches, allows for freedoms unknown before the Enlightenment.

Pericles,

I am afraid we keep on talking past each other. All I was concerned was not a defence of Sellick’s way of argumentation but of a one-sidedness in reprimanding those who “use insults as the backbone of an argument“. I repeat if for a third time that I think that what is insulting to whom is a rather subjective matter. I know that the publication of Mohammed’s caricatures was insulting to many Muslims, because I could ask them. I can see that what you quoted from Sellick about (pre-Christian) pagans is unacceptable to a historian, however I cannot ask a pagan who lived in those times, how he would react to that statement, whether he would find it insulting or just wrong.

Please do not ask me to add to your list of statements that you find insulting (although not personally) another list - it would be a very long one - of utterances on this OLO that an oversensitive Christian (or Muslim) might find insulting. For instance, sweeping statements calling education of children into any world-view compatible with the Christian model of reality undoctrination, even child abuse. I shall not continue with concrete examples of contributors here who “use insults as the backbone of an argument“ because I do not want to add to this war of “impersonal insults” that - as I understand you- you accuse Sellick of having started with.

Oliver,
I can see that Sellick‘s interpretation of history is unacceptable to a non-Christian, the same as I find, for instance, your interpretation unacceptable to a Christian - historian or not - for various reasons. However, I do not regard unacceptable statements as insults, and will not get into speculations about who, in what cultural, social or mental situation would be justified to feel insulted by this or that.

Rhian,
You contend that science has shown that the miraculous events in the Biblical record didn’t happen (20/8). Could I ask how science might have done this? How can science deny or confirm any historical event? I understand that repeatability is foundational to the scientific method. Can any event of history be repeated?

Are you sure you’re not confusing science with your naturalist bias?

I agree with you (and everyone else in the world) that the Bible is not a science textbook. No one holds it to be. Science text books are in constant need of revision and update. The Bible has no such shortcoming.

Hey Dan, long time no read.
I'd have to say this is a contentious statement:
"The Bible has no such shortcoming."
Should we still be burning witches? Stoning divorcees to death? Okay, JC may have kicked that one out, but there are quite a few practices described in the Bible which could only charitably be described as 'old fashioned'; without getting into the more contentious issues like ID.
Do you really advocate taking the Bible absolutely literally?

Dan S de Merengue wrote: I agree with you (and everyone else in the world) that the Bible is not a science textbook. No one holds it to be. Science text books are in constant need of revision and update. The Bible has no such shortcoming.

Dear Dan,

Some people on this list do treat the Bible as a science textbook. Some on this list have maintained that ‘true science’ agrees with scripture.

It is not a shortcoming that science text books are in constant need of revision and update. It is part of the scientific process to recognize where statements made on the basis of the knowledge of the time are no longer correct as we learn more.

The Newtonian Laws of Motion were a great advance. However, they proved to be inadequate to explain phenomena one could not measure at the time Newton lived. Einstein’s physics replaced them.

The Bible accepts human slavery. That is a definite shortcoming. In some respects we are more aware of human evils than those who wrote the Bible. In that and in other respects the Bible is a book that in the case of slavery and many other instances is really not adequate.

In the Bible Jesus saved a person from demonic possession by casting out demons. With our greater knowledge we recognize demonic possession as mental illness. We do not need to update the Bible, but we do need to recognize that it was written by people in the past and in many respects is simply outdated and wrong

george, i take your posts seriously. but honestly, i don't know what you're on about.

we're here together on a sellick thread, one in a long, long series. Captain Preachy has posted about 327 of these articles, all of a similar form:

a) the world suffers some serious psychological or social or moral ill.

b) people's thinking on this is stuffed, and inherently stuffed.

c) in the last scene, christianity (and only christianity) rides in to save the day.

d) the connection of a) and b) to c) is a thin gruel of barely argued, self-indulgent nonsense that only a mother could love.

THEN comes the discussion:

1) posters such as pericles point out (d) in polite and careful detail, and posters such as me point out that Captain Preachy is a sanctimonious dick.

2) posters such as reida and you and crabsy give tepid defences of Captain Preachy (on occasion), but spend most of your time addressing CP's critics, or strawman proxies, and the form of their criticism. (p.s. unlike runner, when i say something is true, i can back it up).

3) Captain Preachy himself disappears, presumably to whine to his soulmates about "trolls", and to compose his next piece of sanctimonious dickery.

this is ridiculous. no one's being precious here, reida's absurd reference to 'sensitive souls' (why the quotes?) notwithstanding. and it's not general, it's specific. it's sellick's posts, sellick's pathetic reasoning, and sellick's broad and repeated and unsubstantiated insults.

the base fact is that sellick is a sanctimonious dick, repeatedly writing humorless, insulting crap. everything else is obfuscation.

i won't address every arrogantly atheistic comment, and i don't expect you to address every nuttily literalist christian comment (dan, this means you). but fractelle is right: on a thread such as this, the refusal to address head on sellick's relentless offensiveness is most reasonably interpreted as tacit approval of his offensiveness.

Pericles,
Despite my ‘clarifications’, causing you further confusion, I’m glad you appear rather more focused in your last post.

‘Atheism’ doesn’t necessarily imply hard rationalism, just as ‘Christianity’ doesn’t imply inherent ‘goodness’. I think it is quite obvious from Sell's article that “they” doesn’t refer to atheists – atheism covers far too a broad a concept and his ‘target’ is far more precise. I wouldn’t rate myself as Sell’s apologist or even his ‘cohort’ but I can see it as unnecessary for him to make continual reply where his articles aren’t properly read, and given their due context.

The categories of “psychology, anthropology, social science, and so on” describe many ‘cause and effect’ aspects of our social behaviors and cultural origins but they do not describe the paradox of a loving relationship, holding “both love and hatred, devotion and resentment.” "Moral complexity" and "relational fragmentation" simply do not give abode to simple ‘black and white’ answers. As I’ve indicated through some of Friedrich Nietzsche’s writing in other posts, Christianity, at its heart, appears an ugly and pathetic religion, but there is a beauty beneath.

Gus diZerega, a ‘Gardnerian Wiccan’, wrote “Self-centredness is a deep immersion within the mundane” and that “Ultimately our universe is, in Martin Buber’s sense, a Thou, not an It,” The book, ‘Beyond Burning Times: A Christian and Pagan dialogue’ by Philip Johnson gives valuable insight into two spiritual traditions. If you wish to go beyond Sell’s comment on paganism I suggest you read this: http://www.lionhudson.com/pdfs/9780745952727.pdf

George,

Thanks.

I did not regard Sells’ interpretation of history as insulting, just so very different to what I have read.

In the West, the shift from the Feudal System to Liberal Democracy is beyond dispute, as is the Great Divergence, guiding Science to apply Theory to Practice. Whilst, these events have acted to curtail Christianity in many instances, the events themselves could be observed by a disengaged creature with a telescope, on the Moon, who is neither Christian nor a non-Christian in the Earthly sense. Our creature I feel would agree with Earth’s written record. Further, as seen from the Moon, the interpretation of Earth’s events would tend to coalesce; wherein, I would suspect that many a Christian would support the emancipation of the individual from Church and State structures.

Christian or non-Christian de-institutionalism and government with the consent of the governed has been a positive force for good. I don’t see all Christians disagreeing with this posit. As I stated, Sells’ would ne neither a scientist nor a writer were it not for the Enlightenment. Without the Enlightenment, there would be no Internet Forums, Sells would have grown-up in a village and lived his life in sight of the village steeple, and had overcome no intellectual change beyond how to chop wood.

It might surprise you that not only do I have many Christian friends and have been to Church; in fact, I was invited to and attended a Beautification! I suspect I was in the minority in my non-belief, so far as religiosity would take us; yet, I suspect, that that Sells’ interpretation history would alien be most of the Christians present in the Cathedral.

Moreover, Sells in his Protestantism would not believe in transubstantiation, intercession, papal infallibility, the veneration of Mary and probably still thinks that Catholics believe in Limbo. For Sells, there are a lesser number of sacraments. Herein, Sells’ theology differs from yours’, as much as his histories differ from mine.

Regards,

O.

Sells,

Please let OLO readers know of I have misrepresented your Protestant views vis-a-vis the Catholic Church.

To Catholics "being human" in God requires the intercession of Church, whereas in Protestantism this requirement is not the case. Unlike, Catholicism, Protestantism allows "being human" to include greater scope for a one-on-one relationship with God, especially in areas of ceremony.

Where do you see Catholicism errant? After-all, it is claimed from Scripture that whatsoever is bound by Peter and his successors, so shall it have been bound in heaven. Theologically speaking, is being a Protestant truer, more human, in one's relationship to God, than being a Catholic

In my view it is the responsibility of the writer to express himself clearly, relda.

>>I wouldn’t rate myself as Sell’s apologist or even his ‘cohort’ but I can see it as unnecessary for him to make continual reply where his articles aren’t properly read, and given their due context.<<

Where there is room for a substantial difference in the interpretation of the idea being expressed, surely this should be recognized by the writer, and resolved within the piece in question?

It has been Sells' habit to write only for those who already share his aggressively theistic views, and highly idiosyncratic form of Christianity, which - it would appear - he believes absolves him from this politeness.

But he shouldn't. He must know by now that OLO readers are not all theology graduates.

>>I think it is quite obvious from Sell's article that “they” doesn’t refer to atheists – atheism covers far too a broad a concept and his ‘target’ is far more precise.<<

There is nothing "broad" about atheism. It is as simple as saying "there is no Santa Claus, only someone dressed-up"

Sure, atheists do not fit any particular mould. They don't gather in one place to profess their atheism to each other, and can be found in all strata of society. But that is irrelevant here.

You protest that atheists cannot be Sells' target (I'd still prefer to hear his own theory).

So what is it?

Who are the "they" to whom he ascribes this zombie-like existence?

"How can they understand a poem? Or be deeply moved by an opera? Or understand the complexity and contradiction of characters in the great novels? How can they fall in love and rear a family?"

Pericles,
As with many of our labels, there are shades of grey – ‘Atheism’ is no exception. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. Involved also are the epistemological and ontological arguments where the foundation of epistemological atheism is agnosticism. Immanence gives us the philosophy that divinity is inseparable from the world itself – another ‘atheistic’ viewpoint. The rationalistic agnosticism of Kant and the Enlightenment only accepts knowledge deduced with human rationality; this form of atheism holds that gods are not discernible as a matter of principle, and therefore cannot be known to exist. Metaphysical atheism is based on metaphysical monism - the view that reality is homogeneous and indivisible. Absolute metaphysical atheists subscribe to some form of physicalism, hence they explicitly deny the existence of non-physical beings. You certainly may not subscribe to some if not many of these labels, but nevertheless, they certainly ‘exist’.

Interestingly, Jean Meslier, a French priest who lived in the early 18th century was the first known atheist who threw off the mantle of deism, bluntly denying the existence of gods. It was discovered, upon his death, that he had written a philosophical essay denouncing organized religion. Religions, to him, were fabrications fostered by ruling elites; although the earliest Christians had been exemplary in sharing their goods, Christianity had long since degenerated into encouraging the acceptance of suffering and submission to tyranny as practised by the kings of France.

To claim that atheism is unethical and immoral is to be ignorant of what atheism is in the first place. While there are immoral atheists, there are also immoral Religionists. It is a point of view that is void of any religion and does, it appears, to go beyond simple definition

Bushbasher,
I've grown accustomed to your jeers and barbs. You didn’t have to specify that you were referring to me.

You may refer to Sellick as a sanctimonious dick, but you ought at least give him credit for attracting the most amount of traffic on these Forum pages (including yourself), as much as most others put together.

Hi Grim,
When did I advocate taking the Bible literally? I did suggest inerrancy, but that is a different thing.

The stoning of divorcees? Well, you seemed to answer your own question. But why your hesitancy to get into contentious questions such as ID? (I recently saw the Ben Stein documentary called ‘Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed'. I thought it was a hoot. Have you seen it?)

http://www.amazon.com/Expelled-Intelligence-Allowed-Ben-Stein/dp/B001BYLFFS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1250933027&sr=1-1.

Davidf
Yes, I would agree that it is a good thing that scientific texts are revised and updated as scientific knowledge accumulates. And this helps to demonstrate how the Bible is different in nature from scientific texts.

Some hold the Bible to be authoritative over all domains, including the scientific. Others would say that is ‘nutty’. A creationist might say, well, we have to start our thinking somewhere, may as well start here and see how far we get. Their science flows from their presuppositions. Is that more nutty than the premise that ‘nothing exploded and became everything’, which is the current fashionable cosmological starting point?

Actually, I was addressing my question to Rhian, who had made some comments about the scientific method. A few others responded but not Rhian (not yet). My question is still out there. How on earth can science, or someone using the scientific method, discount or disprove singular events that allegedly took place near Lake Galilee roughly two thousand years ago?

bushabasher,
I do not think that statements like “sellick is a sanctimonious dick, repeatedly writing humorless, insulting crap. everything else is obfuscation“ (statements that are more about the author of the statement than about Sellick) are the proper way to express disagreement. However, it is a good illustration of why I stated before that I did not want to add to this war of “insults” that Sellick is supposed to have started.

Oliver,
If you, unlike some others, do not find insulting passages in Sellick‘s unfortunate article, then we are in agreement, and that is all I wanted to say: Whatever one understands under insult it should not depend on which world-view is targeted: either the article contains “insults“, then there are many other “insults” in these and other OLO posts, or we should stop calling insults sweeping statements that we disagree with (there are many in Sellick’s article, and he knows I disagree with them if he remembers our earlier discussions).

You claim to know what I believe, whereas I can know about your beliefs only from what you write down (as I used to tell my students, I cannot mark you on what I thought you thought, only on what you wrote), so I appreciate your personal confession.

I agree that “Sells’ would be neither a scientist nor a writer were it not for the Enlightenment“ only adding “and Chistianity”. Same as you and I would not be able to criticise him, or to enjoy the achievements of technology and “enlightened thinking”, without Christianity (and other inputs), since there is no other parallel civilisation that on its own reached these standards of science and democracy.

In this sense those who are too emotional in their criticism of Christianity’s (or Enlightenment‘s if you like ) shortcomings remind me of an adolescent who gets emotional in his/her criticism of his/her parents - an oversensitive parent might also feel insulted - without realising that without them he/she would not exist, and wold not have received the necessary education enabling him/her to be critical at all.

I posed a question to Sells earlier, because I have genuine doubts that Sells suffers from bad grammar, so much as a lack of courage in coming straight out and saying those who don't share his particular Christian beliefs don't qualify as "Human".
George, I think there are many, many instances in the historical record which indicate science has progressed not because of religion, but in spite of it.

Grim,
>> there are many, many instances in the historical record which indicate science has progressed not because of religion, but in spite of it<<
Though I do not know how this contradicts what I said above, I agree.

However, there are also many, many other instances in the historical record which indicate science has progressed because of the impetus Christianity gave to its pioneers, because of the “intellectual atmosphere“ - unique among civilisations - Christianity (aided by other influences) prepared for it with its striving to “know the truth“, as “unscientific” as it originally was, and as painful as it was for the Church to agree with Galileo’s dictum that “Scripture is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go“.

In A.N. Whitehead’s words, “Faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology." (Science and the Modern World).

Without doubt science has progressed most rapidly in the western world where Christianity provided the dominant culture at least up to the time of the enlightenment.
It did not, however, progress rapidly in non-western, Christian parts of the world so perhaps Christianity, as such, was not such a major contributor to the rapid development of science.
Perhaps we need to keep in mind that religion itself was on the wane in the western world from the time of the reformation and particularly from the enlightnment onwards. It may indeed be the demise of religion that freed the minds of scientists to 'explore all possibilities'.
I still believe that the rediscovery of Greek philosophers and the influence of Islam were major factors in the cultural/intellectual shift that began in the renaissance. Although this discovery may have taken place 'within' the Church it surely provided the destabilising influence that comes when people start to think for themselves to question and challenge the orthodoxy of the day.
Pandora's box may have been opened within the walls of the Church but it was not the Church's will that opened it.
I think any rational assessment of the history of science will come to the conclusion that science grew despite the Christian Church and largely without its support. One only need follow the Creation-Evolution forums to see how deep the wedge between science and religion is even today. Sadly, wherever the Church has been able to maintain its cultural dominance science has languished.
History will show that the emergence of science in the west is very closely correlated with the retreat of Christianity

waterboy,

You make good points. Geert Hofstede, a scholar of cultures notes,vis-à-vis the Anglo-West, those countries that have a longer history of Catholicism have a tendency to be less developed. Not only the countries themselves, but also their colonies. Today, consider the past colonies of Spain and Portugal in contrast with the past colonies of England. British monarchy (e.g., Henry VIII) challenged the Pope, in ways Ferdinand and Isabella never did.

Had the Spanish Amada (1588) succeeded, I suspect we would not be communicating in cyber-space today.

George,

I think that what stresses some OLO regulars is Sells posts and runs: An internet bombardier. In this sense, he does not seem to seek discourse (we are Forum after-all), rather he wants “his opinion” to be known, by many as possible. Sells is a graffitist, not a debater.
Sells’ goal appears to be, to refine the converted, rather than influence others or to test the possibility that others might be correct and he wrong.

Being a Protestant, Sells would disagree with the Mother Church on many issues. Yet, we do not see him discuss a topic like “Transubstantiation” or "The Papacy", which might be (hotly?)debated "among" Christians.

Sells,

If you really wanted to be topical, why not fire a volley or two into the Pope. You don't believe he is the Vacar of Christ. Do you?

I request that you write an article on aspect of Potestantism verses Catholicism. Maybe, other OLO regulars would like to know your views regarding "other" Christians.

Waterboy, can you defend this statement?

“Sadly, wherever the Church has been able to maintain its cultural dominance science has languished.
History will show that the emergence of science in the west is very closely correlated with the retreat of Christianity”

Happily, I think there’s some glaringly obvious evidence to counter your assertion.

For instance, which nation is arguably the most technically advanced the world has ever seen? I’ll give you a hint as to which one I’m thinking of. They put a man on the moon in 1969 (some Christians, even young earth creationists among the ranks and all).

Is this just a glitch in sound theory or should you go back to the drawing board?

Dan S de Merengue. For instance, which nation is arguably the most technically advanced the world has ever seen? I’ll give you a hint as to which one I’m thinking of. They put a man on the moon in 1969 (some Christians, even young earth creationists among the ranks and all). Is this just a glitch in sound theory or should you go back to the drawing board?

My God! And I'm an Atheist/Callathumpian come Agnostic/Sceptic. I don't believe the yanks have done anything by themselves. They just provided the money. America would have to be the most morally corrupt Nation in the World. Their brand of Christianity would be the worst example hypocrisy the World has ever seen. So don't get into that crap.

"Faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology.” – George

The notion of the rational coherence of nature was evident in religion before modern science is an interesting contemplation with some merit. Perhaps not as early as Medieval times, Samuel Johnson remarks:

“There is nothing more worthy of admiration to a philosophical eye, than the structure of animals, by which they are qualified to support life in the elements or climates to which they are appropriated; and of all natural bodies they exhibit evidences of infinite wisdom, bear their testimony to supreme wisdom, and excite the mind new raptures of gratitude, and new incentives to piety” (Rambler 83, 4. 72-73, in Evans 1999, p. 88)

Metaphysically, the above surely does points to “Design” and the invisible Designer behind the made. Yet, one ponders whether the notion of structure in the Universe and the idea of transcendent and mundane realms can be traced further back to at least Plato:

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/platform.htm

Plato developed a taxonomy of forms and his premise that, “the world that we perceive with the senses often deceives us. This would not be so if the world and objects that we perceive with the senses were the real objects” is quite sophisticated. Moreover, the Unmoved Mover, I posit, is also an account of the invisible motivating the tangible. All this quasi-science long before Christianity.

