The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The pros and cons of biblical criticism > Comments

The pros and cons of biblical criticism : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 4/12/2009

Modernity is the enemy of faith, not because it exposes faith as irrational but because it cripples the imagination.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Imagination is by no means destroyed by an understanding of the factual nor by a domination of the mind by factual things.

There is so very much more left to understand in the universe. And to yearn for further factual knowledge requires imagination.

A hypothesis is formed by our imaginations and then tested in reality (or so far as can be done, for various reasons, at any one time). Facts are not an end in themselves because for the most part they trigger us and our imaginations to ask more questions. We use facts and our imagination to push further the boundaries of human knowledge.

I'm weary of anyone who counsels away for the factual (and as such, the truth of things) and in doing so almost counsels a fear of the factual.

It is patently false that facts destroy imagination.
Posted by twistoflime, Friday, 4 December 2009 11:19:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poor Sells--he is unconsciously trapped in the "world"-view created at the time of the Renaissance. And ALL of his "religion" is patterned by the "world"-view that emerged then.

"The Renaissance was the collapse of the "God"-civilization that precede it--the civilization based on mythologized presumptions of what was traditionally conceived to be spatially and temporally "behind" and "above" the world. The Renaissance destroyed the earlier form of civilization. With the Renaissance, "God"-myth-based civilization was replaced with human-based civilization, or ego-civilization--or civilization based on the myth of the human ego-"I".

That ego-civilization came to its essential end in the twentieth century.Indeed, what happened in the twentieth century was the definitive failure of Renaissance-originated civilization, which civilization was based on the idealization and glorification of the ego and on the wholesale adoption of the ego's perspectival view of "reality".

During the period of the Renaissance, there was a profound struggle to come to terms with the notion that the nature of the universe was not as it had previously been presumed to be. The "old view" had the Earth at the center of everything. During the Renaissance people had to come to terms with the notion, based on physical (perceptual) observation, that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 4 December 2009 11:46:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
twistofilme

My point was not that facts destroy imagination but that if the content of our minds is limited to the factual they become very dry indeed. You raise an interesting point. If the factual is ignored then castles can be built in the air. It is interesting that in the creed mention is made of Jesus being "crucified under Pontius Pilate" which is a reference to an historical figure and event that may be recorded along with other historical events. There is a relationship between the actual/historical and the imaginary that springs from that, as you have said. It is this link that makes the theological so interesting and grounds it in the actual.
Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Friday, 4 December 2009 11:47:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued:

"The "old view" did not rightly represent Reality-Truth---but neither does the "new view" rightly represent "Reality-Truth. In either case (whether "old" or "new"), if the "point of view" were shifted so much as a hairs breadth to the left or the right, the universe so described would no longer exist.

Reality ITSELF is not any "view", or in any "point of view". Reality Itself is not merely the idea of "God creating and running the universe". Rather, Reality---Itself, and in the context of all conditionally arising appearances---is INHERENTLY DIVINE (or egoless, Indivisible, Absolute, Transcendental, Spiritual, and Perfect) in Nature.

EITHER there is the Enlightened Life (of egoless Self-Illumination in and by Reality Itself) OR there is the mummery of the narcissistic ego-"world".

There are NO other choices."

It is obvious which option Sells has chosen and stubbornly clings to.

As of course have all the rest of us, including ALL of those who presume to be "religious".

http://global.adidam.org/books/perfect-knowledge.html

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

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

By the way, the Process that IS True Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with the imagination.

Right life is mindless ecstatic participation in the boundlessly Bright Field of Conscious Light that IS Reality.
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 4 December 2009 12:09:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you wish to take a collection of old writings, put some (whilst rejecting others) into a motley collection and call them 'Holy', that is up to you. But they are not yours' never have been, and anyone is free to look at them any way they want. Where exactly in the middle ages did you get stuck? Somewhere where the earth was flat and the centre of the Universe?

So some old fart in drag tells me to have faith (believe something for no reason than I have been told to) and threatens that thinking for myself will somehow be detrimental to my imagination? Sells, you have in the past come up with some right old cobblers, but this time you have outdone yourself.
Posted by Daviy, Friday, 4 December 2009 3:30:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You can talk about pros and cons all you like. What is obvious that true science has not contradicted the Scriptures at all. The climategate scandal just shows to what lengths our prideful academics will do to in order to hide what true science says. The incredible blind faith by leading scientist and its gullible followers is no more evident than in the evolution fantasy.