Waterboy, I really think this is the crux of the matter:
"...the destabilising influence that comes when people start to think for themselves to question and challenge the orthodoxy of the day."
So very many people show no interest in thinking for themselves, and simply accept whatever they were taught in their formative years. Obviously such people don't post at OLO, (with perhaps 1, maybe 2 exceptions), because they just aren't interested.
"they jest knows what's they knows, and thet's thet."
I'm interested to know what the average age group is on OLO. Is it possible our early years are so filled with material needs, that we just don't have time to question those paradigms which govern our lives?

Jayb is 63. IQ, 134.
A'h believes none of what I hears & only halfa what I sees.
A'h seed & heard much 'round ta world. Most, ya wouldn't believe.
Question everything because everyone has an agenda. Think for yourself, they don't like it.
Nowt ta mind now. Take care y'all.

Dan,

<< You [Rhian] contend that science has shown that the miraculous events in the Biblical record didn’t happen (20/8). Could I ask how science might have done this?>>

Science couldn’t disproved miracles, since miracles (had they actually ever happened) would defy science.

<< I understand that repeatability is foundational to the scientific method.>>

Yes, repeatability of concepts, not events. So your subtle (or not-so-subtle) jibe at evolution has flopped there like every other one of your attempts to discredit evolution.

But I’ve already explained this to you before, which just goes to show how intellectually dishonest you can be when you’re under the impression that someone who has pulled you up on something before isn’t reading.

<< I would agree that it is a good thing that scientific texts are revised and updated as scientific knowledge accumulates.>>

Strange coming from a creationist considering absolutely every biological and geographical discovery supports evolution 100%.

<<A creationist might say, well, we have to start our thinking somewhere...>>

That would be sensible.

<<... may as well start here and see how far we get.>>

And no matter how long we’re proven wrong, we’ll continue to believe the same and simply distort the truth to fit our beliefs?

Why haven’t Creationists moved on to one of the other Creation stories? Why the delay?

Face it, Dan, Creationists are simply following an unshakable and irrational literal belief in ancient mythology. They’re not carefully selecting a starting point as you imply.

<<Is that more nutty than the premise that ‘nothing exploded and became everything’, which is the current fashionable cosmological starting point?>>

Nobody says that ‘nothing exploded and became everything’. But you’ve had this explained to you before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121703, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121564), so you are simply being dishonest here - again. But I guess that’s what we’ve come to expect from you here on OLO, unfortunately.

<<... even young earth creationists among the ranks...>>

Could you provide an example of some of these people?

Oh, and in regards to the cleverly edited documentary from Ben Stein, here’s the truth behind it http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth.

Game, set, match.

See ya.

waterboy,
>>science has progressed most rapidly in the western world where Christianity provided the dominant culture<<
That is exactly what I was saying. After all, also “medieval theology” that Whitehead refers to was characteristic more of the Western part of Christianity. Nevertheless the contributions by Lobachevsky, Mendeleev, Lomonosov etc. came a century or two before major contributions to contemporary science by people from civilisations with non-Christian background.

>> at least up to the time of the enlightenment<<
Since nothing comparable to Enlightenment appeared in other civilisations, and was not imposed on Christianity from the outside (the Enlightenment thinkers did not come from non-western civilisations or cultures) it has to be seen as a product of the Christian ethos. This is not the same as saying it was a product of the (Catholic) Church. The Church indeed opposed “enlightened thinking” and science - seeing them as encroaching on its domain of competence and responsibilities - until it came to understand what Galileo expressed so succinctly. Today she simply tries to interpret what scientists - Christian or not - claim to have found from the point of view of a world-view compatible with the presuppositions of the Christian faith in a contemporary Catholic formulation, as it has evolved over centuries.

Neither did I spell out “rediscovery of Greek philosophers and the influence of Islam” when mentioning “other influences”. Whether or not they were more important than the “Christian way of thinking“ itself, that they were injected into, is a matter of “taste“, preconceived preferences or bias. (The present pope in his misunderstood Regensburg lecture emphasised the importance of Hellenic contribution to modern Christian theologies, for which he was criticised by some “sola scriptura” theologians).

>>emergence of science in the west is very closely correlated with the retreat of Christianity<<
You are right to speak here about correlation, not cause and effect. I believe that the role of science as an ersatz-religion is only temporary, and that both religion and science will retreat to their proper roles in the formation of world-views of the future.

Jayb,
Were you saying that NASA succeeded in putting a man on the moon because they had a lot of money? Don’t they deserve any credit for their brain work and dedication?

I’m not calling for admiration of America’s social or health systems, or their foreign policy. I was using them to point out this nation’s superior technological achievements, made within an overtly Christian culture, as counter example to Waterboy's assessment of science’s relationship to faith.

Overall in the West’s history, faith and science have gone together profitably more often than not.

Grim,
I like your sentiment, “question and challenge the orthodoxy of the day.” However this isn’t always easy, if you dare try. ID proponents know a lot about this at the moment.

George

Naturally Im playing devil's advocate here and I fully appreciate the difficulties in weighing up the influences that contributed to the emergence of modern science.Clearly modern mathematics owes great debts to Islamic culture (particularly the 9th and 10th century algebraists) and to classical Greece but how exactly did the Christian Church 'encourage'science?

The thesis I am suggesting is that from the time of the reformation the Roman church's cultural and political domination of Europe is on the wane.Protest,revolt and schism undermine Roman authority.In fact the authority of Rome is challenged in the west, theologically, politically and intellectually.It is the breakdown of Roman authority that creates the intellectual space in which science grows.I seriously doubt that the Church provided the stimulus for scientific 'exploration'.The Church did, however, provide education and without doubt that is fundamental to the growth of science. However, once 'educated' people discovered Diophantus,Pythagoras, Euclid, Aristotle et al intellectual curiosity took over from religious discipline and they soon found themselves in conflict with the church.Soon the political, intellectual and social forces mounting against the Church began to have their effect and the reformation and the enlightenment follow. If it had not lost its grip on power I seriously doubt the Church would ever have allowed the religious and intellectual freedom that we,in the west,enjoy today.

You pointed to 19th century Russian mathematicians as examples of work done within a culture dominated by the Church(though not Rome in that case).The fact that scientific work was done in an otherwise religious culture is not in itself evidence that the work was stimulated, encouraged or in any way dependent on the Church.It was not long before revolution dramatically changed Russian culture and society and significantly rejected religion in general and Christianity in particular.What does that say about the relationship between scientific/intellectual freedom and religion.

It is fair to say,however,that the Church is slowly adapting to the new environment in which it finds itself.I pray that it adapts quickly enough to save itself and that it will regain its prophetic voice and direct its attention to issues of justice, freedom and hope.

I must admit, I am rather taken with this construction.

>>Since nothing comparable to Enlightenment appeared in other civilisations, and was not imposed on Christianity from the outside (the Enlightenment thinkers did not come from non-western civilisations or cultures) it has to be seen as a product of the Christian ethos.<<

On this basis, the English Civil War was a product of the Royalist ethos. As indeed was the Russian Revolution.

It is a concept that eliminates all possibility that revolutions are caused by dissent, or dissatisfaction, or discontent.

DSM,

Your comment "Overall in the West’s history, faith and science have gone together profitably more often than not."

Is wildly optomistic on your part.

Science progressed in spite of the church. In fact the rate of progression of science is almost directly inverse to the control of the church over society.

The pinnacle of the church's power was the dark ages. As church's grip slipped and fragmented, so did the intelligensia begin to explore nature and it was tolerated so long as there was no conflict with church dogma, but many scientists were burnt at the stake for heresy.

The age of enlightenment in the 17th and 18th century saw many such instances of direct conflict culminating in the persecution of Galilleo which irrevocably demolished the credibility of the church in scientific matters after which it retired only to comment on the "ethics" of scientific progress.

The establishment of secular societies has seen science accelerate beyond expectations leaving faith based societies to stagnate.

waterboy,
I agree in essence with the details you provided, supporting my statement that

“This is not the same as saying (Enlightement) was a product of the (Catholic) Church. The Church indeed opposed “enlightened thinking” and science - seeing them as encroaching on its domain of competence and responsibilities - until it came to understand what Galileo expressed so succinctly.“

Yes, unfortunately that “until” in this sentence took centuries. And, yes I have a preconceived perspective when evaluating or interpreting history, and I think everybody has. Also, Mendeleev and Lomonosov were not mathematicians and I never mentioned them in connection with the Russian Church, only with the Christian cultural environment that influenced their thinking.

Pericles,
I agree “ethos” was not the right word to use, and also how one understands other terms - like “comparable”, “product“ - used in my “construction” will influence whether and how one is “taken by it“.

I think one can say that the West in the centuries preceding Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment was as much a Christian society as today e.g. Iran is an Islamic society. This is also why I argue elsewhere that one should not try to impose a kind of “Reformation” or “Enlightenement” (including “democracy”) on Islamic societies, but rather wait in the background, and only encourage processes WITHIN the Islamic milieu that will lead to something resembling our “enlightened thinking“ (I know, cultural globalisation, makes this difficult).

Also, to say that revolutions are products of the society where they occurred, does not contradict the fact they are usually caused by dissent, or dissatisfaction, or discontent. I am not a historian but I think it can be said the French revolution was a product of the French society, whereas many Russians will argue that the October Revolution was imposed on them by the - alien to the “Russian soul“ - Marxist theory. In this sense Enlightenment was not imposed on the West - with a dominant Christian (whatever you like to replace “ethos” with) - from the outside.

George

My background is,of course,in the protestant tradition and its no news to suggest that the protestant churches are today destabilised and somewhat disoriented.Look no further thanthe effect ofthe Jesus movement on the Anglican communion.They will not easily give up their superstitions and their sacred cows but if they dont then they will retreat into irrelevancy.If the Churches spoke out prophetically instead of judgementally then they would be closer to fulfilling the mission that Jesus set for them.Sadly they are too concerned with personal salvation, church growth and'rooting out heretics'to develop their prophetic voice.They are like the man who seeks to save himself and loses his life inthe process.

The ideal church might justify Sell's optimism and make some positive contribution to the human condition and'being fully human'but alas it is far from ideal and fast becoming an object of general scorn in western society.The examples of St Mary's in Brisbane and St Michael's in Melbourne provide ample evidence that free thinking is still very much frowned upon by the Church.The inquisition is alive and well.In the evangelical churches itis less formal and rather more vicious,as Peter Cameron will testify after his disastrous brush with Australia's continuing Presbyterians.

Sells articles and some responses to Dr Macnabs initiatives lead me to identify a new fundamentalism in our churches.We are familiar with the'Biblical'fundamentalists.We are now seeing 'tradition' fundamentalism inthe Church which is unable to critique the traditions and creeds and wont countenance modern'interpretations'and contemporary attempts to break the bonds of tradition.They will eventually do the Church as much harm tothe Church's credibility as popular evangelism and Biblical literalism have done.

Id like to think that the Church encouraged,stimulated or advanced the intellectual freedom that is the cornerstone of science.Sadly its not the case and thats the story history will tell.

And please pardon my misrepresentation of Mendeleev and Lomonsov who were great scientists(Lomonosov, 18th century, was probably also a pretty good mathematician but never mind).Im not sure that the Church'made'them great scientists but I havent been able to find any evidence that they'ran foul'of the Church either

Waterboy,
“The intellectual freedom that is the cornerstone of science.” This is exactly the theme of the documentary movie by Ben Stein that I was referring to above, ‘Expelled’.

AJ,
Can I guess that you’ve seen the movie? If so, I’d like to hear your take on it.

waterboy,
I agree with most of what you say, though I can understand statements like "the inquisition is alive and well" only as due to some emotional "background radiation".

As for tradition vs modernisation, that would be a long story. One can easily go to extremes both ways. Let me just repeat my old metaphor about slide-rules (that worked because of a property of logarithms): we "modernised" slide-rules into computers but did not throw away the "tradition" of logarithms. Unfortunately, many conservatives in the Church want to stick to the "slide-rules", and many progressives want to get rid of the "logarithm" as well.

There is a difference between Christendom as a positive precondition for the birth of modern science (that my first post here was about), and the role of the Church or Churches that are indeed open to all sorts of criticism: It is one thing to say that growing up in an English speaking country is advantageous for understanding Shakespeare, and another thing to defend this or that educational institution’s policies regarding the teaching of Shakespeare.

I never said that “the Church encouraged,stimulated or advanced the intellectual freedom”. She did not (perhaps with some small exceptions like recently in Poland during the Communist rule); after all, that is not her role. Where she went wrong, was when she OBSTRUCTED others - Christians or not - who “encouraged, stimulated or advanced the intellectual freedom that is the cornerstone of science”.

Also, it depends what you call “Free thinking”: I do not mind if you “think freely“ (and I shall try to understand you), but I would object if you presented as mine (or were in such a position that people saw you as speaking on my behalf) teachings, opinions, viewpoints, interpretations etc that were not my teachings, viewpoints, interpretations etc. The same with the Catholic Church, where, of course people who are seen as speaking on her behalf are priests and Catholic theologians.

Dan S. de Megegue to Jayb. Were you saying that NASA succeeded in putting a man on the moon because they had a lot of money? Don’t they deserve any credit for their brain work and dedication?

You realize, of course, that the entire Control Room that put Apollo 11 on the Moon was removed from Woomerra in South Australia and set up at NASA, don't you?

Australia has contributed to the Worlds collective inteligence far above it's population. It's just that our sussessive goverments have squashed every major developement we have ever made. EG; We were the worlds leaders in Transistor technology until a pollie held aloft a Valve in parliment & said that a Transistor would never replace the valve. We were the worlds leaders Computers until parliment shut the research facility down. The Black Box, stem cell research & so on for ever & ever Amen.

Religious sway over Governments still has a lot to answer for in stifling human advancement.

George,

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Deism seems to have been the compromise between Science and the Church. Robert Boyle and Sir Isaac Newtown were sceptical regarding aspects of religion, yet neither gave-up on belief altogether. “Natural Philosophy” explained the World with God as the watchmaker in the background. In this way, the mechanics of God and Nature could meld. Thomas Paine argues that Science demonstrated the existence of God. There was a creation. A creation orchestrated by God.

Perhaps, it was easier to hold Science independent to God in England than in France. Alexander Pope advises:

“Know then thyself, presume no God to scan. The proper study of Mankind is Man”

In France in 1749, Comte Buffon had to submit a copy of his, “Histoire nauralle” to a theological committee, the published edited-down version could only be held as a “speculation”, somewhat reminiscent of Galileo’s only hypothetical constructs can be held. Buffon’s Creation did not agree with Bible, yet to a Deist, there would have been adequate free play to argue that God was still the creator. I wonder if this is where the Bible was starting to be defended on the grounds of it being allegory, wherein Science and Religion might agree?

Deism sat with Science between the Ages of Ignorance and the Age of Reason, yet holding a model without God was perilous. In the eighteen century, when Chevalier de La Barrer critised the Church, “his tongue was wrenched and he was beheaded despite Voltaire’s protests” (Silver).

It would seem that Science was suppressed by the Church, yet in the period leading into the Enlightenment, Church and Science were uneasily in step. Latter, Science took off, leaving the theories of Church behind.

waterboy,

I think I am correct in saying that Mendeleev was not pursecuted by the Church, but his papers were suppressed for several decades.

George

What I am saying is that Christendom was not a necessary precondition. Classical Greece, however, does seem to have provided the conditions necessary for the development of science.

The coincidence of political turmoil in Europe, theological mismanagement from Rome and the intellectual 'intrusion' of Greek and Islamic ideas produced circumstances which favoured the development of science. It might have been any religion, not just Christendom, but it needed to be 'destabilised' in some way to trigger dissent and a certain amount of apostasy.

Christendom provided the circumstances but was not itself a necessary precondition for scientific advancement. Sadly Christendom also was not a positive contributor to the condition of being human in those days. Science has certainly prompted some major rethinking of what it means to be human even if the scientific method itself does not lend itself to formative reevaluation of our existential circumstances.

I think the time is coming when we will be able to revisit Nicaea, Chalcedon and so on and reform faith to its very foundations. I, for one, look forward to that time.

" think the time is coming when we will be able to revisit Nicaea." - waterboy

Coincidence. Over recent days, I have been thinking "if" I beleived Jesus was divine in some way, I would put Nicaean Christianity aside and using today's knowledge of the period, "revisit" Nicaea, reworking the data in a dispassionate manner.

Christianity has been like the IBM Mainframe Operating System, MVS. IBM kept the ageing MVS for decades, because many high-end clients invested billions iin software running their core system. Yet, ultimately they did change it.

In a sense, many of those whom call themselves Christians are not. They are usually good people, with little in common with Christianity. By way of anology, Jesus-ists would no longer need to pretend to be advocates of a heathly diet, while working for KFC and ignoring the fact the "F" stands for Fried.

Dan

Sorry I did not reply sooner.

I think science disproves young-earth seven-day creationism – the evidence from astronomy, physics, geology, biology etc is consistent and overwhelming. And even if “big bang” theory turns out to be wrong or revised, it is inconceivable that science will discover that life, the universe and everything were created in a week.

Unlike, say, the fossil evidence of evolution, we have no direct evidence for or against specific events the bible describes in the life of Jesus. Perhaps that tells us something.

I think Jayb’s response to you on this is correct – to our modern worldview miracles are pretty much defined as those things that science describes as impossible.

This is different from the worldview of the 1st century, when understanding of the line between natural and supernatural was utterly different. For example, what we now understand as mental illness was then understood as demon possession, so it was reasonable to explain the cure of such illnesses as successful exorcisms. For a modern person to assert that Jesus walked on water is to make claims about the possibility of suspending the laws of nature that are fundamentally at odds with what we know of how the world can and does work.

You say “Science text books are in constant need of revision and update. The Bible has no such shortcoming.” If you study the bible’s history, you’ll discover it’s the product of extensive revision, refinement and updating over hundreds of years. Different books have different authors, were written at different times and have quite different perspectives. It is a product of a human process of learning and discovery, editing and ultimately canonisation that gave us the bible in its final, official form several hundred years after Jesus’ death.

And even if the bible’s final form has no need of revision, surely our understanding of it does. Each generation, culture and individual appropriates and interprets the bible in different ways, building on (and sometimes rejecting) the insights they inherit. If we did not, perhaps we still would advocate burning witches and stoning disobedient children.

Dan,

Thank you for your interest in my take on Expelled, and yes, I have seen it.

My first impression of the documentary was that it was sloppy. Ben Stein didn’t even bother to define evolution and the constant shots of Jews in Nazi Germany were deliberately inserted to disgust those naïve enough to think that Nazism has anything to evolution (Hitler also accepted gravity, by the way).

Stein is even dishonest enough to do a bit of quote mining from Darwin’s book “Descent of Man” - to make it appear as though Darwin was advocating eugenics - by cutting short of reading the next passage that puts what Darwin was saying into context:

“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”

Stein’s deceiving quote, and the debunking of his claims on eugenics can be found at http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/hitler-eugenics.

The interviews with the supposedly expelled people twisted the truth to the point where one could easily brand them a flat-out lie.

For example, Richard Sternberg was an unpaid Associate at the Smithsonian, not an employee, and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer incident. Afterwards, his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended. Sternberg was never even disciplined for serious violations of Smithsonian policy.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg

Information on the other scientists who were “expelled” can be found at the following addresses...

Guillermo Gonzalez: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/gonzalez
Caroline Crocker: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker
Robert Marks: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/marks
Pamela Winnick: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/winnick
Michael Egnor: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/egnor

If you want more detailed information on these incidences, or on anything else claimed in Expelled, then you can contact the National Center for Science Education at expelled@ncseweb.org. The facts behind the false and misleading claims in Expelled can be found in detail at http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth.

Continued...

...Continued

The interviews with people such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers were cleverly edited to appear as though their opinions were silly, or that their beliefs were entirely different to what they really are.

What I found ironic though, was that PZ Meyers was expelled from the special premiere of a movie that was about being expelled, even though he was in the movie and thanked in the credits!

In Expelled, Stein made it appear as though any criticism of evolution is swiftly silenced in an almost dictatorial fashion. This claim is thoroughly debunked at http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/challenging. The webpage even mentions some scientists who went against the popular belief of the day and finally had their theories recognised because they put in the work provided the evidence and proved their hypothesis to be right. And all while following the Scientific Method - something no Creationist, even to this day, has ever done.

The following extract is the conclusion in the webpage linked directly above:

“There is no reason why intelligent design proponents cannot follow in the footsteps of these distinguished scientists who overcame sometimes considerable opposition, sometimes for a very long time, before their scientific views prevailed. Unlike ID advocates, these researchers didn’t skip past the research phase to try to influence the public before they had scientific support. None of them formed groups to lobby school boards to teach their views in the public schools; they just buckled down and did the work. None of them drafted model legislation or penned op-eds in newspapers and magazines decrying the supposed persecution they suffered at the hands of The Establishment; they just buckled down and did the work. None of them hired former Nixon speechwriters or game-show hosts to compare their opponents to Hitler; they just buckled down and did the work."

(End extract)

All Creationists have to do, Dan, is come up with some evidence. That’s it. And after all these years, they have absolutely nothing. Not a shred. Not even enough to raise a single eyebrow about teensiest little aspect of evolution without omitting crucial data from their claims.

waterboy (and Oliver),
>>... Christendom was not a necessary precondition. Classical Greece, however, does seem to have provided the conditions necessary for the development of science.<<

I am afraid we are moving in circles. I wrote: “Whether or not (Greek philosophers and the influence of Islam) were more important than the “Christian way of thinking“ itself, that they were injected into, is a matter of ‘taste’ or preconceived preferences“, and you are just confirming that.

Anyhow, there can be more than one “necessary preconditions” for the development of anything, including science. Which one was more necessary is - let me repeat - a matter of your perspective. Namely (in distinction to problems in science), you cannot experiment by creating another historical development (in a laboratory) replacing this or that “precondition” - e.g. by injecting Greek philosophy into another culture unrelated to Christianity and Judaism - to see how necessary it was. So I still prefer to think of our civilisation as having evolved from a (totalitarian) Christendom, rather than “Greekdom“ or what, and I think many historians will see it this way. However, I agree that that is not a verifiable fact .

>>I think the time is coming when we will be able to revisit Nicaea, Chalcedon and so on and reform faith to its very foundations.<<
Again, I agree but only to a point. There are many people who would like our understanding of physics to return to the times before Einstein, QM, to the Kantian idea of a priori given time and space. I can sympathise with that, but that is possible only to a point: only in relativiley trivial, everyday situations can you get away with the Newtonian and Kantian ways of seeing (physical) reality.

Perhaps in a similar sense, we mustn’t forget Nicaea, Chalcedon (medieval theology, etc) since we benefit from insights they brought us, (if that is what you mean by revisiting), however I do not think one can ignore developments in our thinking, including science, philosophy and theology - Catholic or not - that occurred since (if by revisiting you meant returning).

Hello George,

I do agree that Christianity provided models, only I would add that “design” and “systems” were known to earlier times too: The Trinity could be said to model the atom, yet the Eygptians had a trinity, long because Jesus. That said, Christianity did provide models at the right time. Creation stories pre-date the OT, yet it is Creation stories from Christianity –not elsewhere- which provided the West a model.

While recoginize, the leap foward from Newtonian mechanics, personally, I still see Einstein between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, between Maxwell and Heisenberg. As a construct, referential frames were known to Galileo. Einstein resisted QM.

[Just the same Einstein provided astroninhing, insights of course.]

My earlier post, on Deism in the Enlightenment was made to suggest the mechanisms of religious stories and the mechanisms of Science could co-exist under similar frameworks, including Natural Philosophy.

Afterwards, we have post-Revolutionary France and the raise of the secular State (United States). Also, I guess in England, the village minister, who would call by for a cuppa and bikkie, was less threatening than a Catholic Mission.

Ultimately, the literate didn’t have to “read between the lines” to study Science, as was the case in the two centuries of Deist ascendancy. [Unfortunately, this liberalisation gave us Hegel and as a consequence Marx..

Oly

Oliver,
If I understand you properly you mean to say that the basic elements of faith, ontological models, ethical norms, liturgical practice, etc. on which Christianity stands (in spite of the frequent ethical failures of its adherents) did not “fall from heaven“ but arrived through natural developments from pre-existing historical sources.

That is a “self-revelation” today almost as obvious as that the world was not created in six days, from Monday to Saturday. You cannot expect a contemporary educated Christian to feel uneasy about it, the same as you cannot expect him/her to feel uneasy about sharing 95% of his/her DNA with a chimpanzee.

Nevertheless, Christians sticks to the Book of Genesis as part of what defines their world-view, their identity, although with a different, less naive, understanding of it than centuries ago. The same about the extra-Christian (and extra-Judaic) sources you refer to, and the fact that Christians still stick to the OT and the NT, and Catholics also to their tradition properly defined.

In both cases mainly the open-minded Christians have no problems with what I understood you wanted to say. However, also the less open-minded have the right to benefit from being a Christian if they can, since not so much open-mindedness as open-heartedness CAN (no guarantees here) make you a Christian. Indeed, "the heart has its reasons that the reason knows nothing about" (Blaise Pascal).

There were times when the role of religion as ersatz-science was needed and justified. Those times are (or should be) over; and as I said before, I believe that the role of science as ersatz-religion - that some scientists and many non-scientist-fans-of-science still believe in - is also temporary.

George,

Thank you. A good and accurate summation.

One might say Oested set-out "specifically" to the find commonalities between electricty and magnetism. In reality this might only be "somewhat" true. Oested was of the mind that there was a single fundmental physical force in the universe. This priming permitted him to be open minded to electromagnetism.

In kind, spiritual Humanity seems primed to want to join the the dots, particularly on something so fundamental as existence. Here, animists before the advanced religions "built" stories which are "constructions". For example, Aboriginal myth is very rich. There are underlying systems to the myths and strong elements to reflect, design.

So, yes, Science owes a doubt to the constructions of spirituality generally, including Christity, I suggest. What I have added, and, you will have noted, is, spirituality overaches Christianity.

I liked the Pascal quote. Deist, Oestede, would likely have held Man reasons because, Man is made in the image of God. Further, said reason, when applied to the study of nature (God'e works) glorifies God's creation Man and His larger creation too. In this way, Natural Philosophy allowed Science to co-exist with Religion, in a new way, proved the author chose his or her words carefully

Oersted not Oested. Sorry I, should have looked it up. Hans Christian Oersted.

Rhian, Thanks for responding. Though I didn’t catch where Jayb sad anything about miracles.

With regard to the healing of the demon possessed man, I thought the miraculous part of the story was that part about Jesus healing the man, not whether Jesus had made a correct diagnosis. Whether it was mental illness or not, the people there saw that a miracle had been demonstrated.

After looking at your posts, I think you're being inconsistent.

(20/8) “science does Christians a favour in affirming that these [miracles] are not historical accounts or statements about the operation of the natural world.”

(25/8) “we have no direct evidence for or against specific events the bible describes in the life of Jesus.”

In the first post, you are saying that science affirms something specific, that is, that the miracles are not historical. Then in the second post, you admit we don’t have any evidence, either for or against.

How can we affirm something without any evidence? If we are making any pronouncements based on zero evidence, it is clear that these are not scientific pronouncements. Once again I put it to you that you are mistaking science for what are more likely your philosophical preconceptions.

I agree that science won’t ever ‘discover’ that everything was created in a week. Science has difficulty observing origins. If science has anything to do with method and observation, then how can a scientist observe the origin of anything older than himself, such as the universe?

You speak of world views, and I would concur that herein lies the issue. You have discounted miracles a priori from your thinking of what is possible. You make fundamental metaphysical and epistemological claims about ‘what we know of how the world can and does work’. Well, or course, if you make miracles impossible as an assumption, then you won’t fit them in to your conclusion.

Many Christians today and for two thousand years have prayed and seen God answer prayer. For them, miracles occur. But don’t mistake your naturalist preferences for sound and true scientific theory.

Dan S de Merengue wrote: "Many Christians today and for two thousand years have prayed and seen God answer prayer. For them, miracles occur. But don’t mistake your naturalist preferences for sound and true scientific theory."

Dear Dan,

According to the New Testament Jesus on the cross asked why God had forsaken him. You have given the reason. Jesus was not a Christian so his prayers didn’t count. God wouldn’t bother answering the prayers of a Jew. It was only after Jesus died and his followers invented Christianity that God started to answer prayers.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy), “In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature.”

The above definition of naturalism is completely consistent with ‘sound and true scientific theory.’ There are scientists who believe in religion and other forms of supernaturalism. However, if scientific evidence or theory conflicts with such beliefs they must give precedence to the scientific evidence or theory, or they are not acting on the basis of ‘sound and true scientific theory.’

Dan, your views on miracles are interesting. A few years back, I used to have a few beers and lively discussion with an Anglican preacher, at the local pub. He reckoned his particular faith didn't hold with miracles.
His logic was that God was perfect. Being perfect, He set up a perfect system, which worked perfectly according to His wishes.
If He had to suspend -or break- His own perfect laws to create a different outcome, that would imply a lack of foresight; and that would not be perfect, would it?

Grim,
The position you’ve elegantly described is known classically as deism. Deism was a popular position, especially in some educated circles, in the late 17 Century to mid 18th Century. The first three presidents of the US claimed to be deists.

Deism is often described as God winding up the universe, like a clock, then letting it run. God doesn’t interfere. Hence, no miracles. Critics say that since the universe is closed to outside intervention, then everything within the universe is simply running to a predetermined plan. As such, even human beings as part of that plan cannot affect significant change to it. As all things are predetermined, human free will disappears and all ethical meaning is lost.

Deist ideas were promoted by John Locke among others. Some have alleged that Isaac Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist of all time, leaned towards deism. Others say not. Both Locke and Newton held most of the traditional Christian doctrines.

David,
To clarify, when I said God answers prayer, I didn’t mean to imply always or immediately. And I didn’t mean to restrict answered prayer to Christians.

You’re right to say that some of Jesus’ prayers were not answered, at least not straight away. He prayed for church unity. Now that would require miraculous intervention. Hopefully we’re working towards it.

I see you’re a naturalist, or at least claim naturalism is consistent with true scientific theory. I would say that the scientific method is pretty useful and would work for anyone who applied it regardless of whether they were theists or naturalists.

And I don’t see how or when scientific theory is ever going to conflict with theism or supernaturalism. Especially so, given that the scientific method was developed in the centuries when the Christian world view was dominant (from Bacon through Newton and after). Scientific laws were viewed as normative operations by which God sustained the universe, while still being free to suspend those laws as he chose.

You have given no reason why naturalism and science should preferably be aligned. What if some evidence conflicts with naturalist assumptions (ID)?

George,
Technically you should have said ‘Sunday to Friday’ rather than ‘Monday to Saturday’.

I don’t feel uneasy about sharing most of my DNA with chimps and quite a fair amount of my DNA with tomatoes. I am more grateful (especially for the latter) than surprised as the biochemical similarities mean now I’ve got something to eat.

I might feel awkward if I shared no genetic similarity with chimps. For this might imply that there were two independent creators, while I’m used to accepting that there is only one.

Dan S de Merengue asked, "What if some evidence conflicts with naturalist assumptions (ID)?"

Dear Dan,

If credible evidence that challenged naturalist assumptions was presented one should examine the evidence. If the evidence should be substantiated than one must abandon the naturalist assumptions.

However, I know of no such evidence. Belief in any form of supernatural regardless of how many share that belief is not evidence.

Dan S,

>>Technically you should have said ‘Sunday to Friday’ rather than ‘Monday to Saturday’.<<
“And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made“ (Genesis 2:2)

>>I don’t feel uneasy about sharing most of my DNA with chimps<<
I never implied you did.

Hey Dan, I thank you kindly for the history lesson. I was actually more interested in what you believe.
I take it you favour a slightly messier creation where God, rather like an old steam engineer, is constantly monitoring, checking gauges, adjusting valves, oil can always in hand...
I'm also interested in your views of the mechanics of creation. If the world is not as old as earth scientists believe, were all the old fossils planted, as deliberate red herrings?
I have to admit, the inflationary model of big bang theory seems to allow for -at least the possibility of- divine intervention.

You raise an interesting counter-point Grim. Not only do ‘scientific’ creationists generally advocate ‘intelligent design’ they also oppose Darwinian Theory – done solely on appeal to the authority or inerrancy of the Bible. Quite interestingly a parallel exists in Islam, where it is generally recognised no true knowledge of God is found outside of the Qu’ran, thus raising serious difficulties for any notion of natural theology. Most Muslim theologians have followed the general approach of Al-Ghazali, who regarded both natural philosophy and theology as posing a significant threat to Islamic orthodoxy. Dan, and those of similar belief, perhaps face similar threat.

Fundamentalists and evangelicals, for whom science and religion continue to speak the same language, are quite likely to see conflict with certain scientific findings. Liberal Protestants following the Kantian tradition of two languages (or “two minds” - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#148561) see no conflict; they are more likely to embrace evolutionary theory, for example, or even incorporate evolution into Christian anthropology. There is an acceptance of two separate disciplines, 'languages' or perhaps ‘kingdoms.’

The notion of “explanation” reflects the simple fact that “knowledge” and “understanding” are not identical. Gravity, for example, was unquestionably an explanation of an observation. Yet Newton was quite unable to offer an explanation for gravity itself. Indeed, Newton was deeply troubled by the notion of “action at a distance”, which he regarded as intrinsically implausible at the time. The quest for a “theory of everything” or a “grand unified theory” can be seen as an attempt to offer a comprehensive explanation of explanations – the simplistic ‘scientific creationist’ approach, with its further and rather decorative ID postulate, does just this. It is far from satisfying or explanatory, and theologically quite naïve.

Dan

You might note that miracles are not discussed in the Bible in the context of the violation of 'natural laws'. That is hardly surprising given that the Bible predates modern science by some 1600 years.
In the Biblical context the distinguishing attribute of miracles was their function as 'signs'. Clearly what makes an event 'miraculous' is its 'interpretive' potential and the actual interpretation applied to the event rather than its plausibility within the framework of 'natural phenomena'. It is worth noting that the English words semiotics, semantics and semaphore are all derivatives of 'semeion', the Greek word usually translated 'miracle'.

The inevitable conclusion of these observations would be that any discussion of miracles predicated on the assumption that the Biblical miracle stories were intended to relate 'supernatural events' as being historical is anachronistic at best and extremely shoddy exegesis.

Science is distinguished from theology by the accepted constraint that science limits itself to 'natural phenomena'. It is really rather pointless to criticise science for imposing such a constraint because this is precisely the constraint that distinguishes science from theological and religious discourse. Since Intelligent Design and Creation are clearly predicated on the asssumption of Divine interventions that violate 'natural law' they do not properly fit within the general discourse of science.

Im afraid your contributions to this thread only serve to illustrate the irrationality and the ignorance of fundamentalist dogma, particularly as expressed in the religious culture and language of the popular, evangelical churches.

Dan S,
At second thought, you are right if you take the Jewish understanding of the day in which God “rested“ according to Gen 2:2.

As for the general discussion about science and religion, their respective understanding of “reality”, I think Ian Barbour‘s now classical typography (conflict, independence, dialogue, integration, see e. g. his “When Science meets Religion”, Harper 2000) is very much relevant. I myself came across his pioneering work “Myths, Models and Paradigms: the Nature of Scientific and Religious Language”, SCM Press 1974 by accident in the late seventies, and it made me immediately understand, that in the language of his later typography, “dialogue“ rather than “conflict“ was the proper way of seeing this relationship.

Later a whole school of thought evolved around Barbour (1923-) - he has been actually credited with literally creating the contemporary field of science and religion - as well as Arthur Peacocke (1924-2006) and John Polginghorne (1930-, my favourite), all three successful scientists (Barbour and Polkinghore physicists, Peococke a biochemist) with degrees in theology.

As for myself, I somehow trust more established scientists with later degrees in theology, than theologians with or without degrees in e.g. physics, when speaking of science and religion. Of course, one can also learn from scientists displaying ignorance of theology or even religion; one only has to be more careful in trusting them when they make statements outside their expertise.

Here is my own two pence worth to the problem:

It is not true that religion and science are on a collision course.
It is not true that religion and science are mutually irrelevant.
It is true that some interpretations of religion and some interpretations of science are on a collision course.
It is true that "uninterpreted" religion and "uninterpreted" science are mutually irrelevant.

When an English speaker “pulls your leg”, taken verbatim this is very different from when a German (or Slav, or Hungarian) “pulls your nose“, but properly interpreted both things mean the same. In this sense also “properly interpreted” science and “properly interpreted” religion are - of course not the same, but - compatible.

Grim,
For what I believe, I would go along with the idea of the engineer, who monitors, and makes checks and adjustments. God is transcendent, meaning he is greater than the universe. He is behind it, sustaining it, and can affect it if he wishes.

Humans also can have meaningful affect on the world. God set it up this way as he originally intended humans to govern and steward the world (but Adam quickly got off on the wrong foot in this department). If we were just the cogs of a machine in a preplanned exercise, then how could there be meaningfulness to our actions?

So God has incorporated free will into the plan. He can monitor and make adjustments. He’s a God who likes interaction. However, could I also state that miracles, by definition, are the exception rather than the rule. God’s main line of interaction is by communication: prayer, response, and the proclamation and interpretation of God’s word (usually quiet revelation rather than miraculous intervention).

I don’t believe fossils were planted in rocks as red herrings.

If I go back to what I said on 22/8, I said Biblical creationists like to begin their investigations by first consulting the Bible. Now quite a few chapters early in the Bible detail a world covering flood. If such a recent cataclysm occurred, we might expect to see evidence of it, perhaps the remains of animals trapped by the violent action of water and the movement of silt eventually settling into sedimentary rock. In short, dead things buried in rock layers all over the world.

Many claim they don’t see any evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood, they just find fossils buried in rock layers all over the world.

Much argument centres on the dating of the fossils, which once again largely boils down to your philosophical preconceptions (bias) as to what parameters should be used in the dating techniques. For no one today was actually around at the time to observe what happened when.

Relda, I want point out something in your first paragraph.

You said creationists advocate ‘intelligent design’. This is true. They have been doing so for a while, going back at least to William Paley (1743–1805). Yet you then say creationists oppose Darwin on Scriptural grounds alone, appealing to the authority of the Bible.

This is clearly contradictory, and spoils your whole paragraph. For you cannot claim that Paley’s argument relied solely on the authority of the Bible. (If so, which part of the Bible?) Neither is this true for current day ID proponents who found their arguments on logic, observation, and natural theology.

George,
You mention Polkinghorne as a favourite scientist. He is featured briefly in the documentary I endorsed earlier, called ‘Expelled’. I hope this doesn’t imply you endorse the film too, or you risk entering AJ’s bad books.