Still by far the most logical explanation of creation is a Creator. Yes that takes a step of faith to believe but at least you can read the texts of where this belief comes from. Honest observayion confirms Scripture.We see with climategate that every piece of evidence that disproves the earth worshippers version of science has been deleted and left out of the 'consensus'. This is hillarous. Anyone who thinks these corrupt pitiful scientist has the answers to life have rocks in their heads. Christ is the only truth teller and still has no match or anyone that comes close.
Posted by runner, Friday, 4 December 2009 4:18:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sellick wrote: “ … fundamental changes that were brought about by Anthony Collins in England in the 1720s…
<SKIP>
This was the beginning of historical criticism and all of the other kind of criticisms of the Bible. Simply to assert that biblical authors had a voice of their own was huge move away from the idea that the text of the Bible was inspired by God.”

Biblical criticism has a long history of which Sellick seems unaware.

Some critical analysis of the Jewish Bible which Christians modified and called the Old Testament is already found in Talmud. Ancient Jews, early Christians and fundamentalists of both faiths believe to this day the Five books of Moses were written by Moses. The Talmud ascribes the last eight verses of Deuteronomy to Joshua.

Jewish and Christian scholars have been studying the sacred literature for many years from these points of view. Christian scholars as early as the second century began the practice of Biblical criticism. In that century St. Jerome placed the writing of Deuteronomy in the seventh century BC. This denied Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy.

Rabbis in the eleventh century made critical examinations of the Bible. In the twelfth century Abraham Ibn Ezra suggested that there were additions to the Torah or the Five Books of Moses after Moses died. Moses ibn Gikatilla suggested that the author of the first 39 chapters of Isaiah was not the author of chapters 40-66.

In the fifteenth century Isaac Abravenal attempted the first scientific study of the Bible, continued two hundred years later by Baruch Spinoza. Modern critical study of the Bible did not begin until the Age of Reason. In 1753 Jean Astruc (1684 - 1766), professor at the University of Paris, published "Conjectures as to the Original Memoirs, Which, as it Appears, Moses used in Composing the Book of Genesis."

Astruc was the first to demonstrate—using the techniques of textual analysis that were commonplace in studying the secular classics — the theory that Genesis was composed based on several sources or manuscript traditions, an approach that is called the documentary hypothesis.
Posted by david f, Friday, 4 December 2009 4:24:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"But, as has been argued again and again in these pages, such a scheme means that we lose human “being” itself, which is another way of referring to the death of the soul."

Knowledge contributes to the nourishment of the soul. Surely we as human beings can only be enriched by seeking knowledge and to understand our universe. It is not always necessary to be enriched only through knowledge but through experience.

Experiencing the wonders of our natural world and the way we are connected to the earth and all other living organisms is, for me anyway, much more human than a belief in a supernatural force.

Of course, there are many things we mere humans do not know and maybe never will. Does it mean we are any the lesser or better for knowing as 'beings' - I wouldn't think so.

Questioning the Bible is not a negative thing particularly if one believes the Bible is a creation of man rather than of a supernatural being.

runner
Some of those corrupt scientists you talk about actually deny anthropogenic climate change. Who are you to decide who are the corrupt scientists? I have many religous friends who I don't agree with in terms of their views on creation but I would not stoop to say they are corrupt just because their world view does not agree with mine. Sometimes people are just wrong, and there may be no hidden agenda.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 4 December 2009 7:26:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The logic of natural science dominates our understanding of what is true and what is not and is the reason that some commentators to these pages are indignant that theological statements are not so tested. In this they are thoroughly modern. But, as has been argued again and again in these pages, such a scheme means that we lose human “being” itself, which is another way of referring to the death of the soul."

Sorry, Peter -- you haven't argued this even once, let alone 'over and over again'. Arguing requires the production of reasons and evidence. You have merely asserted it.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 4 December 2009 9:06:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brilliant! In his attempt at rebuttal, Jon J’s three short sentences exemplify the very problem that Peter Sellick has described.

The tyranny of empiricism demands rejection of one’s inner life. The soul lives in metaphor, in symbols, in dreams, in myths, in feelings. The examination of these can employ reasoning at the highest level, but imagination is just as necessary to the task. The evidence needed in such work is not composed of fact so much as inner experience.
Posted by crabsy, Saturday, 5 December 2009 12:29:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican,
>>Experiencing the wonders of our natural world and the way we are connected to the earth and all other living organisms is, for me anyway, much more human than a belief in a supernatural force.<<

You can both EXPERIENCE “the wonders of our natural world”etc, as well as have a BELIEF that there is a natural world existing outside your mental world (the essence of which you can try to understand only through modelling it using some sophisticated mathematics). The same as you can have a religious EXPERIENCE as well as a BELIEF into the source of this experience with an existence ALSO outside your mental world (that you can only try to understand through - mythological, biblical, metaphysical etc - models).

I know, there are very much fewer solipsists than there are atheists, but still. [Sorry, I did not mean to shout, but there is no other way to emphasise words on this OLO, no italics, no boldface .]
Posted by George, Saturday, 5 December 2009 12:38:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi George
You will get no argument from me. I wasn't putting caveats on the experience ie. asserting that that enjoyment was only available to atheists. Sells was the one make assertions about the essence of the "being" and destruction of the soul.

Of course there is no reason to assume those who hold a belief in God/s are able to experience the same wonder and joy of the natural world no matter how they think it came to be.

I will make one point though, that those who do not hold a belief in the supernatural do not stand at the foot of a mountain or forest and think about mathematics or modelling. It is possilbe to enjoy the 'spirituality' of being in a forest without it emanating from a religious belief.

Spirituality is something that is very personal and lies within, what may move me in terms of our natural world may not move everybody. I would imagine that some may get that same feeling through their religious beliefs.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 5 December 2009 6:39:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
crabsy, you're dead wrong. whatever "the tyranny of empiricism" means, and however many people it applies to (i suggest none), jon j nailed it. the problem is that sellick makes blunt, vague, totally unsupported claims, and confuses this with argument. "modernity cripples the imagination". that's not an argument, it's simply a moronic slur.

why is it you god people have to trivialise us not not-god people as only invested in facts? why do you have to pretend we can't have emotions and dreams and a soul-or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it?

you never ever argue why we can't love, why we can't bask in the glory of the universe, why we can't feel and experience and imagine perfectly well, just without the baggage of religious junk, without the ludicrous suggestion that christ was anything more than a pretty cool dude.

you guys never argue this because you can't argue it. it's not true. you don't have a monopoly on humane feeling, and we're not shallow fact-automatons. you're disgusting to suggest otherwise.
Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 5 December 2009 7:19:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sellick wrote: "To my delight he deals with fundamental changes that were brought about by Anthony Collins in England in the 1720s, right in the middle of my research interests."

I would appreciate it if Sellick would acknowledge his abysmal ignorance of the history of biblical criticism. I pointed it out in my previous post. His 'research interests' apparently have not required him to be informed of what has been done in the field.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 5 December 2009 7:46:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher and anyone else,

I really sorry if my words seemed to “trivialise” you or anyone else. That was certainly not my intention: I do my best to ascribe equal worth to all humans because they deserve that.

What I am trying to say is that you and everyone else really do have “emotions and dreams and a soul-or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it”. But you actually deny this when you demand public evidence (facts) in support of opinions about soul-life, spiritual experience, perceptions of God and so on. These events are private to the individual, and so when presenting an argument about them one must rely on the audience or reader using some imagination to understand it. Facts, empirical data, are irrelevant here. Making empiricism dominate everything stunts inner development. I think this is Peter Sellick’s point.

When a number of people in an audience discuss the emotional or aesthetic impact a piece of music has made on them, facts are at best peripheral to any argument. Similarly debate over the value of a work of literary fiction cannot be based simply on fact; much of the difference in opinion needs to be examined using imagination in one way or another.

This was a large part of the problem that erupted in the “two cultures” (arts and science) debate in the ‘60s and it didn’t stop when C.P Snow and F.R. Leavis left the world. The difference is that now theology (rather than arts) is being characterised as necessarily opposed to science when actually there is no need for the two to clash. Each discipline has its own field and its own cognitive tools and if this is accepted they can co-exist with no detriment to humanity.

Once again, I did not want to trivialise you or anyone else. I apologise if that was the effect of my post.
Posted by crabsy, Saturday, 5 December 2009 10:25:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course the irony in all of this is the notion of evidence and facts of themselves being a truth!

In science, during ancient Persian times and amongst the religious skeptics there was one (the name escapes me) who said that the sun was a rock that spun so fast, it caught fire. Evidence was soon forth coming, as a piece of the sun was seen by many to have been thrown off and hurtling in space, past the earth.

Meanwhile in ancient Greece, Democritus having thought most deeply said that everything was made of smaller constituents he termed atomos; and dared to claim this truth without evidence!

Truth does not need evidence and facts to make it so. Opinion often abuses evidence and fact so it may parody as truth.

Whilst I acknowledge the intent of the opening post to deflect unproductive criticism metered against god belief, my opinion on the matter though, is that it is god belief that suffocates imagination and not secularism.

As a secularist, I could not live in a god belief society who would dictate what my thoughts ought and ought not to be based on that god belief. Indeed I would not live in such a society as an inquisition of some kind would smite me, then murder me for daring to imagine another way of being.