Polkinghorne’s comments I’ve typed below.

Waterboy,
What language are evangelicals supposed to use? Must I use longer words to sound more erudite or aloof? I might not be an academic, but hopefully I’m echoing some who are, such as Polkinghorne.

John Polkinghorne, mathematical physics, Cambridge University - “People who tell you, for example, that science tells you all you need to know about the world; or that science tells you that religion is all wrong; or that science tells you there is no God, those people aren’t telling you scientific things. They are saying metaphysical things and they have to defend their positions for metaphysical reasons.” ... “I believe that science gives us one perspective on the world, and our religious insight gives us another perspective on the world. And by putting the two together, then we’ll see more deeply and more truly.”

If science cannot investigate the non-physical, where does that leave the question of origins? Must we continue to accept Darwinian theory whatever its problems? To claim a non-directed naturalist theory must be accepted by default, to the deliberate neglect of the possibility of an intelligent agent, is to make a metaphysical claim, and the admission that the discussion has entered the realm of philosophy.

Dan

In my experience evangelical Christians appear to be predisposed to making extravagant metaphysical claims in relation to events that have perfectly natural explanations.They might exercise a little more caution in their analysis of events before expounding their conclusions.

They might also try to avoid the sort of deceptive verbal manipulations that appear in the following paragraph from your recent post.

"If science cannot investigate the non-physical, where does that leave the question of origins? Must we continue to accept Darwinian theory whatever its problems? To claim a non-directed naturalist theory must be accepted by default,to the deliberate neglect of the possibility of an intelligent agent,is to make a metaphysical claim, and the admission that the discussion has entered the realm of philosophy."

Clearly the genesis of the 'physical' universe is a natural event that can be investigated by science. Scientific theories, however, are not beliefs imposed as absolute truths or as alternatives to metaphysical speculations. Scientific theories are working hypotheses open to be challenged by the application of reason based on sound evidence. No-one is forced to accept Darwinian theory. In fact it is part of the proper work of scientists to attempt to disprove any such theory. Creation, on the other hand, is predicated on the assumption of the existence of a metaphysical entity, a divine creator, and therefore belongs to the realm of metaphysical speculation and is of no scientific interest. You assert that the exclusion of metaphysical speculation from scientific hypotheses amounts to a 'metaphysical' claim, albeit a negative one. This is illogical. Science does not deny the possibility of the truth of metaphysical claims which is what would be required to complete your faulty syllogism. Science simply has nothing to say about supernatural theories and recognises that they are inherently irrefutable and unrepeatable and therefore bound to be fruitless as scientific theories.

You may continue to believe your mythical stories which is more than the inquisition allowed many 17th century scientists. Dont be surprised, however, if scientists persist in providing plausible, natural explanations for the same events, even the natural events of cosmogenesis and abiogenesis.

Dan S,
I did not say Polkinghorne was my “favourite scientist” only that he is my favourite author writing about the relation of science and religion, because he understands, and is an expert in, both science - he is a quantum physicist - and theology.

Yes, John Polkinghorne as well as Richard Dawkins (and others) are officially listed as “feauturing” in the film ‘Expelled‘ (I myself have not seen the film), which does not mean they endorse it.

waterboy,
I essentially agree with what you wrote in the second last paragraph of your reply to Dan. I have just finished reading Paul Davies’ “The Goldilock Enigma”, and it occurred to me that if you have not read it, you might want to read at least the “Afterword: Ultimate explanations”. I disagree with Davies’ view of mathematics (a technicality here irrelevant), however these speculations of a professional physicist could be of interest to an atheist (never mind the definition) as well as a Christian.

He finishes the book with this meditative sentence:

“The whole paraphernalia of gods and laws, of space, time and matter, of purpose and design, rationality and absurdity, meaning and mystery, may yet be swept away and replaced by revelations as yet undreamt of”

to which a Christian may add “or interpretations of the Revelation as yet undreamt of.”

Dan

You have avoided dealing directly with my discussion of miracles.
What makes an event'miraculous'is the interpretation of the event as a sign,yet your exposition of miracles seems to be based entirely on the assumption that they represent violations of nature.
What,for example, is the point of God raising Lazarus? Why was the blind man given sight? God clearly allows the rest of us to remain in death.She does not see fit to heal all the blind people in the world,even the Christian ones that you and I might have prayed for.

In fact,to demand the'historicity'of such events is to miss the entire point of the Gospels,trivialise them and turn them into mythical stories of no greater value than the Greek or Gnostic myths.

The point of the Gospels is that the Kingdom of God will be inaugurated by ordinary men and women who speak out prophetically against injustice,who would give dignity and real hope to the'sinner',the unclean and the outcast.Miracles are not required as it is within the power of every human being to'make the world right'.But when people like Jesus do speak out and restore the dignity and hope of even a single person then that is a true miracle, a sign that a new kingdom aligned with God's will is indeed possible and is a present reality(without the need to violate any natural laws).

It is not a change of belief systems,as asserted by evangelicals,that makes a difference but the restoration of dignity and hope that 'converts' the person, satisfies God's will,restores humanity and invokes the kingdom of God.Popular evangelical theology,if that is not an antilogy,is a corruption of Christian theology that diminishes the Church as a whole with its metaphysical dualism, its apocalyptic eschatology and its irrational outbursts against established science.

Contemporary,popular evangelism is simply a culturally idiosyncratic derivative of mainstream Christianity composed with a wide variety of exogenous,superstitious beliefs and customs.As a representative of this sub-culture you do not speak for all Christians.I dont know where you live but here in Australia the evangelical churches are mercifully in a period of steep decline.Thank God!

Dan,

<<...Adam quickly got off on the wrong foot...>>

By eating fruit. Something that would only make sense had he been a mortal with a metabolism. But that wouldn’t have occurred to the primitives who wrote Genesis.

<<If we were just the cogs of a machine in a preplanned exercise, then how could there be meaningfulness to our actions?>>

And how could there be any meaningfulness to a God, if that God was perfect and already knew what was going to happen? A God who creates people knowing in advance that they’re going to fail is ultimately responsible for the failures.

<<I don’t believe fossils were planted in rocks as red herrings.

If I go back to what I said on 22/8...>>

And if I go back to what I said on 2/6/2008 (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7353#115160, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7353#115161), we can see how intellectually dishonest the rest of your response to Grim is.

There are 18 different methods of dating, each working on different clocks and different principals, and all point to the same magnitude of age.

But you don’t need to be a scientist to see that the Earth is ancient. Take, for example, the crumbling deterioration of the Rockies (that have reached their peak height) compared to the Himalayas that are still rising.

<<..remains of animals trapped by the violent action of water and the movement of silt eventually settling into sedimentary rock.>>

In nice neat layers of sedimentary rock?

No. Try putting different soils in a clear container, fill it with water, and then shake it up.

Different layers take different events during different eras over millions of years to form.

Not to mention the deeper you go, the more basic, smaller and primitive the life is. And what a surprise - all the dating methods agree in regards to the approximate age of fossils in each layer.

How did ancient sea creatures get buried deep in limestone thousands of meters thick?
Why are human artifacts only found in the uppermost strata?
Why are no tools or buildings found deep in the strata with dinosaurs?

Continued...

...Continued

How were coral reefs hundreds of meters thick and miles long preserved intact with other fossils below them?

But why would a loving God wipe-out innocent children and animals? Wouldn’t a God simply be able to snap its fingers and start again? Why can’t creationists use magic as the explanation for the complete lack of evidence? Why the need to prove it scientifically?

I think this goes to the heart of the “Scientific” Creationist’s mentality and motives. They are so insecure and feel so threatened, they’ve forgotten that they don’t even need to prove their fables happened.

<<Many claim they don’t see any evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood...>>

And as I have demonstrated, there isn’t.

<<...on the dating of the fossils, which once again largely boils down to your philosophical preconceptions (bias) as to what parameters should be used in the dating techniques.>>

And these dating methods that support Creationist’s arguments would be..?

That’s right. We established in the thread I linked above that there weren’t any.

<<For no one today was actually around at the time to observe what happened when.>>

And no one had to be.

<<I hope this doesn’t imply you [George] endorse the film too, or you risk entering AJ’s bad books.>>

Firstly, Polkinghorne isn’t a Creationist and wasn’t arguing for Creationism as you have tried to imply (Many who appeared in Expelled were mislead about the motives of the film’s makers). So it doesn’t look like you are echoing Polkinghorne at all. Even I would agree with most of what you quoted.

Secondly, if you are going to make snide remarks about my “bad books”, how about you try rebutting/addressing any, or all of the points I made about the film? Or are you just going to snipe at my comments like a cowardly and bitter person who has been so consistently defeated on this topic?

I challenge you to prove me wrong on any aspect of Expelled... Or stop making ridiculous comments that don’t address anything.

In fact, I challenge you to prove me wrong on anything I’ve said in this thread.

George, I also believe there does not need to be conflict between science and religion. As I see it, scientists are people with a strong curiosity about 'creation'; whether or not there is a creator. (And that can be taken either way.)
For any scientist to state with conviction that God absolutely does not exist, would be most unscientific. As Waterboy points out,
"Scientific theories, however, are not beliefs imposed as absolute truths or as alternatives to metaphysical speculations. Scientific theories are working hypotheses open to be challenged by the application of reason based on sound evidence."
In the absence of hard evidence for or against, one can only accept Russell's Justification: "insufficient evidence, Lord; insufficient evidence."
Dan, I don't really understand why the time frame is important. Is there any reason why the Universe can't be 14 billion years old?
I can accept that a rational person can also be a creationist, but I would have difficulty believing any rational person would still find bishop Ussher credible.

Dan,
You really should learn to read what people write and not misquote them, thus presenting your total miscomprehension of what is being said. My point is that creationists and ID advocates are both in the same ‘camp’ in that they appeal solely to Biblical inerrancy and authority in order to refute a scientific theory (i.e. Darwinism). On the other hand, however, and in the name of science, you attempt to legitimise creationism and ID. This seems more than a little fraudulent when 'bending' science to your own preconceptions or beliefs whenever it suits. As waterboy has aptly pointed out, by all means have a literal belief in ancient “mythical stories” but do not expect science to give an objective endorsement to such literal interpretation.

Also, you ignore an important part of my first paragraph where I draw a similarity in approach to yours and those who cannot draw on any allegorical interpretation of religious texts, but prefer instead a grammatical and syntactical interpretation of their Qur'an or Bible. As Benedict discovered (Regensburg address), the foundation for any religious dialogue relates to the acceptance of hermeneutics (i.e. study of the interpretation of written texts). Modern hermeneutics encompasses not just issues involving the written text, but everything in the interpretative process. Without these 'ground rules', we merely talk past each other. And I quite agree with George where, “It is true that some interpretations of religion and some interpretations of science are on a collision course [and] It is true that "uninterpreted" religion and "uninterpreted" science are mutually irrelevant.” This, unfortunately, is particularly pertinent to your particular standpoint.

Dan , Thanks for the great explanation of Deism.

I now find I have some backers even if they are from the 17th and 18th Century .
It's God "winding up the up the Universe, like a clock, then letting it run ". Yep !

"human free will disappears and all ethical meaning is lost "!

Not so Dan ,it was probably never here anyway - it's simply the reaction of one set of atoms with another and will be probably scientifically predictable in the future.

Already courts are starting to struggle with the concept of the "free will" part in criminal convictions .

Jim, you raise an interesting point.
A multi layered system based on probabilities can still allow for free will at the individual scale. For instance, there is no doubt the odds are stacked in a casino's favour, yet still the house can be broken. It's even possible a casino could suffer bankruptcy, by being broken twice in close succession. If, however, you own more than one casino, your chances of being bankrupted drop considerably.
And if you own all the casinos, you can't lose.
If we accept that we are all a product of 'nature plus nurture' then it does become questionable how much free will we have. I freely acknowledge I have made some bad decisions in my life, yet I don't see how I could have made a different decision, and still remained 'me'.
The counter argument of course is, if the price of being me is making bad decisions, perhaps I would be better off being someone else.

Grim,
James Ussher (1581–1656) proposed a creation of the world at 4004 BC through careful Biblical analysis. He was a noted historian. How many of his critics would come close to his level of Hebrew scholarship would be a telling question.

More striking is to ask how quick his critics might be to throw an accusation of irrationality at these two: Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), who formulated the laws of planetary motion, calculated a creation date of 3992 BC, or Isaac Newton (1643–1727), who vigorously defended a creation of about 4,000 BC.

Is the universe 14 billion years old?

I don’t know. That date certainly puts Ussher’s under a big shadow. The flip side would be that if the true age was any fraction of that unimaginably large number then many would be saying that there wouldn’t have been enough time for evolution to take place. Either way, both young earth creationists and Darwinians are being pushed towards boundaries in their thinking.

Waterboy,
I’m Australian but not living there this year.

I don’t know where it is I’ve been speaking for all Christians. I know we can be a pretty varied bunch. But I am allowed to put an argument for my view of it.

I didn’t address your comments on miracles partly because I’d already reached my word limit for that day. The other reason was I was largely in agreement with most of your view.

The theological importance of miracles is in their meaning and interpretation. However I was earlier discussing the modern question of whether miracles could even occur. I think it is good to establish that they can, at least as a possibility. For the resurrection of Christ, surely a miraculous sign if there ever was one, is a central focus of the New Testament. Also, a miraculous event must first occur before we can interpret its meaning. And such events occurred in a normal space, time reference. The ancients may have viewed signs and miracles somewhat differently to us moderns, but they did have a similar view of time and history.

AJ,
I never said or implied Polkinghorne was a creationist. Neither does the film.

Thanks for providing some links to some of those long debates we’ve entered into last year. It may save us having to go through them again. Anyone who clicks on them will be able to decide for themselves how ‘cowardly, bitter, and intellectually dishonest’ I really am.

In all of the times I’ve ever seen you post anything, it’s only ever been in response to one of my posts. While this is a little flattering in a way, I really think you should get out more.

Waterboy, George, Grim,
Waterboy’s paragraph falls at the first hurdle. “Clearly the genesis of the 'physical' universe is a natural event that can be investigated by science.”

Firstly, to claim it as a natural event begs the question. Also, to claim that it can be investigated scientifically is to say the proposition can be falsified. How do you propose to do that? To falsify it as a natural event would imply a supernatural event which leaves it holding large metaphysical implications.

Relda,
You claim maybe we have difficulties communicating because of different views of hermeneutics. This is possible, but words are words, and we try and make sense out of them as best we can.

I don’t see where I’ve misquoted you. And I’d happily quote you again, for I see the same error in your follow up post. Once again, you’ve claimed that, “creationists and ID advocates are both in the same ‘camp’ in that they appeal solely to Biblical inerrancy and authority in order to refute a scientific theory (i.e. Darwinism).”

However, they do not rely on Biblical authority alone in their arguments. Their arguments depend on observations and reason from many areas of expertise. I could name some books written by ID proponents that contain no Scripture whatsoever. You also say this raises difficulties for their notions of natural theology. This is ridiculous. The famous book written by ID proponent William Paley was called ‘Natural Theology’.

You need to understand the ID theories better before critiquing them.

waterboy,
>> What ... is the point of God raising Lazarus? Why was the blind man given sight? God clearly allows the rest of us to remain in death. She does not see fit to heal all the blind people in the world,even the Christian ones that you and I might have prayed for.<<

Do you think that mocking the Gospels, in a way irrelevant to Dan’s position on science and evolution, is helpful here? It only serves to convince people that a defence of evolution and Darwinism goes necessarily with ridicule of what is sacred to all Christians, fundamentalist or not.

Also, speaking of the Christian (understanding of) God as “She” seems to me as impolite as if somebody deliberately misspelled, or worse, your name. It is not about God’s gender but about the Christian way of seeing the Divine. Of course, others might prefer the "she" approach (see e.g. Tao Te Ching).

Except for this, I agree with what you wrote. When considering the historicity of this or that miracle in the NT, one must take into account not only how we prefer to understand them, or what we think the authors of the Gospels wanted to say, but also what effect that event could have had on the contemporaries of Jesus. A miracle by definition is an event that cannot be explained from KNOWN natural laws; and people in the times of Jesus had a very limited knowledge and understanding of these laws. So in this sense I would agree with Dan.

My impression from some contributions here is that when discussing religion and science, it so happens that a naive understanding of what science - e.g. Darwinism or contemporary cosmology - is all about calls for reactions based on a naive understanding of what religion, especially Christianity, is all about.

And conversely, a naive "literalist" understanding of Christianity calls for reactions based on an outdated understanding of science based on a philosphy of science, which cannot take into account twentieth century achievements in physics that gave birth to contemporary cosmological insights into reality (c.f. my previous reference to Paul Davies' recent book).

Neither of this helps us to find interpretations of science and religion, interpretations that are compatible, hence do not lead to "cognitive dissonance" in the minds of those of us who can or want to embrace both approaches to reality.

Dan,

I have read Newton believed that Ussher used 4,000 years before 4 BC (Herod the Great's Death)in calculating the time of the Creation (not only geneologies. Yet, I do recall Newton actually saying that he personally maintained the idea. Can you please provide an academic reference or an .edu link? I suspect geology would have been in its infancy.

George

It was certainly not my intention to 'mock' the Gospels but rather to make a point about the nature of miracles. It is very difficult for us to detach ourselves from our scientific worldview which is what is needed to understand the nature of the miracle stories in the Bible. The New Testament is written from within a still strongly mythopoeic culture that simply does not have any comprehension of what we call natural laws. In the terms current to the writers these stories violate no natural laws. They illustrate Jesus' authority over the whole of creation as they understood it. That is why I make the point about the Greek word, 'semeion', which is usually translated 'miracle' with, to us, connotations of magic whereas the Greek emphasises the nature of the events as signs to be interpreted. My point really is that projecting our scientific predisposition back into ancient near eastern texts by applying our understanding of what constitutes a 'violation' of natural laws is simply anachronistic and unhelpful to any faithful reading of Scripture.

As for my use of the female pronoun, surely if 'gender is not the issue' then it matters little whether I use the masculine or feminine form. Rather, to insist on the use of the masculine pronoun would be to make gender an issue. I do not insist on the use of the feminine pronoun but at different times use both precisely in order to avoid persistent gender specificity. Unfortunately English lacks an androgenous pronoun and the neuter 'it' doesn't really work, does it.

Dan,

Above: Should read "do not recall Newton" my fingers sometimes slip-up and lag behind my thoughts.

Waterboy, If there is a "He" then why not a "She" as well ?

Why not a Partnership to "wind the clock up " and so get us on an amazing journey - whether you believe in Gods or not .

Jim

Sounds like your 'theological' tastes would run more to something like the Greek pantheon. Now there's a much racier tale or two.

Dan,

<<More striking is to ask how quick his critics might be to throw an accusation of irrationality at these two: Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), who formulated the laws of planetary motion, calculated a creation date of 3992 BC, or Isaac Newton (1643–1727), who vigorously defended a creation of about 4,000 BC.>>

The era in which the scientists you mentioned lived (heck, you even included the years they were alive as if to show how silly your own argument is), invalidates your entire point. No one would accuse them of being irrational because they had no way of knowing any better.

Hang on... didn’t I already cover this here... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121498 ?

Yep, I did. Sheesh, Dan, you need some new material!

I’ll hold off from mentioning how it makes you come across though. I think I’ve proven my point now.

<<The flip side would be that if the true age was any fraction of that unimaginably large number then many would be saying that there wouldn’t have been enough time for evolution to take place. Either way, both young earth creationists and Darwinians are being pushed towards boundaries in their thinking.>>

14 billion is a boundary of thought? Then how can you even begin to grasp the concept of, or know anything about a God that is supposed to be infinitely bigger?

Ever heard of a trillion?

<<In all of the times I’ve ever seen you post anything, it’s only ever been in response to one of my posts. While this is a little flattering in a way, I really think you should get out more.>>

I’ve responded to many others, but in a way, I guess you should be flattered to a small degree. After all, I don’t often bother with a couple of other Creationists on this forum, mainly because their writing style reflects the lunacy of Creationism. You, on the other hand, can actually spell.

But I guess what keeps me posting is that you sound so serious in your posts (as if Creationism was really serious business), that it’s fun to systematically tear them down.

Continued...

...Continued

But congratulations on being the only coherent Creationist on OLO!

Anyway, it’s interesting to note that you still cannot challenge any one of my points. I’d appreciate if you’d at least give it a go if you’re going to continue to make assertions that you don’t appear to be able to back up when challenged.

While you’re at it though, could you also explain to me what one of these problems are with evolution that you mentioned in your post to Waterboy several days ago? They sounded so detrimental that it made me curious as to what they actually were since I am unaware evolution having any more problems than gravity - let alone “detrimental” problems.

Thanks.

Dan,
I’m more than content to suffer the ‘error’ of my observation and would certainly echo Darwin in his observation where, in his sixth chapter of Origins, he asks: "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" Darwin, as more than an armchair observer on things ecclesiastical - having obtaining a degree in theology, was able to remind his readers that centuries earlier a geocentric world was intellectually more satisfying to ordinary people, but eventually the realisation came that the voice of the people cannot be trusted to be the voice of God. Throughout his life Darwin held the view that evolution does not supplant creation, but that they supplement each other. He was also an admirer of Paley’s ‘Natural Theology’. So where’s your problem? Things have certainly evolved since then. Understand the ‘spirit’ of the times.

Similarly, a century and a half earlier, Newton was indeed one of if not the finest mind of his time… but he was of his time. You can’t simply pluck Newton out of the historical timeline and then call him one of today’s creationists – if born today he was likely to be a more than brilliant cosmologist.

relda, I can only say you have left me with nothing to say. Cheers.

Thanks Grim, I appreciate your comment and likewise, Cheers.

Dan,

Newton was a Deist and he believed intelligent design. Also, he held to two alternative creation dates, 4004 BCE and 2348 BCE, as being given, a priori. Based on these dates, Newton tried to establish the sequential history of nations:

“Beginning with the genealogy of the Old Testament, the essay [i.e. Newton’s Essay] seeks to establish the date of the creation and in turn discusses the early history of Greece, Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, and Persia. By calculations based upon the data given in the Old Testament and also upon various classical sources” (King 1830, in Hurlbutt 1965)

My observation is that Newton was matching biblical history essentially to its own time period: The civilizations of the time period of the Bible compared to the time period of the Bible. Newton posited an historical self-referencing thesis, rather a geophysical thesis. From what I have read, at least.

On the other hand, your comment on Newton (and Kepler) and Creationism alludes to Newton “vigorously” defending the Creation based on celestial mechanics. Here, I can find neither such formulae nor dissertation. Would you please provide an academic reference or .edu link? Else, do we have run two themes fallaciously blended together?

Besides, Newton didn’t have any Moon rocks to date. ;-)

Sells,

My above post addresed to Dan illustrates that which I have suggested to you before, regarding hard conclusions sitting on a priori assumptions. A cascade of conclusions can be doubtful, where the first domino falls unassessed and not rationalised.

George,

“There were times when the role of religion as ersatz-science was needed and justified. Those times are (or should be) over; and as I said before, I believe that the role of science as ersatz-religion - that some scientists and many non-scientist-fans-of-science still believe in - is also temporary.” - George

I agree with you on these matters too, adding that religion tried to explain the natural universe with some, but, limited success. When better (scientific) methodologies became available, the Church dug itself-in and science countered (when it was safe to do so). Instead of spirituality of the heart “or” discipline of the mind, apart, we had/have Church and Science vying in a turf war, each exclusively wanting heart “and” mind.

Even for a non-theist humanitarian, moral principles can guide the use of science, yet these moral principles are not science (except perhaps to developmental psychologists. e.g., Kohlberg). For some theist humanitarians, Science is a blasphemy: I think this circumstance occurs, because some of the devout cannot see beyond the “literal” scriptures.

Religion sees science as an extension Man’s god-given dominion, over other the Earth. Science (anthropology) sees Religion, as a cultural response to ecology and an aid to socialisation. These opposed positions seem irreconcilable.

Also, I agree with you that Science, in countering Religion runs the risk of being a surrogate for Religion. Raw Science is a process and a community of methodologies. Maybe, Science and Religion both employ “faith” and “intuition” and owing to these commonalities each side all-to-often crosses on the other’s prefecture. Albeit, the notion of the perfect original watchmaker is corrupted by God’s alleged historical interventions being necessary to keep the Design on its course.

Relda,

Discussion with George has led me to believe that Deism acted as an effective interregnum between old religiosity (converting old knowledge) and new science (creating new knowledge). New knowledge was made acceptable to the religious masses through intelligent design. Intelligent design allowed believers to adapt to the New World, while remaining loyal to the Old World, I suggest.

waterboy,
I essentially agree with what you wrote about miracles, which is very different from the style you used and that I objected to. These are just variations on what I meant by “miracle by definition is an event that cannot be explained from KNOWN natural laws“.

To ask the silly question whether a camera would have recorded this or that miraculous event - or whether a contemporary doctor would have proclaimed Lazarus dead - is irrelevenat to what the Gospels are about. However, an affirmative answer strengthens the faith of some insecure Christians, and a negative answer strengthens the “unfaith” of those who reject Christianity on whatever grounds.

What an irony that exactly those who emphasize that humanity is not in the centre and purpose of Creation/evolution insist that the Gospels have to be read exactly from the present-day scientific perspective. In centuries and millennia to come our “scientific explanation“ of Gospels will be as outdated, as a medieval one is for us today. The Gospels were written to say something to ALL generations.

As to whether it matters how you refer to the Christian God, I still see that it would be impolite for me to call you - or those close to you - names that are different from what you/they are generally known by, just because I think they befit you/them better. Today, Christians are used to all sorts of “impolitenesses”, so I was not concerned about them but about giving the proper weight to your arguments.

For instance in French, German and Slav languages “person” is of feminine gender (and it is irrelevant that both males and females are persons), and referring to it as if its gender was masculine is wrong grammar. If you do it consistently and on purpose people might wonder, why you need to mutilate their language. So though in your privacy you might pray “Our Mother who art in Heaven” should you wish so, if you publicly advocate this deviation from Christian usage, most Christians will question your motives.

Oliver,
Thanks for your comments, though please note that my remark concerned religion and science in general, not the Church (that faced for the first time a world-view forming competitor) and the pioneers of serious science (who themselves where not very much clear about the meaning and limitations of their scientific investigations). This is still true - though to a much lesser extent - on both sides.

>>some of the devout cannot see beyond the “literal” scriptures <<
I agree, although I do not know in what sense you would call “devout“ most of the anti-theists who attack Christianity exactly because they can understand the Bible and faith only “literally”.

Neither Science nor Religion as such can "see" anything: it is only some rigidly conservative e.g. Christians who might see their religion in an anti-environmentalist light (if that is what you meant), a concept that did not exist only a few decades ago. And certainly not all scientists see their faith as just "a cultural response to ecology and an aid to socialisation"; certainly not the Christians among them.

>>the notion of the perfect original watchmaker is corrupted by God’s alleged historical interventions being necessary to keep the Design on its course<<
Paley's idea of a "perfect watchmaker", as well as the idea that He has to "intervene to keep the Design on course", belong to nineteenths century, although some people (e.g. Richard Dawkins and his adversaries) try to resuscitate them. Also, the idea of God as a "perfect programmer" became outdated after epistemological consequences of quantum mechanics and quantum computing (only recently I read that Everett’s multi-world interpretation has allegedly become more popular among quantum physicists than the Copenhagen interpretation) became parts of world-view speculations by serious scientists, like John Polkinghorne or Paul Davies mentioned in this thread.

Oliver

You said
'... Science and Religion both employ “faith” and “intuition” and owing to these commonalities each side all-to-often crosses on the other’s prefecture...'

Without doubt science has trespassed on territory erstwhile claimed by the Church and given the Church's reluctance to concede territory conflict is, I suppose, inevitable. In the west the Church has obviously suffered from this conflict with Church affiliation falling dramatically over the last 50 years as people have reacted to the 'cognitive dissonance' rising from the disparate positions of a hugely successful scientific movement over against a very conservative religious dogma. What we are seeing today is a strong polarisation of views rather than a rapprochement of ideas as exemplified by people like George. At one extreme large numbers of people are totally rejecting all things spiritual while at the other extreme people are retreating into fundamentalist and pentecostal Church where they feel their faith is defended most powerfully. The middle ground is disappearing as the average age of local congregations increases and their numbers dwindle.

In the secular society that we now occupy where legislation proscribes discrimination and attempts to redress the imbalances of power that drive all forms of abuse, the spectacle of Churches refusing women basic rights, vilifying gay people and protecting paedophiles illustrates just how far the Church has digressed from the Word that Jesus commissioned her to proclaim.

It is difficult to associate the Church as we see it today with the words of Jesus that the Apostles and their immediate followers saw fit to record. I believe history will judge the Church of the 20th century very harshly indeed and I certainly would not be surprised if the 21st century saw its ultimate demise.

George, Waterboy and others,

Much unnecessary anxiety and suffering results from our not differentiating between gender and sexuality, and also between both of them and the feminine-masculine psycho-dynamic polarity. This occurs particularly in theological discussion.

To my mind God comprises both masculine and feminine principles. I am not referring to sexuality, but to the dimension variously characterised as yin-yang, outward-inward, active-passive, etc. One can even label logical thought as masculine in its linear progressiveness, and value-judgement as its feminine opposite.

In my (Anglican) church I have come across a number of well-regarded priests (both male and female) who have deliberately alternated between masculine and feminine pronouns just as waterboy does when speaking of God. They aim to avoid ascribing only one of the two polarities to God. Another strategy used at times within our church is to avoid the pronouns altogether. (This, however, seems very hard to sustain without running into linguistic difficulty.)

Perhaps we bring a lot of this angst upon ourselves by giving words too much importance in our efforts to understand God and our human being. That is why there is today a surge of interest in non-verbal avenues of enquiry, prayer and worship. For example, across the world members of Anglican, Roman Catholic and other “mainstream” churches are rediscovering and practising meditation, which has a hidden history of many centuries in Christianity.

I believe this is part of the regeneration of the Church that could allay waterboy’s fears of its demise.

Oliver,
Deism is essentially a rationalistic religion, which assumes that all men naturally possess the ability to know the universe’s Deity through reason, and that the creator of the universe was a rational architect. And it is interesting to note, ID comes awfully close in alliance to this definition, if one takes seriously its corollary of presuppositions.

ID actually originated as a short aberration into Christian theology in the late 17th Century and early 18th Century. Its revival is basically a recent American (Fundamental/ Evangelistic Christianity) phenomenon where, in 1987, the Supreme Court ruled (Edwards v. Aguillard) that teaching creationism in public schools was unconstitutional – i.e. the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state aid to religion. ID is simply a Trojan horse for the Creation Science movement. Despite it’s so called scientific endeavor, where ID seeks to find “complex objects, specified to some pattern”, its basic component is a "cultural renewal" – focusing on ideological and religious rather than scholarly goals. For this reason I called ID fraudulent – not because there is anything wrong, per se, for having focus on a religion or ideology but rather, it is wrong to deceptively delegate this focus as ‘scientific.’

ID has been called an "argument from ignorance," as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, we assume intelligent cause – a reversion to the old “God of the gaps” approach, but in a new, upbeat language. The ‘Old world’ beliefs, as held by Augustine or Aquinas etc, don’t need the ID deception to form a bridge to our ‘new’ one. The “religious masses”, on the other hand, may be falsely led.

George

Your point about the French, German and Slav languages shows that the problem of finding the 'right' pronoun for God is a peculiarly English problem. In those languages gender is a 'linguistic' property of words not necessarily identified with male/female as a 'property' of individual living things and therefore alluding to sexuality. Hence gender in language is never described as male-female but rather as masculine-feminine and is disassociated from notions of sexuality in the linguistic context. Gender is essentially an overloaded word in the context of those languages sometimes referring to feminine-masculine without male-female specificity and at other times referring specifically to male-female.

English has lost the linguistic notion of gender almost completely leaving only the male-female distinction. It is true that in English the masculine pronoun retains some sense of linguistic gender being the default pronoun used for God. The problem in English is that 'he' is so dominantly male (sexual gender) as opposed to masculine (linguistic gender) that its use distorts the representation of God in language making Him exclusively male.

If you say that some Christians might be offended by use of the female pronoun for God then I would simply ask 'why?'. Do they insist that God is male and that being called female is in some way offensive to God or 'diminishes' the Divine. I would argue otherwise that use of the feminine pronoun extends our perception of God and opens our minds to an even greater God than we had previously imagined. I don't see that as offensive and I don't resile from the 'offence' I might cause to people whose image of God seems to me unduly restrictive.

I think we lose something important when we bow to the pressure from the feminist movement to produce what has been called gender inclusive language in the church. The name of God in the Christian tradition is “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” When we change this to, for example “Creator, redeemer, Sanctifier” we lose the relationship between the Father and the Son and reduce the name of God to modes of his action. This does damage to our understanding of who God is. God’s being is “being in relation” he only exists as the Father loves the Son and the Spirit is the form of that love. The gender of God is beside the point, the point is to preserve a properly functioning name of God. As Christians we accept this as dogma, a received truth. Messing with the name because some injured woman feels left out is disastrous. The solution is to explain that they are not left out, that they are included in the love of God and that the preservation of the name of God is essential.
When God becomes mother what do we do with the traditional language that tells us that the Father begets the Son? A mother does not beget. It is interesting that we do not get a push to rename the Son daughter because Jesus was a man. Does that mean that women find it hard to relate to him?
The writers of the OT knew that the name of God was of utmost importance and should not be messed with, we should acknowledge the same.

Peter Sellick

Relda,
If Newton was born today, would he be a brilliant cosmologist as you suggest? Quite possibly. But who knows? He might have opened the batting for Australia. If my auntie was a man, (s)he might have been my uncle. I think all we can say about Newton is what we know from history, and from what he wrote down.

Oliver,
With regard to comparing Ussher’s date with Kepler’s and Newton’s, all I was suggesting was that Ussher was no idiot. The three were obviously using historical criteria from the Bible, not celestial mechanics.

I compared the three largely because I get tired of people suggesting people like Ussher were dim or irrational. However, after reading Grim again, he wasn’t suggesting that. So my apologies to Grim for not reading him properly. It appears he was suggesting that the date is a long way out of step with current uniformitarian geology.

AJ,
I clicked on your links to past discussions from last year. I don’t really see their relevance. Anyone who clicks on them would see those discussion having different lines of thought to the present ones. But thanks for the links. If you want to explain their relevance here, the go ahead, by all means.

Thanks also, for referring to me as ‘coherent’. It’s a pleasant change from the adjectives I’ve received previously from your part. I’m not really looking for respect. I’d just prefer some common civility, as it makes for a much more pleasurable experience during discussion. No one’s paying me to come here.

With regard to the problems of Darwinism, it should first be said that a theory having problems is not all bad. All good theories have their problems. Creationism has its problems. It is problems that encourage further research.

As for the seriousness of problems with Darwinism, that could be a very long debate, and one already being debated at length by minds far beyond mine or yours.

The issue for me, as I was trying to get across to Waterboy and some others, was what if the problems with naturalistic theories are genuinely serious? Where would we go from there?

If there is evidence suggesting intelligent input, why must that be restricted from investigation? Are we able to discuss all possibilities? At what point in time did science discount or disprove the supernatural origin so that we can be certain that the natural option is the only one worth investigating? If it just a philosophical preference, then it is not hard science, is it?

Relda,
ID is not an argument from ignorance (though some arguments on this thread have been). It is not an argument based on lack of knowledge. In fact, the ID proponents are growing as we are discovering more intricacies in the cell through our advancement in nanotechnologies. Our detection and recognition of intelligence is already an accepted part of science in the fields of archaeology, and forensics, not to mention it being the basis of the Seti project. If we can’t detect intelligence when we see it (or hear it, in the case of the Seti project) then why do we spend millions on isproject?

crasby,
Of course, I agree - and so will most (educated) Christians - with the philosophy, even theology behind your assertion that “God comprises both masculine and feminine principles” (though I can see also Sells’ point).

However, my concern was not with this but with the language used in connection with the Gospels. So I still maintain that most Christians still pray “Our Father who art in heaven”. Nevertheless, I can understand that your congregation prefers other prayers (not the "Lord's"?) or just meditates without words, if I understood you properly. (The Catholic and Orthodox traditions have Marian devotion to account for God‘s manifestation of His/Her feminine side to humankind, and it was often this devotion - more than theological deliberations - that helped them to spiritually survive decades of Communist “dark ages” in Russia and Eastern Europe).

waterboy,
>> the problem of finding the 'right' pronoun for God is a peculiarly English problem<<
I don’t think it is peculiarly English that we use “he” when referring to “father”. Let me repeat, I am sure all the languages that the Bible is written in, and probably also all the languages that it was translated into, can distinguish between "father" and "mother", so all languages can be faithful to the Bible's symbolism when referring to God (And of the languages I - sort of - speak, only the Hungarian cannot distinguish between "he" and "she"). So the distinction between sexuality and gender is here irrelevant.

I am sorry you did not get the point of my language metaphor trying to illustrate that if you want to quote from the Gospels you have to follow some rules, although you might claim that you know better than Jesus how he should have called God when speaking to his audience. However, you should make it explicit that this is your own opinion (of how the Gospel should have been written or translated).

I did not claim Christians could be offended by your language, only that some might question your motives. I think I can see them now, though don’t want to question them.

I think Sell's point is pretty obvious. If we accept the virgin mother story, God pretty much has to be masculine... except then she wouldn't be a virgin, would she?
It could be argued 'divinely inseminated' had to be asexual, in order to leave Mary's virginity intact; although I'm sure David and Oliver could quickly point out that the word 'virgin' is probably just a misinterpretation of the Hebrew for 'maiden' or just 'young woman'. The 'Our Father' clause has a lot of tradition; and to a sceptic such as I, that's about all the bible is.
Dan, I thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt; from my reading, I gather James Ussher was an intelligent and thorough scholar. Like all scientists of every age (as already mentioned), he was working with limited evidence. it's idle speculation I know, but I sincerely doubt such a man would arrive at the same conclusions, if he did the exercise today.

Dan,

<<I clicked on your links to past discussions from last year. I don’t really see their relevance.>>

In the first two links, I debunked the YEC claims since you made the same claims to Grim, and in the last one, I demonstrated why it was wrong for modern day Creationists to claim the founders of modern science as one of their own, since you tried to bring Newton down to a modern day Creationist’s level (Or elevate modern day Creationists to his).

<<Thanks also, for referring to me as ‘coherent’.>>

Well, I meant it. If your posts weren’t coherent and so well-written, then I wouldn’t feel the need to point out the falsehoods in them.

<< I’d just prefer some common civility...>>

If I was to throw any old accusation around willy-nilly, then that would be rude. But I’ve never made a claim that I couldn’t substantiate.