Do not think that I reference only the Catholics in making this claim. Ancient Greeks were known to kill those who showed impiety towards the Olympians. God belief, when a part of the governing of a society is dangerous to those with imagination
Posted by Monkey Magic, Saturday, 5 December 2009 12:34:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican

you write

'runner
Some of those corrupt scientists you talk about actually deny anthropogenic climate change. Who are you to decide who are the corrupt scientists? I have many religous friends who I don't agree with in terms of their views on creation but I would not stoop to say they are corrupt just because their world view does not agree with mine. Sometimes people are just wrong, and there may be no hidden agenda.' Just google climategate and you will get the names you are looking for. Flannery and Gore should be utterly ashamed of themselves for being the scaremongers they have on such fraudulent 'science'. Not surprising as many evolutionist have done the same for decades.

I could not agree more Pelican but one would have to be deliberately naive or deceived not to see the deceit, lies and cover ups by many 'climate experts'. The lies , fraud and deceit have been covered up and hidden by our beloved national broadcasters who are now reluctantly trickling out small bits of a massive cover up. Our current Government who has taken the advice of these fraudsters were willing to sell out the Australian tax payer in order to look good to the UN. Just as being a Catholic Priest in Ireland must be embarrassing today so must it be to be a climate change priest who have committed scientific adultery.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 5 December 2009 12:51:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Criticism of religion is just, What facts are religion based on, and which religion.
If you want to believe in something based on fairytale so be it.
Do not peddle your wares on people who choose to live in the real world.
Posted by Desmond, Saturday, 5 December 2009 2:23:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi pelican,
I was not looking for an argument, only that I read your quote as MIXING experience (of the wonders of the natural world, interpreted religiously or not) with preferences (or even implying a preference) for this or that belief system (world-view). If Sellick did that, then I disagree with him as well.

Otherwise I agree with everything you wrote, and apologise if I misunderstood the sentence I quoted from your post. In particular, I agree that

>>those who do not hold a belief in the supernatural do not stand at the foot of a mountain or forest and think about mathematics or modelling<<

Actually nobody, whatever their world view, think about “mathematics and modelling” while standing at the foot of a mountain or forest (and marvelling): Those philosophically inclined - theists or atheists - usually do their thinking about the substance of the physical world, eventually what is the meaning of it and of our existence, at occasions more appropriate for philosophising that is as much as possible free of emotions (and prejudices).
Posted by George, Saturday, 5 December 2009 10:31:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
crabsy, thank-you. i accept your apology, and i'll admit my post was strong. i know you're not one of the usual denigrators, that it was not your *intent* to be insulting. however, i think the *content* of your post was.

i'll try to make clear why sellick is so annoying, and why you shouldn't give him a free pass.

this is a typical sellick article, in that the first 80% is no problem at all (for me). given my background, i find sellick's histories confusing, but actually quite interesting. but then we have the last 20%, specifically the last four paragraphs. it is here, as usual, that sellick leaps to absurd, insulting conclusions.

1.

"modernity ... cripples the imagination". in what way? yes, if someone is a fact-nazi, demanding scientific-styled proof of everything, but who are these people? i know of absolutely no one who fills the description.

2.

so, sellick is attacking a straw man. EXCEPT sellick refers to such fact-nazism as "the reason that some commentators to these pages are indignant that theological statements are not so tested." that is, sellick's straw man is actually his critics, who dare to question the substance of his claims. he is insulting, and you condoned it.

3.

it is fine and good for sellick to promote imagination, the wonder of the universe or whatnot. BUT

a) it is not fine to claim that religious thinking has some monopoly on imagining. sellick claims to "argue again and again", but for what exactly? jon j was correct in that sellick argues for nothing. to argue imagination is good is trivial. and sellick doesn't *argue* for anything more, he simply *claims* it, ad nauseum.

b) it is not fine to play a cup and balls trick with literalism and metaphorism. if one wants god to be a sense of humanity and the universe, whatever, that's fine. but one cannot then claim anything divine for christianity, for jesus. when sellick becomes specific, promotes his brand above all others, we have every right to call him on it.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 6 December 2009 11:21:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A [Belief] is an image 'from' the brain known as the imagination. A [Thought] is an image channeled 'to' the brain which has some forms of fact's. To build on factual information, you must first have an [idea] which is a thought based on facts.

To give an hypothesis on an imaginary man called God would only be giving a submission of theory to another's image of their imagination & would have no factual evidence at all because it is still just a figment of the imagination, which ever way you look at it.
Posted by Atheistno1, Sunday, 6 December 2009 2:42:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheistno1,

You said that an idea is a thought based on facts.