I try to avoid using harsh terms too often, but that can be hard when you so flagrantly make claims you know are false.

I gave you then benefit of the doubt at first, but now that you’re continuing to make those claims that I’ve shown without a doubt are false, you are showing yourself to be dishonest. I know no other word for it.

Once is okay; twice is a mistake; three times is dishonesty.

<<As for the seriousness of problems with Darwinism, that could be a very long debate...>>

Not really. Because there are no detrimental problems. A few uncertainties, like with any theory, but nothing detrimental.

You’ve claimed there are serious problems, so you should be able to state what one of those is if you want to avoid being accused of intellectual dishonesty.

<<...and one already being debated at length by minds far beyond mine or yours.>>

On the Naturalist side? Yes, sometimes. But not on the Creationist side. Especially considering they are continuing to make claims that I’ve already debunked.

But we need to remember that religion is an emotional need and Creationists are emotionally dependant on believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Continued...

...Continued

We can all be irrational and live in denial when emotions overtake us, no matter how intelligent we are.

<<...what if the problems with naturalistic theories are genuinely serious? Where would we go from there?>>

It would be irrational to jump to a supernatural conclusion with no evidence. You’re suggesting that scientists, give up, and resort to the ‘God-of-the-gaps’ logical fallacy.

But this is a non-issue anyway as there are no serious problems with evolution.

<<If there is evidence suggesting intelligent input, why must that be restricted from investigation?>>

And how would one prove intelligent input without resorting to the ‘God-of-the-gaps’ fallacy?

<<Are we able to discuss all possibilities?>>

Of course!

Even Dawkins admits that it would be unscientific of him to say that Gods absolutely did not exist.

But Creationists waste their time trying to disprove evolution without even looking for evidence for their own theory. Remember, it’s a false dichotomy to think that if evolution is false, then ID is true.

<<At what point in time did science discount or disprove the supernatural origin so that we can be certain that the natural option is the only one worth investigating?>>

The supernatural cannot be disproven. But Creationism lost in the halls-of-science long ago and has been debunked repeatedly.

<<In fact, the ID proponents are growing..>>

Quantity means nothing in a world with a rapidly increasing population. What matters is that the percentage, and the percentage is declining rapidly.

<<...we are discovering more intricacies in the cell through our advancement in nanotechnologies.>>

The intricacies of a cell are irrelevant since the first cell was extremely basic. There are some good theories that have had various stages of development repeated in labs.

In Expelled, Stein debunked a strawman by claiming that scientists believed that a complex cell just sprang into existence. He did this partially by editing the Michael Ruse interview to look like Ruse was claiming that complex cells just popped into existence on the back of crystals.

But I gave you a run-down of the development of the first cell (which you couldn’t respond to) at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121835.

Sells
Why does this topic, more than any other, elicit such intemperate language from you?
The tone of your post,quite familiar now,is angry and destructive. In fact your post illustrates perfectly the way your credal fundamentalism serves to perpetuate the patriarchal and misogynist spirit of the ecumenical councils.

"The solution is to explain that they are not left out, that they are included in the love of God and.."That is so patronising! What arrogance makes you think that women do not already understand the nature of language or that they would need you to explain anything to them.

There is ample Biblical precedent for using many images in order to do justice to the 'image of God'. There is also precedent for changing the the 'name of God'(Elohim/YHWH).

The fact that the New Testament carries a dominant image of God as Father does not preclude the use other images.Matthew describes God as "like a mother hen gathering her chicks".

The Bible uses predominantly male images for God largely because the humans who wrote it reflect the patriarchal society in which they lived. Today it is anachronistic and counterproductive to limit ourselves to those images. One of the inevitable consequences of having women involved in the Church at all levels is that they will bring new understandings,new images and new language to the business of theology,liturgy and the life of the Church.

I am reminded of an incident in which an elderly surgeon abused my wife for 'taking up a place' in medical school and asserted that women should be excluded from practicing medicine.He was a pathetic creature,quite obviously out of touch with the times and in serious denial of the reality that females were excelling in medical school and going on to be extremely competent medical practitioners.

The Church will be a better and 'more authentically human' community with women operating at every level and God will be more accessible as we apply a greater variety of images to our understanding of him/her.

Your argument is no more compelling than that of the old surgeon clinging to a bygone era.

Sells,
My acceptance of the simultaneous masculinity and femininity of God dates from at least 40 years ago and arose from contemplation of my experience of the Divine. Neither “the feminist movement” nor any other ideology had anything to do with it. I do not myself make a point of using “gender inclusive language”, but because of my experiences I can easily understand why people would want to do so. And I’m sure that many of them are not simply “bowing to pressure from the feminist movement” but are intellectually acknowledging their own inner experiences of God. Thus the Holy Spirit moves us. Revelation is ongoing and sometimes makes necessary a major break with past practice. I can’t predict to what degree gender inclusive language will finally take hold nor am I sure whether it is advisable, but I would not oppose it simply on the grounds of tradition.

George,
I still pray The Lord’s Prayer with my congregation, as well as the other prayers in our liturgy. I was merely pointing out that “She/Her” is often used in relation to God by some of our clergy and that this does not necessarily offend a lot of the laity. I accept your point about Marian devotions in the Roman and Orthodox churches. Such devotions are also a valuable part of the lives of some Anglicans.

The civilised man is man with no distinction. His greatest attribute is that he remains tolerable to his fellow human beings and keeps within his community’s customs and comfort zones. The process of feminization is deeper than most would presume. In our western world, where even beauty must be eliminated as a distinguishing marker, women, as well as men may claim, it is all skin-deep or in the eye of the beholder but then will clamor to possess it and agree on its attraction.

The redefining of a male as a caretaker and homemaker - the direct result of man’s feminization, where he has submitted to ‘authorities’ more powerful than himself has accepted a certain, contemporary, mode of behaviour. The world of our feminized populations negates the difference between the common male and the common female - it is becoming more and more difficult to discern. Uniformity at work.

The social myth is that femininity and masculinity, supposedly taught in schools and by parents, are behaviors that are learned rather than innate. This comes to be the communal tale that reinforces the absurdity that sexuality and gender roles are something which must be trained into a mind, when the opposite is true. It is ironic that women find men attractive who are, relatively, uninterested in them as individuals – they find men unappealing who are infatuated with them - the “nice guy” they want to remain friends with but have no actual sexual interest in. The “nice guy” makes himself constantly available as an alterative, a second choice, a settling, or as a device. His utility stems from his reliability. It is well known that confidence is a very attractive attribute, especially in males - few comprehend why it is so.

Masculinity is now often reduced to a facsimile. Engorged muscles and swollen penises used as allegorical references to what is no longer there or not allowed to express itself fully. “The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson.

The fact that we argue about whether God exists and whether he is male or female indicates that we are firmly stuck in the mode of analogia entis, the analogy of being. With Barth's analogia fides and the later analogia relationalis this whole conversation may be seen as a misunderstanding of the Christian concept of God. Calling God Father does not indicate that he is a male. God has no gender, he is not like a man or a woman. The objectification of God has brought us to the present theological stand off. God is present in his act, he is present when the sacraments are celebrated and the Word faithfully preached, he is present when love abounds. He is not a body, not a person, not a being, he is pure attribute as the Pauline blessing demonstrates so well. The Father is love, the son grace, the spirit company.

This is what is at stake when we mess with the name of God in the name of modern egalitarianism, the dogma of the church is no mere tradition, it is the soul of the faith and if we lose it to petty considerations we will be very much at a loss.

Sells

Father is an image used for God in the New Testament. As such it is metaphorical language not meant to be taken literally. (I cant believe I actually need to point this out). The birth narratives of Matthew and Luke are quite obviously mythic in nature and not to be taken literally or historically. God is not literally a Father and didn't really do any 'begetting' of anyone. 'Father' is just one image of the Divine among many. Since we cant speak directly about God we must speak in metaphors and images but no one image can serve as a complete and satisfactory 'description' of God.

The codification of the Father image in the creeds of the Church does literary violence to the text of Scripture and is probably the greatest single mistake in the Church's history. The subsequent violent imposition of the creeds on the people of Europe amounted to one of the most evil episodes in European history. As illustrated by Sell's recent post the creeds are, to this day, used to justify prejudice, discrimination and violence.

Sell's aggressive resistance to a simple pronoun exemplifies the deep anxiety of a Church defending the indefensible. Quite simply, the creeds represent a corruption of the message of Jesus and the Church cannot admit that. History, however, liberated from ecclesial domination, is now telling the story and every day new evidence emerges of the deeply corrupt and violent reality of the internal workings of Churches.

'Father' is not the name of God. Jesus knew how to tell stories and use metaphors. His use of this image in no way compels us to believe that God is literally his father and doesn't preclude us from using other images or from adapting our language to suit new circumstances

"God has no gender, he is not like a man or a woman. ... He is not a body, not a person, not a being,..."

in summary, he is an it.

"The birth narratives of Matthew and Luke are quite obviously mythic in nature and not to be taken literally or historically."
Why not? How do you know the Greeks and Romans didn't take the story of Leda and the Swan quite literally?
I've always been curious to know when it was that Humans managed to put together the cause (procreation) with the effect, 9 months later.
As I've pointed out before, in an age when women were stoned to death for adultery, I'm bloody certain virgin births weren't rare.
Sells, I found your second paragraph totally at odds with your first paragraph.
For a brief moment, I thought I could agree with you.

Sells,

I agree with you that God is “not a body, not a person, not a being”. I agree that “the objectification of God” is an error. And, as I tried to point out earlier, neither egalitarianism nor any other ideology determined my conviction that God comprises both the masculine and feminine. My concern is not with gender: that’s a linguistic concept. Nor am I worrying about sexuality: that’s a biological concept.

God embraces and drives, rests and acts, penetrates and receives. God is dark and light, sound and silence, linear and convoluted, vertical and horizontal…In a nutshell, God is both feminine and masculine. This polarity is a dynamic reality in which we find God. This is not a “petty consideration”.

If one acknowledges only the masculine aspect of God this is projected in one’s interactions with other people and the ecosystem. Manifestations of the feminine are devalued. I have to agree with waterboy that this has been the source of so much injustice and misery within the Church for centuries.

As I write I begin to think that perhaps I should, after all, be more concerned about the pronouns I use for God.

You say “the dogma of the church is no mere tradition, it is the soul of the faith”. Dogma is not soul; it is proclaimed by hierarchical authority. I say we should be talking about the faith of the soul, rather than the soul of the faith.

Waterboy and Crabsy.
Of course I understand that the use of the Word Father for God is metaphor, but most of language is metaphor, that does not give us permission to change it as we see fit. I would say that the metaphor is essential and when we change it we lose something of its structure, hence my reference to trinitarian theology.
I disagree with Waterboy's trashing of the creeds. Most things have been put to bad uses, that is not an excuse for ditching them. If we did that we could not use the word God. My sole aim is to preserve the essentials of Christian theology that have been so much under attack in the modern period. The solution to this attack is not to jettison the bits that cause consternation but to tease out what place they hold in the structure of Christian theology.
Surely the present malaise of the church has been produced by the attempt to aswage the criticism from a tradition that was formed in the Enlightenment and which does not recognize how theology functions.
Throwing out the creeds because they have been used in destructive ways must leave the church without any language to describe God.

Sells makes a point and perhaps a little ironically would agree with the "impossible" Tillich. As Sells states, “He is not a body, not a person, not a being, he is pure attribute”, Tillich would so enjoin, "If you start with the question whether God does or does not exist, you can never reach Him; and if you assert that He does exist, you can reach Him even less than if you assert that he does not exist.”

That gender springs from the very deepest metaphysical roots one can imagine invokes the interaction between the Creator and the Creation. A masculine spirituality can focus on a transcendent (or mystical) Godhead, God the Father in the Heavens, and a feminine spirituality conversely focuses on God the Mother on Earth, or immanent (i.e. inherent in all of the universe) Godhead. This embrace incorporates both genders and focuses on God within. God transcends the human distinction between the sexes [God the Androgyne] – as also stated within Catholic teaching.

That God can fully and equally embrace both masculinity and femininity was more than inferred by the council of Toledo (675 A.D), which declared: "the Son is begotten or born (genitus vel natus) not from nothing, nor from any substance, but from the maternal womb of the Father (de utero Patris), that is, from his being." Jürgen Moltmann noted that the Christian doctrine on the Trinity represents "a first step towards overcoming male language in the concept of God." A father who both begets and gives birth to his son is not a uniquely male father. He is a maternal father. To call God “Father” merely gives us the attribute, that he is near to us, intimately concerned with us, fond of us and that he loves us, forever maternally.

If the official liturgy of the Church continues to use the exclusively male representation of God, and therefore also the name of Father for God (instead of as an attribute), the sacred nature and absolute transcendence of God, which fundamentally affirm Judaeo-Christian tradition, will be forgotten.

Sells
There is a view that says Barth’s rejection of the analogia entis followed from a fundamental misunderstanding on Barth’s part reducing it to a form of naïve natural theology. His rejection of analogia entis was a mistake.

It seems too that we may have located your point of‘heresy’.“He is not a body,not a person, not a being, he is pure attribute as the Pauline blessing demonstrates so well.” To say that God is “pure attribute” falls somewhat short of the Church’s classical claims about the nature of God. We can only talk about God in language that is metaphorical, in images, analogies and ‘models’. As soon as we resort to propositional language such as“God is pure attribute” we move away from Jesus’ message proclaimed in images, metaphors and parables.Overtly propositional language is always a sign of ‘heresy’ (in the popular sense of that word) and always leads to‘hairesis’ in that it demands the assignment of a truth value and forces a ‘choice’ to be made. Metaphor, on the other hand, always involves a proposition whose truth value is clearly negative and whose‘truth’can therefore only be‘explored’ through its imagery and ‘analogy’which may proceed by‘analogia entis’.

Jesus’ use of the‘Father’image and its continuation in the creedal formulations of the Church clearly establishes it as a central metaphor of faith and an‘organising principle’of all Christian Theology. It is of such importance that, although we may use any variety of other metaphors, any ‘contradiction’ of the Father metaphor should raise questions about the usefulness of those metaphors. The Mother image, for example, contradicts the gender of the Father image and as illustrated by this thread that raises questions. In this case we all seem agreed that maleness is not the point of the Father metaphor and I would assert that ‘Mother’ is not only consistent with the organizing principle of the ‘Father’ metaphor but constitutes an entirely appropriate variation and extension on the‘loving parent’image as per my quote from Matthew.

BTW,”trashing”the creeds is not my purpose. Nor is it an historical possibility.Vigorous criticism may,however,lead to a substantial re-evaluation of their place in dogmatics.

relda,
>>The process of feminization is deeper than most would presume<<
I found the analysis you offered following this insight very interesting. I have often been speculating whether humanity is not on the threshold of an evolutionary stage when not only mental but later also biological differences between our male and female descendants will be gradually - probably in centuries and millennia - smoothed out, even erased, whatever that would imply for procreation techniques. However, I somehow believe that at the end it will be our female descendants, rather than males, who will not want to have their different identity thus erased.

I could not understand your statement that "If the official liturgy of the Church continues to use ... the name of Father for God ..., the sacred nature and absolute transcendence of God will be forgotten". If it were so, why did we not loose "the sacred nature and absolute transcendence of God" through many centuries while the Church(es) "continued to use the name of Father for God"? Or do you think we did but did not notice? I would have thought it was the other way around, that we loose something in the liturgy if we fiddle with the biblical name for God.

After all, if we make this concession to modern (or just fashionable) trends, why stop here? If it is "Our Father or Mother", why "who art in Heaven" rather than "who art beyond space-time"; why not "hallowed be Thy names"; why not "Thy Kingdom or Republic come" to make anti-royalists happy, etc? I hope you understand what I mean by using the Lord's prayer as an example. (Let me repeat, I am not speaking of the theological content of the liturgy just of the metaphors it uses in text related to the Gospels and tradition.)

So I would agree with Sells when he says that "most of language is metaphor, that does not give us permission to change it as we see fit. I would say that the metaphor is essential and when we change it we lose something of its structure".

Sells,

Via The Cardinal Prefect of the Vatican, The Pope asserts that, “Lord is exalted above any other name”, citing Phil 2.9; Phil 2.11; Acts 2.20; Joel 3:4; 1 Peter 1.25; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 12:3. Lord corresponds to Adonai (Hebrew) and Kyrios (Greek). “Moreover, the Tetragrammaton is not a substitute for God’s name, which is “Lord”. [“Dominus” was a second century Vulgate substitute]

The Vatican’s position, I put, shows Humanity’s relationship to (the alleged) God, rather than God’s relationship to God’s self (The Trinity). As a protocol, the former would seem to be more appropriate. “Lord” presents the male gender in this tradition.
“The solution is to explain that they (women) are not left out, that they are included in the love of God and that the preservation of the name of God is essential.” - Sells

But in their place, in OT tradition? Must explain to women? “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” - 1 Corinthians 34:35 KJV

In some traditions [e.g. Ugarit], Ashara is the female consort of Yahweh.

Above, I have used the word tradition several times. Here, events need to be review in context with their Times.
.
Offline for a few days

Dan,

Do you agree that there are trees older than 6,00 years and that heavy metals are forged in stars?

George,
The “feminization process’ to which I referred is the radical pendulum shift (reaction) from overt patriarchy to overt matriarchy – merely resulting in another ‘imbalance’. I doubt, ultimately, there will be any evolutionary change, fundamentally, to alter our masculine or feminine traits. Such evolutionary change, if it were to occur would certainly render the following definition, given by satirist Ambrose Bierce, as accurate: “MALE, n. A member of the unconsidered, or negligible sex. The male of the human race is commonly known (to the female) as Mere Man. The genus has two varieties: good providers and bad providers.” Mind you, there are pockets within the male ‘colony’ so downtrodden.

I don’t take the position of removing “Father” from the Lords prayer to substitute with “Mother”. 'Father', as a root metaphor of Christianity, means its exclusion on the basis that it was sexist would result in the religion being so changed that it would not be Christianity any longer. To move 'Beyond God the Father' would to ultimately cease being Christian. 'Father' is not a male projection onto God. It is a judgement of our fatherhood. It is how God reveals Himself. It is therefore not a sexist term. However, despite the high scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas (for his time), he argued that the male is the normative or generic sex of the human species. Only the male represents the fullness of human potential, whereas woman by nature is defective physically, morally and mentally. Not merely after the Fall, but in the original nature of things, woman’s ‘defective nature’ confined her to a subservient position in the social order.

It follows for Aquinas that woman cannot represent headship either in society or in the church. Her inability to be ordained follows from her defective or (as Aquinas put it, following Aristotle’s biology) her ‘misbegotten’ nature. The Vatican Declaration against the Ordination of Women in 1976 sums up a new theological materialism when it declares that there must be a physical resemblance’ between the priest and Christ-leading Roman Catholic theologians, including Karl Rähner, have actually condemned this Declaration as ‘heretical’.

relda,
Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood you by seeing your "feminisation process" of males more as a reaction - or rather accompaniment - to the "masculinisation process" of females, expecting them to compete in traditionally male roles at the expense of their female psychological, mental, identity (emphasis on "at the expense of").

You are probably right that "Thomas Aquinas ... argued that the male is the normative or generic sex of the human species". And today some people speculate that the "technology" of human cloning will make males completely redundant. Only the future will be able to look at our times with the same understanding of the historical context (or condescension?) as we look at times when the asymmetry of the male and female role in the society was dictated by many things, but perhaps mainly by the low level of available technology. Technology that today allows us to put more emphasis on intellectual abilities (where there is no difference between man and woman), than on physical strength (where there is an obvious difference) as it was the case in the past.

I know, and understand, your objections to the Catholic definition of priest (and the complementary nature of the male and female aspects of existence, reflected in the complementary roles of men and women in the workings of the Church). Today nobody is forced to be a Catholic if his/her conscience dictates otherwise: there are many Churches that see these roles differently. We have been here already, and there is no need to repeat my personal opinion on this.

George,
Neither do I wish to enter a debate on the Reformers of the 16th century rejecting the traditional definition of the magisterium, the ‘authority’ of the Roman Church or the ‘priesthood’. But I must say, as with most, if not all Christian denominations, the average Catholic is typically unaware of their own denominational diversity.

More often than not, each ‘brand’ of Catholic seeks to define themselves as normative and attempt to portray other groups as not being truly Catholic. This variety is emblematic of the whole Church, which has changed from being “Catholic” in the strictly identifiable Roman-focused way, to something closer to the original Greek sense of “catholic,” meaning universal, broad, and inclusive. It is this tension that is at play in the frequent 'family conflicts', or even wars going on between the various "camps" of Catholics. The dictates of conscience therefore really don’t arise.

Professor Denis McLaughlin of the Australian Catholic University (Brisbane) has found that most Australian Catholics constituted a "parallel Church", which largely disregarded the teachings of the "institutional Catholic Church, the Vatican, the Magisterium". In practice: "If they agree with the Church on an issue, it is because the Church position makes sense to them and they actively decide to agree. If a Church teaching does not make sense to them, they will refuse to agree, no matter how often or how clearly or how authoritatively the Church has spoken on it." I would suggest this applies in most other countries, including Australia.

I respect your Catholic ‘brand’ but realise, and as mentioned, a ‘catholic’ universalism is nevertheless growing. The days are numbered for a shifting power structure that has, for millennia, allowed a few clerical men to define and control the message and organization of Catholicism. A diverse group of unorthodox lay men and women, who worship as Catholics, consider themselves as Catholic as the Pope – despite Pope John Paul II’s reassertion on the traditional claims of the teaching authority and emphasis on the need for all Roman Catholics to adhere closely to a strict definition of orthodoxy.

relda,
Thank you for your interesting exposé. I am aware of the difference between "catholic" (meaning universal), "Catholic" (meaning a Christian baptised into the Roman Catholic Church, and loyal to the Pope) and "Catholic", meaning all sorts of Christians desiring Catholicity (in the first meaning of the word), with an ambivalent relation to the Pope.

The term "Christian" branched during Reformation into the Roman Catholic and Protestant streams, and today it seems that the concept of "(Roman) Catholic" is undergoing a similar diversification into loyal - (a) and (c) below - and not-so-loyal varieties. I would say that today those who see themselves as actively belonging to the Catholic Church, can be more or less divided into three groups:

(a) those who take the Church's teachings literally, and accept and follow all of them verbatim,
(b) those who also take these teachings literally but reject, criticise and even agitate against some of them because also their comprehension does not go beyond the literal (not unlike those who attack the bible because they cannot understand it except on a literal basis), and
(c) those whose loyalty takes into account freedom of conscience leading sometimes to the need to interpret and apply the teachings to their particular - often exceptional - situation (which is not the same as a licence to criticise the teachings, or even agitate against them).

Of course, this is a simplification of the situation. I am certainly not an expert on ecclesiastical matters. So I would not want to make predictions whether or not the group (b) will ultimately prevail, except that I do not think the trend in Western countries - whose share of the world's Catholics is dwindling - is indicative of future developments.

George wrote: The term "Christian" branched during Reformation into the Roman Catholic and Protestant streams.

Dear George,

Many Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, think of their church as a seamless whole before the Reformation. That is far from the truth. The newly Christianised churches of the west started to split from the east in the eighth century. The breach widened until Pope Leo IX excommunicated the eastern churches, and the eastern churches hurled anathema at the west in the eleventh century. The eastern Orthodox churches are still going strong. Most Christians in Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Syria, Turkey, Albania, Finland, Esthonia and Ethiopia belong to them.

There are also Coptic, Armenian and Indian Christians who owe their allegiance to neither Rome nor the Orthodox prelates and date their origins to the early centuries of Christianity.

There have also been schisms such as the Arian – Catholic during the fourth century. Arianism even prevailed for a while. During this time Christianity spread mainly through Arian efforts.

Probably the first division of Christianity was into the group under Paul which readily accepted gentiles and the group under James which was almost exclusively Jewish in origin. The James group was eliminated in the unsuccessful revolt against the Roman Empire.

There have been three major schisms in Christendom and many minor ones.

The First Major Schism was the Chalcedonian Schism in 451.
Today, all Christendom (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and the major Protestant denominations) except for the Oriental Orthodox all Christendom accepts the language of Chalcedon.
The Second Major Schism (July 1054) separated the Orthodox from the Catholic.
The Third Major Schism (1521) was The Protestant Reformation

The term “Christian” has had many branches throughout its history.

Dear csteel: I was horrified by Albright's remark about the deaths of the children being 'worth it'. In addition to being callous Albright was all stupid.

According to Harry Gersh's 'Sacred Books of the Jews' the book of Esther took its final form around 200 BCE although it could have been around in some form much earlier. That would explain it not being in the Dead Sea Scrolls since their date is uncertain and may have been before 200 BCE.

At one time the middle east was well watered with forests. Increasing population resulted in deforestation and more arid conditions. As a result settled hunter gatherers or farmers became nomadic. In a nomadic society the roles of men and women become more sharply differentiated and women have less status. Thus the change from the independent Vashti to the subservient Esther. In addition to not being herd animals pigs need more water and shade than sheep, cattle or goats. The land became unsuitable for independent women and pigs except for the male chauvinist kind.

There can be the same explanation of both the change in the role of the goddess and the prohibition of eating pork.

By the waters of Brisbane I sat and wept. I miss the USA.

Dear David f,
Of course, you are right, I should have written “Christianity in the West”. I was carried away with my emphasis on the fact, that not only Christianity but also Catholicism evolves and diversifies through history, and often different branches see themselves as mainstream.

George,
I guess much of our understanding is owed as to how we interpret things – how we critically analyse our suppositions or traditions. Bernhard Philberth, a German physicist, philosopher and Catholic Theologian was taking aim not only at his own tradition and other institutions but referred also to the individual when he said, “Progress leads to chaos if not anchored in tradition. Tradition becomes rigid if it does not prepare the way for progress. But a perverted traditionalism and a misguided progressivism propel each other toward a deadly excess, hardly leaving any ground between them." No doubt I think you’d agree.

Evangelical Christians who hold to inerrant Scripture are often in effect little different to Romanists who posit inerrancy in Papal succession and their church. Interestingly, the claim of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, which later resulted in the proclaiming of his infallibility, is considered the main cause of separation of the Western branch from the Eastern (the insertion of Filioque into the Nicene Creed was the other major reason) – i.e. the occurrence of the great schism between the Orthodox east and the Latin west.

At the ‘great schism’, when absolute canonical value was given to the Priesthood, it was concluded as being above political authority; the head of the Priesthood is the Pope and the Pope then is then "Head of the Universe" (caput totius orbis). This "conclusion" was also supported by clever forgery where Constantine the Great left to the Pope the political power of his position in Rome as a Donation to him. Orthodoxy (Eastern) has actually suffered more from the Christian West than from the Muslim East.

Accusations on the idolatry of Catholicism , often alluding to it as the pagan “whore of Babylon” are generally made in the name of a similar absurdity. The so called “direct antipode”, i.e. - the Protestant principle of the absolute supremacy and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures serves as merely a substitute for ‘Papal infallibility’ - if, when all words are considered, are taken literally.

George and Relda,

We also have the Great Schicism (1054) between the Eastern and Western Christrian Churches.

"...The older creed had declared the 'Holy Ghost' proceeded from the Father. The Latins wanted to and did add 'Filioque' (=from the Son)and place the Greeks out of communiion because they didn't want to follow the lead." (Wells)

Have enjoyed reading your posts. Bit busy at work at the moment.

Oliver,
I’m no expert on trees or metals.

I’ve not heard of any tree that is clearly older than 6000 years.

The point I would like to highlight is how anyone could possible know that a tree is that old. Using observation (a key feature of the scientific method), the only definitive way one could determine the age of anything is by seeing its beginning. How can anyone say with certainty that any tree is older than 6000 years unless they measured the time while it was elapsing, and was therefore that old as well?

Other summations require some form of theoretical reasoning or entering the domain of history. It may seem reasonable, but could never be definitive.

Something similar could be said of star formation and metals forming within them. No one knows with any degree of certainty how stars were formed. I heard one statement from a well known cosmologist that was unintentionally amusing. He said that we now understand nearly everything about the formation of all that is in the cosmos, except for stars and galaxies. Hang on! Apart from stars and galaxies, just what precisely in the universe is there left?

You wrote: Using observation (a key feature of the scientific method), the only definitive way one could determine the age of anything is by seeing its beginning.

Dear Dan,

There are many ways of telling the age of things without being there at the beginning. We are told not to look a gift horse in the mouth because we can tell the age of a horse by its teeth. We can tell the age of a tree by counting the rings in its trunk. We don't have to cut down the tree to do this as we can bore into it by taking out a core. We can tell the age of some rocks by looking for a radioactive element like uranium and comparing it with the amount of lead in the rock. Uranium decays into lead at a known rate, and some rocks will form with a crystalline structure which does not contain lead. DNA mutates at a fixed rate. We can look at two species and tell how long ago they had a common ancestry by examining the differences their DNA. The process is called cladistics. All these methods give an approximate age.

Being there at the beginning also gives an approximate age because time is a continuum, and we can never measure it exactly.

Interesting stuff!

Davidf
Re: “we can tell the age of a horse by its teeth”.

Horses (and actually, any graminivores) teeth are greatly affected by the nature of the soil they graze on. If the soil is sandy/gritty the animals teeth will deteriorate at a much quicker rate.

Now, of course, you could argue that --wider--observation of animals in mixed environments would make one aware/wise-up .

Dan,
Re: “Apart from stars and galaxies, just what precisely in the universe is there left?”

(Knowing how much Davidf loves Shakespeare –I can't resist!)

“There are more things in heaven and earth, [Dan],
Than are dreamt of in your [cosmology]”

Up to 90% of the universe is said to be invisible –largely dark matter.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2006/Jan/Rubin-Dark-Matter.pdf

Dan,

<<I’ve not heard of any tree that is clearly older than 6000 years.>>

That’s because you refuse to get your information from anywhere but Creationist sources, and they’re hardly going to mention ancient trees like Methuselah. A Google search of http://www.creationontheweb.com for Methuselah+tree produces no results...

http://www.google.com.au/webhp#hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Acreationontheweb.com+Methuselah+tree&meta=&fp=e5bcc09bd4dacb79

What a surprise.

But thank you, Dan, for the fine demonstration of two fallacies in one sentence. The ‘Argument from Ignorance’ and the ‘Argument from Incredulity’...

<<The point I would like to highlight is how anyone could possible know that a tree is that old.>>

Davidf beat me to the punch on this one. Not much more I could add there.

<<...observation (a key feature of the scientific method)...>>

Yes, observation is a key feature of the Scientific Method, and as Davidf pointed out, we can observe the age of trees is many ways. Sitting there and watching it would be one method (albeit impossible) of observation, but to suggest that it is the ONLY method is not only simplistic, but shows a child-like understanding of science.

Very cheeky of you to mention the Scientific Method though. Particularly since Creation “Scientists” never follow it themselves. Why is is so important to you now?

<<How can anyone say with certainty that any tree is older than 6000 years unless they measured the time while it was elapsing, and was therefore that old as well?>>

Now that we’ve settle the ‘How’, I’d like to ask how any Creationist could say with any certainty that the Bible is an accurate historical and chronological record?

Continued...

...Continued

<<Other summations require some form of theoretical reasoning or entering the domain of history. It may seem reasonable, but could never be definitive.>>

When multiple methods of dating agree with the magnitude of the age of something, it’s definitive enough.

When one considers that the 6000-year-old-Earth claim is like claiming that the Moon’s distance from the Earth is the same as the height of the Empire State Building, or that the distance from Brisbane to Perth is only several feet, then one can start to comprehend just how definitive the dating methods are in relation to Creationist claims.

But how, Dan, do you explain my point earlier about what we observe with the static height and long deterioration of the Rocky Mountains in contrast to the continual rising of the Himalayas that contain fossils of ancient, primitive life from an ancient sea bed? We know a flood couldn’t have done that.

Is God just trying to trick everyone, or is he testing our faith?

Sorry, Dan, I need to make a correction.

It appears that http://creationontheweb.com now re-directs you to http://creation.com, so if I Google search creation.com for Methuselah+tree, then I get some results (Although you can still get results by Google searching the old address with other key words).

So I clicked on their article on this issue at http://creation.com/patriarchs-of-the-forest to play what’s become an old favourite game of mine on this website I like to call “Spot the omission/falsehood”.

There was a lot of deceit in this article linked above, so I’ll just briefly go over the paragraph that stood out most to me...

”Plant biologists agree, and even expect, that these vigorously-growing, magnificent ancient trees could continue to grow for many thousands of years into the future. And they would expect, therefore, that there is no reason why many among them could not have started their life many, many thousands of years ago.”

By cross-dating the living trees with dead specimens, we can go back to over 10,000 years. But there wouldn’t be much before that time because of the Ice Age.

”But there is no evidence that any of them predate the Flood. Even with the assumptive cross-matching method, the cut-off number seems to be around 4½ to 5 thousand rings.”

Wrong.

Radiocarbon dating of each section also agrees with the cross-dating of the rings, and radiocarbon dating has proven itself time and time again to be accurate in the dating of tree specimens.

We could dig up the journals from somewhere and verify this if we really wanted to, but we don’t need to. The reason being because only one party here has the need to deceive, and that’s the Creationists...

”This is strongly consistent with expectations based on the Bible.”

Real scientists don’t need to lie about the age of the trees and the specimens found around the area, because it doesn’t matter if there are no trees before the alleged (and debunked) flood. The evidence for an ancient Earth billions of years old is abundant and irrefutable.

Actually Dan, there’s one thing I’ve noticed about http://www.creation.com that had always seemed strange and I’d always wondered about. And that is: Why is it that they always use unconventional terminology for certain processes/things?

Did you notice that in the paragraph that I linked to, they referred to “cross-dating” as “cross-matching”? I had always wondered why Creationist websites use slightly different (and incorrect) terminology for the same thing, and then it dawned on me...

They don’t want their followers to Google searching certain terms in their claims because they’ll then realise that what they’re saying is false.

Now, I admit that this sounds a little conspiratorial of me, but I did a Google define search for both “cross-dating” and “cross-matching”, and here are the results I got....

Cross-dating (the correct term):
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=define%3Across+dating&btnG=Search&meta=

- dating of a site by objects or features of known age, or artifact associations of known age.

Cross-matching (the Creationists version of the term):
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3Across+matching&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

Cross-matching, in transfusion medicine, refers to the testing that is performed to determine the compatibility of a donated unit of blood with ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-matching)

And...

This important blood test is performed to further determine compatibility between donor and recipient. ...

Nothing about dating objects in that search result.

So please do explain this to me as well, Dan.

Thanks!

Dan,

"It may seem reasonable, but could never be definitive." - Dan

It might seem reasonable that the Christian scriptures are ancient, yet is that assertion truly definitive? The World could have been created yesterday and we born evolved along with false memories of our own life histories. Yet, on the balance, few would proceed on this assumption.

I used the example of trees because one can count the tree rings.

Moreover, some forrests grow from root systems. The roots renew and die at known rates, and trees grow from these roots. Some root systems have been dated back 80,000 years, albeit, live trees growing from these systems are younger.

You might retort and saying, "this is all trickery". Yet, if this claim holds true, one cannot deny that all of history is an illusion.

If some trees are older than 6,000 years (and the Earth is not flat) then this case is equally problematic for the Protestant Ethos as it is for the Catholic; as extrapolating Relda's comment, to the effect that Orthodox Protestant view holds scripture infallible, shows.

Being human allows us to weigh evidence and draw conclusions. It would seem -throughout history- that Churches have positioned themselves outside the realm of religiosity, to the realm of science; wherein, the knowledge of ancient peoples compete's with modernity, contrasting the knowledhe of peoples whom built oxe carts with those whom build space craft.

Of course, today, many Christians do accept the findings of modernity, siding with secularists on matters of science. For them, presumably, the "intent" of scripture is different to the literal words of scripture.

I suspect that people who believe we live in a flat Earth, which is only 6,000 years old and that people lived alongside dinosaurs and vegetarian lions accompanied Noah on the Arch, will be around for sometime to come; yet, day-by-day this world-view shall diminish.

AJP,

Thanks for some very interesting posts. I tried a few Google searches and see where you are coming. Yes, one must wonder if the misinformation and dysfunctional terminologies are deliberate. If so, it would seem those controlling the deception, know what they are doing. Here, as I have noted on other threads, the Catholic Church seems to accept or deny the legitimacy of The Shroud of Turin depending on its audience. The Protestants don’t think aloud on apostolic progression. Only the Seventh Day Adventists among the larger Churches see Saturday as the Day of Rest, from scripture. All seem to be baking a cake, as if cakes only have one exclusive recipe, of which, each to its own has special knowledge. And as you aptly illustrate are willingly to deceive in pursuit of Church goals.

The three ages of history are found in Jewish, Christian, Marxist and nationalist mythology.

According to the Talmud, "The world as we know it will exist for 6,000 years (beginning with Adam and Eve). The first 2,000 years were defined as 'chaos.' The second 2,000 years marked the years of Torah. The final 2,000 years will include the Messianic Age."

Jewish mystics explain the 2,000 years of chaos are the years before monotheism made its appearance on earth with Abraham. The years 2,000 to 4,000 represent the second period of two thousand years designated for Torah. According to this reckoning we are in the Messianic Age which will conclude with his arrival. Since this is the year 5,769 on the Jewish calendar, we still have a maximum of 231 years left on the "warranty" for earthly redemption.

Possibly Joachim of Fiore propounded the first Christian three stage version of history. Sometime between 1190 and 1195 this Calabrian abbot got an inspiration. The book of Revelation was his key. One part of the Trinity presided over each stage. The first was the age of the Father or the Law, the second was the age of the Son or the Gospel, and the third would be the age of the Spirit. The age of the Spirit would be the millennium in which all men would be contemplative monks undergoing mystical ecstasy and singing the praises of God continuing until the last judgement. No mention was made of women. Since Augustine had maintained we were already in the Millennium with the advent of Christianity Joachim's theory of history was at odds with Augustine even though he had the encouragement of three popes.

Secular philosophers picked up Joachim's speculations. He probably would have been unhappy if he could have foreseen that the theories of historical evolution of the German Idealist philosophers Lessing, Schelling and Fichte and also Hegel would embody the Joachite fantasy of the three ages. Comte had the idea that history went through three phases, an ascent from the theological to the metaphysical and finally to the scientific stage.

continued

continued

Hegel saw history as a progress of different stages. Just as a single human
being progresses from childhood through youth to maturity, so human cultures progressed from the "Oriental world" through the Greek and Roman experiences and into the "Christian world," (medieval and modern Europe). The idea of an engine of progress, and that history has meaning and direction has powered a great deal of craziness. One on the right side of history has the right and even the duty to destroy those on the wrong side of history. Hegel's apotheosis or fulfillment was the Prussian state.

Followers of Hegel split into left Hegelians the most notable being Karl Marx and right Hegelians who were mainly German nationalists. Hegel opposed individualist concepts of freedom contending that only absorption in an organic society generates self-realisation for the individual.