Einstein had this to say on the subject:

"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it".
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 6 December 2009 3:11:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crabsy: 'What I am trying to say is that you and everyone else really do have “emotions and dreams and a soul-or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it”. But you actually deny this when you demand public evidence (facts) in support of opinions about soul-life, spiritual experience, perceptions of God and so on.'

This is becoming an increasingly common assertion among believers who can no longer believe in a real external being called God: 'it's all subjective'.

The problem arises when this unprovable 'subjective' belief is used to support events in the real world such at attacks on abortion, discrimination against homosexuals, religious bans on birth control devices, women being kept out of management positions, tax breaks for religious organisations, etc, etc. If religion is 'all in the head' then there is no reason why the taxpayer should subsidise religious conferences, for instance, since there is no way the participants can ever discuss or share what is inherently a subjective experience. They should all just stay home and muse.

The religious term for this, by the way, is 'apophaticism'; and you can see some recent claims about it by Karen Armstrong strongly refuted by Troy Jollimore here:

http://tinyurl.com/yjs24eu
Posted by Jon J, Sunday, 6 December 2009 3:21:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher:
Thanks for taking the time to spell out your position. I'm thinking about it.

Jon J:
Thank you for the link to the article. I find it very stimulating.
Posted by crabsy, Sunday, 6 December 2009 6:16:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Such a small, dark, closed world where any challenges to the old order is dismissed.

No wonder the church is so out of touch.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 7 December 2009 9:00:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's a Hypothetical

When you close your eyes all things disappear as all senses are a part of your imagination

Touch, Sound, Taste, Hearing, Sight, Smell are figments of your imagination

So it goes that when you close your eyes all things disappear

Before any one jumps on this it can never be proven as it it a hypothetical

Thanks from
Dave
Posted by dwg, Monday, 7 December 2009 10:26:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know where you go Dave but nothing goes away for me. It is always there, even if I'm in a state of unconsciousness (sleep) it is always there. Whether I'm thinking of something real when I close my eyes, or whether I'm thinking of something I would like, (dream) there is always that basis of reality that I will come back to.
Posted by Atheistno1, Monday, 7 December 2009 5:21:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells said

'This is why modernity is the enemy of faith, not because it exposes faith as irrational but because it cripples the imagination, that enemy of “clear and distinct ideas.” '

This seems to me an irrational assertion. It is modern to recognise 'the imagined' as just that. This does not limit, diminish or 'cripple' the imagination at all. Indeed it could be argued that we now have the freedom to explore the imagined in ways that would have invoked the wrath of the medieval church.

The stories of Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin should serve as perpetual reminders of the church's propensity to stifle the scientific imagination and the memory of the inquisition reminds us that the church will suppress, violently if necessary, the spiritual and theological imagination.

The Anglican Church, even today, is a batleground between those who have dared to 'imagine' a world in which everyone may participate equally and those conservatives whose 'interpretation' of Scripture is itself an act of violence.

Once again, Sells is guilty of peddling half truths in a dismal attempt to defend a tradition that doesnt deserve his efforts. Sells characterisation of Biblical Criticism as a faithless dissection of scripture is a gross misrepresentation of the discipline and an insult to the faith of many responsible Biblical Scholars.

Christian faith is enriched by the insights of 'modernity'. It is only medieval relics like Sells who resent its impact on their 'sacred traditions'
Posted by waterboy, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 12:41:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said waterboy,

you are aware of the religious methods to suppression & open to truth about the world we live in. I am one of the most feared Atheist's of the modern generation, after being condemned for speaking out in the Pauline Hanson's family law court case in the Tasmanian Country news paper ( Queensland paper) & you won't find a reference to that paper anywhere because the religions & government's have removed all the evidence. Why? Because they want the system to maintain a religious dominance, entice children with gifts & trinkets at Christ-myth time & the broad spectrum of psychological grooming to support the religious charities to maintain the abuse we've all seen in major institutions. Recently Kevin Rudd supported the same religious institutions to take over ABC learning centers.
Posted by Atheistno1, Wednesday, 16 December 2009 1:20:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'david f', I don't see any evidence that Peter Sellick (or Hans Frei for that matter) is unaware of earlier biblical criticism or that he would contradict you on your points. It may be you have been too quick to jump on him and missed his specific point.

Peter, have you read Mike Highton's book on Frei? And have you looked at Charles Taylor, A Secular Age?