Nationalist theorists added the concept that all the peoples on earth their group was peculiarly fitted to bring the glory of their nation to the world. Since the nineteenth century nationalisms stemmed from people who in general accepted the Bible that specified the Jews as the chosen people somehow the Jews must be shown to be usurpers.

The Nazi engine of history was the race struggle. In 1923 Nazi Moeller van den Bruck coined the phrase, "the Third Reich". The Holy Roman Empire was the first, Bismarck's Germany the second and the Nazis referred to their Germany after the takeover in 1933 in van den Bruck's phrase as "the Third Reich" or in millenarian terminology, "the Thousand Year Reich". It lasted until 1945.

The Marxist engine of history was the class struggle. Marx’s three stages were primitive communism in scarcity, class struggle under capitalism and advanced communism in plenty.

The outcome of this was the justification of state tyranny under Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini and Mao and the murder of millions. The we/they philosophies of class struggle, nationalism and race struggle supported these murders.

All of the above mythologies are versions of a belief that history is controlled by some higher power and has a higher meaning and are all nonsense.

Dear David f,
What an interesting and concise journey through (parts of) West’s cultural history! Many things come in pairs (magnetic poles and charges in physics, yin-yang, content-form, the binary system that our computers “run on”, etc), and many triples - imaginary as they are - help us to picture reality, something like the focusing system in cameras. One, of course, is the Christian Trinity and you are right that some Christian thinkers linked their mental speculations, mental triples, to this Tripple par excellence.

Another triple that my father brought me up on was reflected on Plato’s three norms, or ideals (primary categories), beauty, truth and goodness corresponding to the (a) aesthetic (“primordial”, “unanalyed”, “semiconscious” experiences, Erlebnis in German), (b) rational, (c) moral.

Oliver,
Could you provide a quote to support your claim that the (contemporary) Catholic Church finds the existence of a tree older than 6000 years and the fact that the Earth is not flat, “problematic”?

Oliver,
I never claimed history was an illusion. I never said history is any type of trickery. No one here suggested that the earth was flat.

You are putting words in other people’s mouths.

The main reason I’ve lost inclination to engage with AJ is his constant accusations of lies and deception. We come here to this website to engage with others and hear different points of view. I aim to put my opinions in good faith. However, one cannot have a civil conversation with someone who thinks of you as a lying scoundrel. It just doesn’t work.

There’s no pleasure in that. But if you want to go down that line, then you and AJ are free to have the discussion to yourselves.

You talk about modernity (in the context of scientific findings) as if these were at odds with Christian beliefs. I and others on this website have often discussed the weighty contributions Christians (and other theists) have made to modern science. AJ accuses creationists of never using the scientific method. Yet it was creationists who invented the scientific method. From the sharp rise in scientific investigation; from the time of Bacon, through the next few centuries; that critical period when the West was forming it’s view of knowledge and science (and entering modernity), can you name one famous scientist from this period who didn’t believe Biblical Scriptures to be true and that the world was something in the order of 6,000 years old?

Oliver, you contrast modernity and building space ships with Scripture believers who built oxe carts. Are you making any serious point or are you just thinking aloud?

Earlier I mentioned how NASA was founded in a country that claims a strong Christian culture. If much of the US population has trouble swallowing Darwin, and prefer some form of creationism, then it might be interesting to investigate how many of the NASA space ships were built by people who thought the world less than 6000 years old.

Why don’t you Google search it? (Our faithful fountain of truth!) You might surprise yourself.

Dan,

The notion of history as an illusion was an extrapolation from your comment saying we can only know things, when we have been there in the beginning: i.e., you were saying citing unexperienced history is weak. Here, I was merely magnifying your argument to call the basic assumption into question. Similar reasoning implies: How can anyone know definitively the current line of British monarch extends from 1066 until today, unless one was there all along to measure it? The same goes for the life of trees, based on said assumption. My existentialist example is well-known to philosophy and was not contrived to put words in your mouth.

- Is the history of tree rings trickery?

My comment on the Earth being flat was based on the literal interpretation of the Bible bundled under the banner of infallibility. It is good to learn you believe the Earth isn’t flat and in this instance see the Bible fallible, with regards to scientific knowledge.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, I suspect most major scientists would have believed in god or held their opposing opinions to themselves. My point regarding ox carts and space craft was that in the era of ox carts people viewed their reality differently: e.g., they saw the heavens (space) as supernatural and terra firma as natural. Their world-views are different to ours'.

Response: Famous (period) scientist and NASA?

- Newton held than Earth was over 50,000 years old:

http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/science/mod3_SunlightSolarHeat/UnderstandingOfSun/

- NASA holds Earth to be greater than 6,000 years old:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=nasa+age+earth&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLL_en

- How old are mature stars? When did light leave distant stars?

George,

I was saying infallibility should be dealt with equal caution as a 6,000 year old Earth: e.g., papal infallibility ex cathedra (Catholic) and the literal, infallible Bible (Protestant).

Primarily, my comment on Catholics and Protestants turned-on Relda’s contribution not my own: “… the Protestant principle of the absolute supremacy and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures serves as merely a substitute for ‘Papal infallibility’ - if, when all words are considered, are taken literally”. relda 8/9

Dear George,

The yin-yang is different from the other dichotomies you mentioned (magnetic poles and charges in physics, content-form, the binary system that our computers “run on”, etc). The other dichotomies that you mentioned operate on the basis of Aristotelian logic. They are either A or Not A.

The Yin-yang is divided into a dark and a light part. In the light part is a small dark circle. In the dark part is a small light circle. This is an idea expressed in art, human interaction and other relationship. An artist painting a white building next to the sea may show patches of blue on the building reflecting the sea and patches of white in the sea reflecting the building. In interacting we influence each other. There is a little bit of you in me and a little bit of me in you. We can expand this indefinitely. The little bit of you in me contains a bit of me that is in you. The dichotomy between us fades as we look at ourselves more closely.

On this thread many of us are at odds because we are focusing on definitions. Some of us have defined ourselves by one criterion - that of religious belief. If we looked for the yin in the yang and vice versa we would not be at such odds.

Dan S de Merengue asked: "Can you name one famous scientist from this period who didn’t believe Biblical Scriptures to be true and that the world was something in the order of 6,000 years old?"

Dear Dan,

Because an eminent scientist from this period believed Biblical Scriptures to be true and that the world was something in the order of 6,000 years old does not mean that belief was the cause of his eminence. That would be confusing correlation with causation. However, we cannot be sure of their beliefs because it was not safe to question religious doctrines.

Michael Servetus (1511–1553) was theologian, physician, cartographer and humanist. He was the first European to describe the function of pulmonary circulation. His interests included astronomy and meteorology; geography, jurisprudence, study of the Bible, mathematics, anatomy, and medicine. He is renowned in medicine and theology. He later developed a nontrinitarian Christology. The Protestant John Calvin had him burned at the stake.

Giordano Bruno (1548–1600), was an Italian philosopher, mathematician, astronomer, and occultist best known as a proponent of heliocentrism and the infinity of the universe. His cosmological theories went beyond the Copernican model in identifying the sun as just one of an infinite number of independently moving heavenly bodies. The Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy and had him burned at the stake.

Isaac Newton did not believe in the Trinity either. He was more circumspect in his beliefs than Bruno or Servetus. After his death his heresy was discovered in the writings he left.

Considering that Christian fundamentalists have a strong voice in the US Congress I suspect NASA scientists do not feel free to announce unorthodox religious beliefs.

"The study of Christian theology is a study of texts and traditions that have been handed down over thousands of years..they are the result of historical event."

Are they indeed? Show me your primary sources within a century of the alleged events in this canon in confirmation of that that is the new testament? None? Show me the secondary, none? Thought so.

So how is "humanity" linked to your particular myth in any way other than dogmatism, or can we assume that our progress from Africa on any time scale dwarfs this christian illusion/allusion?

Hence our humanity has been well defined across, perhaps, millions of years without this particular fairy story choking us or our definitions of ourselves.

Oliver,

Thanks for your kinds words. With my ‘up front’, ‘no nonsense’ and sometimes harsh way of speaking I feel some are too afraid to mention when I make a good point. Nevertheless, I still get the occasional compliment.

Thanks again.

Dan,

<<The main reason I’ve lost inclination to engage with AJ is his constant accusations of lies and deception.>>

As I said earlier, I have always been careful never to make an accusation that I could substantiate, and so far, I haven’t. I think I at least deserve some credit for that.

But that’s okay if don’t want to engage with me anymore, just remember though, that the If-I-ignore-them-long-enough-then-eventually-they’ll-go-away theory only works if the person you plan to ignore does what they do to get a reaction from you, and as I have stated before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121123), I do what I do because the truth and reason must always prevail, and so far, they have.

You are such a well tempered person, Dan, that if getting a reaction from you was my intent, then I would have given up long ago.

No, I will continue to respond for as long as you continue to assult the truth. I promise you that. We're in this for the long haul - you and me.

Our posts are very necessary on this forum. We are like Ying and Yang. I wouldn’t want to stop you posting here, after all, you state the creationist claim, and I debunk it. It’s quite beautiful really.

We all need to do what we can to stand up for the truth in this world, and I do that right here.

<<We come here to this website to engage with others and hear different points of view.>>

I would hope that we come here to learn as well, and learning is certainly not what you’re doing.

I acknowledge others when they make good points against my arguments, and it would be nice if you could do the same once in a while instead of dodging and crying foul, only to later repeat the same flawed argument later on.

Continued...

Continued...

<<However, one cannot have a civil conversation with someone who thinks of you as a lying scoundrel.>>

“Lying scoundrel” sounds a bit harsh, but yes, you can. It’s easy...

Acknowledge when you’re wrong and don’t repeat points that have been shown to be wrong. I’ve always been vigilant to ensure that I make corrections when corrections were due (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#150511).

<<I and others on this website have often discussed the weighty contributions Christians (and other theists) have made to modern science.>>

No, you've argued “Creationists” specifically.

But as I have said before, it doesn't matter what you believe, only why you believe it (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121765).

<<AJ accuses creationists of never using the scientific method. Yet it was creationists who invented the scientific method.>>

And as I pointed out at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121498, those “Creationists” relied on the natural methodology and only ever found natural explanations for things previously believed to be miraculous, because they didn't allow their religious convictions to subvert or inhibit their inquiry.

But this has already been pointed out to you several times in this thread.

<<...can you name one famous scientist from this period who didn’t believe Biblical Scriptures to be true and that the world was something in the order of 6,000 years old?>>

Newton didn't know about DNA, but does that mean it doesn't exist?

<<Earlier I mentioned how NASA was founded in a country that claims a strong Christian culture.>>

And earlier, I asked you who these people were and you couldn't answer.

<<NASA space ships were built by people who thought the world less than 6000 years old.>>

Even if they were, that would be irrelevant since accepting the Earth's age is inconsequential to much of NASA’s work. Correlation does not imply causation, remember.

<< Why don’t you [Oliver] Google search it [the allegded NASA people]?>>

I tried, Dan, but found nothing. That’s why I asked you earlier in this thread who these people were.

But I believe Davidf has covered this sufficiently.

...or was it just the 'Tea & Tidy' boy of the assistant of one of the guys in the Control Room?

Oliver,
You wrote “If some trees are older than 6,000 years (and the Earth is not flat) then this case is equally problematic for the Protestant Ethos as it is for the Catholic”. Of course, I did not think you seriously believed the Church had problems with the Earth not being flat, I just wanted to call your attention to the clumsy formulation.

As for “papal infallibility (in interpreting the scripture and doctrine), it is a much more complicated concept than, say, the “infallibility” (in interpreting Australian Law) of the High Court of Australia as the final court of appeal.” Nevertheless, “final court of appeal” is a good approximation. If papal infallibility was as simple as its denigrators seem to think it would not need a whole book (by Hans Küng) to “deconstruct” it on a professional, legal, level.

Dear David f,
Of course, you are right that the yin-yang complementarity does not fit into the list (which anyhow was irrelevant). It is more like a focusing tool to better picture reality, perhaps not unlike the triple of aesthetic, rational and ethical aspects or criteria I mentioned before. Or like a prism through which one gains a view that makes some things, relations, more comprehensible: neither completely arbitrary nor necessarily part of the structure of reality they are supposed to picture (I treat in the same, semi-subjective way the Hegelian dialectic of thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis).

>> many of us are at odds because we are focusing on definitions <<
One of my favourite jokes is that a mathematician first defines a concept and then makes statements about it, whereas a social scientist first makes statements about a concept and only then defines it. A debate makes sense only if one beforehand (implicitly) agrees on the meaning of the terms used, unless they are the very subject of the debate. I don’t understand how one “defines oneself by one criterion”.

On my homepage I state my “philosophical creed” as “Love of knowledge complements knowledge of love, or the yin in yang complements the yang in yin“.

George,

I think you will find that Yang-Yin complementarily does not work the way you have specified. An increase in knowledge would complemented by an increase in ignorance. An increase in love would be complemented by an increase in hate. This structure underlies folk practising moderation in Eastern societies.

Dan,

Newton’s take on the Creation was to examine the task before Moses. He held Moses needed to communicate God’s word and to be generally understood. In the latter case, Newton said, Moses wrote in the “vernacular” in the scriptures.

AJP,

The US is a curious case. Its founding fathers were religious, including Masons. Yet, we find the first substantial sectarian state. They prayed dutifully, yet almost exterminated the Indian clans, under the Manifest Destiny banner. On the other hand, Lincoln said maintaining the (secular) Union was more important than the moral issue of stopping slavery. I guess Humanism was bounded by centricities.

David f,

Lenin and Mao were untrue to Marx. Both skipped the Capitalist stage. Hitler and Mussolini were State Capitalists. There have been peasant rebellions in China centuries before Marx. There were slave rebellions in Rome. Foremost, I see the Four to be opinionated opportunists. Perhaps, only Hitler was clinically insane.
As for Marx, to the extent that his hypotheses have been tested, Marx has been wrong. I suspect we would agree on this point.

Oliver,
I never claimed the yin-yang complementarity insight “worked” for everybody. I made it very explicit in many words that it is “semi-subjective”. In another thread, when trying to explain my understanding of such “epistemology tools”, I borrowed from Paul Tillich: “The test of a phenomenological description is that the picture given by it is convincing, that it can be seen by anyone who is willing to look in the same direction, that the description illuminates other related ideas, and that it makes the reality which these ideas are supposed to reflect understandable. (Systematic Theology I, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973, p. 106).

Hate does not complement love, it is its negation and I doubt whether the more people “love knowledge” the more will hate it. In the darkness-light metaphor for yin-yang, increasing (physical) light - e.g. by using a stronger bulb - does not lead to the increase of darkness, and vice versa.

Complementarity - at least in my understanding - is not the same as the relation between mutually exclusive pairs, nor is it the principle of action-reaction. It is sometimes compared to magnetic polarity, where you also cannot mechanically separate the two poles of a magnet.

Abstract philosophical insights that can be seen as achievements of our Western civilisation, often come from - and are reflected in - how common folk saw, and to some extent still sees, reality, (e.g. in naive approaches to religion as ersatz-science or naive approaches to science as ersatz-religion). The same about philosophical insights of the Chinese civilisation

George wrote: "I don’t understand how one “defines oneself by one criterion”."

Dear George,

That was expressed poorly. The definition is only partially by oneself. You have defined yourself as Catholic. That doesn't say too much as Catholics have a broad spectrum of views though they all owe allegiance to what they think Catholicism is. You have defined yourself further by the views you express. However, I think there are some people who have a stereotype of Catholic. They will place you in that stereotype whether you fit it or not ignoring your actual views and other attributes.

As far as definition goes Karl Popper gives an example in his book, "The Open Societies and its Enemies". A scientist engaged in a study of sand dunes will not want to get bogged down in a discussion defining a sand dune. He or she will title the project "Behaviour of piles of sand between 1 and 200 metres high thereby avoiding the necessity of defining a dune.

Oliver wrote:

"Lenin and Mao were untrue to Marx. Both skipped the Capitalist stage."

Dear Oliver,

Marxist theorists have dealt with that. They defined the revolution of February 1917 which overthrew the Czar and the revolution of 1911 which overthrew the Manchus as bourgeois revolutions. These were then followed by the "true" communist revolutions. Marxist theory now contends that communist revolutions are preceded by bourgeois revolutions. They are good as explaining contradictions away.

Oliver also wrote: Foremost, I see the Four to be opinionated opportunists. Perhaps, only Hitler was clinically insane.

I think Hitler embodied the spirit of the German people at that time more truly then the other three embodied the spirits of their people. If Hitler was clinically insane so were many Germans. By what standard do you judge Hitler to be clinically insane?

AJ,
You state that the reason you post is to stand in opposition to me. While this is kind of flattering, you’re a little out of step with most evolutionists who prefer to pretend there is nothing to debate.

In the 1980s Gish, Parker, and others held numerous creation/evolution debates in full auditoriums on US university campuses. By the accounts of many (including some of their opponents) they did pretty well until the evolutionists, who hold the status quo, wised up and realised it was usually counter productive to debate. It would be more gainful to assume victory.

I would be quite happy to acknowledge whenever you make a good point. However your posts mostly consist of misconstructions and denials of whatever I say.

I was about to mention something good that you said, about correlation not implying causation. But then I realised that you’d borrowed the point from David two posts earlier.

David,
I challenged Oliver, "Can you name one famous scientist from this period who didn’t believe 1) the Biblical Scriptures to be true and 2) the world was something in the order of 6,000 years old?"

You responded with the names Servitus, Bruno and Newton. However, I wasn’t sure if you were using them as examples or as counter examples to my challenge, as they all, by your account, conformed to the two propositions.

(Oliver offered a counter to Newton with his link, “If the Earth were formed as a hot molten ball of iron ….” which starts with a conditional clause, and so doesn’t read as an acceptance by Newton.)

That is not to say that we won’t find exceptions that prove the rule. And, of course, theories later arose for a more ancient earth. My main point was to counter some of the sentiment expressed on this thread that men of faith were often at odds with science. This is not the overall trend of history.

So when I mention the names of some of the countless scientists who don’t see any conflict with their faith, some may counter with ‘correlation does not imply causation’. This is true. But my thesis is that the overwhelming testimony of modern Western science is that faith has been more often than not a healthy accompaniment to good science.

Here’s just a few examples to follow on from what Oliver was saying about oxe carts and space ships.

Gene Cernan, the last astronaut to leave the moon surface, described his feelings on approaching earth, “I felt the world had too much purpose, too much logic, it was just too beautiful to happen by accident. … There has to be a creator of the universe who stands above the religions that we ourselves create to govern our lives.” Remembering that the Apollo astronauts were chosen for their flight engineering knowledge as much anything else, they knew good design when they saw it.

Two other Apollo astronauts, Duke and Irwin, became dedicated Christian evangelists after returning from the moon surface. And the scientist responsible, more so than any other for getting them there, the rocket scientist Von Braun, described himself as a young earth creationist.

David does then raise the important issue of persecution or undue influence pressuring and dissuading open and frank views and discussion.

This is a point I too was raising by mentioning the “Expelled” film. In the history of science, many have had to kick against the goads, or the binds of a set paradigm. This film shows a taste of the types of persecution many currently face for following their convictions of where the evidence is pointing, which includes severe threats against career or academic advancement.

Oliver,
You’ve continued to say that the Bible says that the earth is flat but you’ve never said where the Bible says this. The Scripture is plain. And I thought what I said was plain enough. I don’t believe natural history is a display of trickery.