Atheistno1, I was unaware anyone feared atheists in Australia, particularly unknown ones.
Posted by packman, Monday, 21 December 2009 11:07:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Packman

Sells knowledge of Biblical Criticism might be more extensive than is revealed by this article but his characterisation of it as a faithless dissection of scripture suggests a very conservative bias and even a 'fear' of the findings of Biblical Criticism.
His 'rebuttal', if you could call it that, of BC is something of a straw man argument. There is far more to BC than Sells is willing to admit in this article and his diminution of the faith of Biblical scholars is hardly a shining example of Christian charity.
In general his articles reflect the apologetic/defensive approach of a conservative church that is losing power and influence and simply does not understand why it no longer carries the authority it once believed was its god-given right.
Posted by waterboy, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 6:25:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This link may give the public a general view as to where this story is actually headed. http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.php/news/feature-stories/526-the-influence-of-the-religious-right The next step is the authors push to have Mary McKillop up there with the so called Saint's.
Posted by Atheistno1, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 7:11:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your comment, Waterboy

I have a generally more sympathetic reading of Peter Sellick's articles but I think I agree with you a little on this, though I would suggest Sellick is no straighforward conservative. I reckon this article could have done with a bit more work and nuance in the argument. I think there is something important here but it does not emerge clearly
Posted by packman, Friday, 25 December 2009 6:13:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells

You clearly have a strong sense of the role of the Church in propagating the narrative of salvation. You repeatedly refer to the Canon of Scripture and seem to be aware of the strong relationship between Scripture and Liturgy. Why then do you so fear Biblical Criticism?

I see no problem with the way Biblical Criticism has made us aware of the limitations of Scripture and alerted us to the fact that tradition plays a crucial role in the synthesis of the Salvation narrative. There can, of course, be no complete record of salvation history as 'history' remains a 'work in progress' whose 'end' is not yet known or knowable.

The Church both conveys the salvation narrative and is the vehicle of salvation in history so that the process of salvation is told and felt through the liturgy. The Bible cannot do this and BC alerts us to this fact. The 'dissection of Scripture' does not imply a loss of the narrative but forces us to look for the narrative in the right place ie in the liturgy and its relationship to Scripture.

You are too pessimistic by far! It is not necessary to defend the indefensible or to cling to traditional constructs once they are shown to be flawed. The Church will not be saved by apologetics and knee-jerk reactionaries. It will be saved by its harshest critics, those who challenge, question and criticise.
Posted by waterboy, Monday, 28 December 2009 11:35:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are Psychiatrists out there that can help you Waterboy. And you definitely need to do something about that deep seated depression.
Posted by Atheistno1, Monday, 28 December 2009 11:41:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells wrote:

"Thus Collins insisted that there was an authorial voice in the Bible and that it had to obey the normal of rules of language and refer to things in the world that we all know and see. Thus all statements, including those in the Bible, must be judged by a reality outside of the text that is common to all people. One could no longer use figurative or typological or allegorical interpretations because one could make up any meaning that one desired. This was upsetting to the clergy of the time who believed that the Bible was divinely inspired by God and was thus the foundation of Christianity.
This was the beginning of historical criticism and all of the other kind of critici'david f', I don't see any evidence that Peter Sellick (or Hans Frei for that matter) is unaware of earlier biblical criticism or that he would contradict you on your points. It may be you have been too quick to jump on him and missed his specific point. sms of the Bible. Simply to assert that biblical authors had a voice of their own was huge move away from the idea that the text of the Bible was inspired by God."

Packman wrote:

'david f', I don't see any evidence that Peter Sellick (or Hans Frei for that matter) is unaware of earlier biblical criticism or that he would contradict you on your points. It may be you have been too quick to jump on him and missed his specific point.

Dear Packman,

Sells claimed that Collins began historical criticism. It wasn't as the examples I cited showed. It's that simple.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 3 January 2010 9:14:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The trouble with too forensic Biblical Criticism, like the search for the historical Jesus (eg Barbara Thiering), is the incidental and sometimes quite deliberate discarding of the mythos which is an essential element of faith.

You can argue that John's gospel, written later than the synoptic gospels, is not a historical account of actual words of Jesus, but a theological primer. Its opening verse asserts the divinity of Jesus throughout time. The writer knew Jesus or at the very least the other apostles, and wanted to sum up authoritatively some of the core beliefs of Christianity.

I accept the theological truth of the words attributed to Jesus: "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man comes unto the Father but by me." In Matthew 16:16 Peter confesses "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God". John's gospel asserts on behalf of Christ a claim to exclusive truth. As Jesus told Pilate (in John 18), "For this reason I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Anyone who is on the side of truth listens to me."

The church today has to contend with many enemies. First is modernist rationality which destroys imagination, as Sells says, and faith. But the essence of faith is not the absence of doubt: it is the absence of certainty! If there were scientific certainty, there’d be no need for faith.

Second is postmodernist nihilism.

Third, deriving from the postmodernist condition, is junking of religious faith for a subjective and relativist spiritual ‘search’. This has caused some parts of the church to yield to New Age ideas like "there are many paths to God", and "the essential unity of all religions". Absolutely incompatible with Christ's claim to exclusive truth!

Some ‘seeker-sensitive’ churches try to plug into the psychological needs and desires of 'seekers' and concentrate on 'personal improvement' stuff - a theme of New Age and gnosticism: the belief that, with the right attitude and special knowledge, you can be or become God.

Churches sucked into this, or prepared to 'explain away' mythos elements of Christianity [MORE]
Posted by Glorfindel, Sunday, 3 January 2010 10:14:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
such as the miracles and the death and literal resurrection, forfeit authenticity. They lose credibility and are doomed.

Above all earthly pow'rs - Christ in a Postmodern World by David Wells is a superb book on this subject.

Following the end of the Enlightenment project, modernism has stressed pure rationalism and debunked belief that truth can be accessed by means other than scientific-rational: it decries faith as mystical rubbish.

Postmodernism has brought a pervasive mindset that denies the existence of any absolutes, any eternal standards of right and wrong, beautiful or ugly, good or evil, other than what suits the individual's situation interest now. It has junked sense of community, of shared community values, respect for the extended family, a sense of social responsibility, as distinct from belief in limitless personal freedom (licence) to do anything.

With wonderful results, right?!

So many of the anti-Sells, anti-religious and anti-Christian postings on this forum reflect a junking of belief in absolutes, a descent into pervasive nihilism (belief in nothing), an endless desire to criticise, to deconstruct, and a sneering attitude toward people of faith which offers nothing constructive in its place.

This mindset is no longer limited to philosopher-nerds, but swamps contemporary western culture and lifestyle. It has ripped the guts out of our culture and left inner desolation - a vacuum of values and rootlessness. People attempt to assuage the ache caused by it, by endless pursuit of ephemeral sensation or experience - drugs, the latest fads, empty consumerism, 'retail therapy', and the endless array of belief-system goodies that comprise the New Age supermarket for 'spiritual seekers', or environmentalism (not a bad thing in itself), or some political panacea.

Spiritually, the individual is left to wallow in a lonely bog of quicksand: invent it, or pick-n-mix it.

Following Christ – accepting REVEALED truth not dependent on oneself alone - gives a thoroughly coherent and cogently satisfying answer to the question "How are we to live?"

As John Dickson has said, “Only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism”
Posted by Glorfindel, Sunday, 3 January 2010 10:15:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Glorfindel wrote: "As John Dickson has said, “Only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism”"

The opposite of Christianity is not atheism.

Atheists refuse to accept fairy tales. They see no more reason to accept the humanoid three-piece god of Christianity than the monotheism of Jews and Muslims, the many gods of Hinduism, the Nirvana of the Buddhists, the gods of the Greeks, Romans and Norse, New Age superstition or any other of the many inventions of the supernatural that humans have made. Christianity is just one among many belief systems incorporating fairy tales. There is no reason to follow any of them.

Much of the current world has replaced past mythologies with the current Christian mythology which pervades the western world. Christianity. like other religions, is an antiquated belief system from our cultural past that continues its violent and bloody reign throughout the world.

No, Glorfindel, any kind of life is not logically compatible with atheism. Atheists refuse to accept non-provable propositions and myths as truth. Atheism is not only incompatible with Christianity. It is also incompatible with any system which is not based on evidence. Christianity is only one of many delusional systems incompatible with atheism.

However, an atheist is not a nihilist. We generally accept that the most effective way of obtaining knowledge is through the scientific method. Many of us find meaning in the pursuit of scientific and other knowledge, the creation of and appreciation of art, closeness to nature and political activity to work for a better world. Those are more constructive activities than assuaging inner emptiness by religious mumbo-jumbo.

Unfortunately Glorfindel throws his accusations widely with no regard for truth or coherence. Atheists do not accept New Age superstitions since they are no more reasonable than Christianity. Essentially there is little difference between belief in New Age or Christian superstition. They are both delusional systems not based on evidence.
Posted by david f, Monday, 4 January 2010 1:18:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David F
You said:
"However, an atheist is not a nihilist. We generally accept that the most effective way of obtaining knowledge is through the scientific method."
Im astounded that any rational person could make such a statement. Ethics, politics, love and most of the other really important things in life require some sort of commitment to one "value system" or another whereas science requires the suspension of value based judgement. Knowledge built on science is of little use in determining what course of action might maximise justice or constitute an appropriate response to an act of love.
Value systems are largely derived culturally and in the western world they are strongly influenced by our christian tradition.
The point is that although religious fundamentalism may be an intellectual crock, which intelligent people may legitimately dismiss, it only diminishes the value of the tradition locally.

Christian faith, properly understood, is not to be equated with giving intellectual assent to certain propositions about God. Faith is the measure of our life as judged by God. God does not have to materially 'exist' in order to fulfill this role any more than Macbeth has to be a real person in history to expose the strengths and weaknesses in the nature of humanity.

Faith can lead you greater truths than science can ever imagine and I challenge you to find any serious, practising scientist who believes that scientific knowledge is sufficient to support a satisfying and worthwhile life.
Posted by waterboy, Tuesday, 5 January 2010 8:58:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Waterboy,

Faith is one thing, and truth is another. Because one has faith that something is so does not make it so. Faith may lead one to blow oneself up, to deny medical treatment or to act unreasonably in other ways. Facts and truth are stubborn things. They are not arrived at through belief.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 5 January 2010 11:14:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
davidf

Im not sure I understand your post at all. You still seem to be assuming that faith is about asserting certain propositions (assuming that is what you mean by 'beliefs'). I thought I made it clear that I do not equate faith with any particular set of propositions that can be affirmed (believed) or negated.

You are obviously very concerned with the notion of what is 'true'. How then does science help you given that it only operates on refutable hypotheses, recognising that positive proof is a virtual impossibility. What sort of truth do you claim for scientific knowledge? As far as I am aware science deals only with certain sorts of useful information and not with truth.

You have asserted that "faith may lead one to blow oneself up, etc etc". I agree that certain belief systems have been associated with the sorts of behaviours you describe. But remember: Hitler was a champion of uegenics & scientists invented nuclear weapons.

Please do not respond in terms of belief systems or irrelevant propositions (such as arguments about the 'existence of God'). Such things tend to be culturally determined artefacts of pop-religion and as such are of little interest to me.

The faith that has underpinned so many great lives is, however, interesting, important and eminently worthy of discussion
Posted by waterboy, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 8:36:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Waterboy wrote:

"You have asserted that "faith may lead one to blow oneself up, etc etc". I agree that certain belief systems have been associated with the sorts of behaviours you describe. But remember: Hitler was a champion of uegenics & scientists invented nuclear weapons."

Dear Waterboy,

I am quite aware of Hitler. He was a man of faith who exploited the years of Jew hatred promoted by Christianity. He was a Christian backed by most of the German churches, and the Holocaust was Applied Christianity.

The fact is that believers accept a lot of unprovable propositions such as virgin birth, humanoid god or gods whether in the form of Jesus or Zeus, humans having revelations from god etc. What most people mean by faith is apparently not of interest to you. Since I don't know what you are talking about I will use the definition of faith that most people seem to have.

I don't claim any truth for scientific knowledge. I agree that science is concerned with what is plausible or the best explanation rather than what is true. Science will discard those explanations if replaced by a better one. I think that is more reasonable than having faith.

Faith produces neither truth nor plausible explanations. I think it better to question and doubt.

Newton, Darwin and Darwin are three great men who changed our world. All questioned the wisdom current at the time. George Eliot and Herman Melville, like those three scientists, also questioned the social attitudes of the day. They were great writers.

Please name one truth that has been produced through faith.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 10:32:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David F

"I will use the definition of faith that most people seem to have."

So perhaps your "version of truth" is simply what you expect "most people" to believe.

I am not sure that is any more valid than religious belief systems or making excessive claims for scientific knowledge.

At the moment you are doing a pretty good job of illustrating Sells point about imagination having been killed by modernity and materialism. I doubt there is any knowledge available that fits your definition of truth (even if most people share your misunderstanding of the term). Truth, sach as is available to us, requires imagination.
Posted by waterboy, Thursday, 7 January 2010 7:36:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Waterboy,

You chose to castigate me by accusing me of lacking imagination. You also chose to eulogise something called faith.

You made the statement: "Faith can lead you greater truths than science can ever imagine and I challenge you to find any serious, practising scientist who believes that scientific knowledge is sufficient to support a satisfying and worthwhile life."

I don't think any serious person believes that scientific knowledge is sufficient to support a satisfying and worthwhile life so I don't know why you said it. It is what is called a straw man argument. Bring in something that has not been said and argue against it. Faith is also unnecessary to support a satisfying and worthwhile life. That part of your statement is not relevant to our discussion.

However, I repeat my request "Please name one truth that has been produced through faith." Please give one example of the greater truths you contend that faith can lead to. I know of none.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 7 January 2010 9:04:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy