Dear David f,

I agree with all the points you make. Carroll Quigley noted that Western civilisation has recovered twice from the decline phase and we are now in West III. Albeit, Quigley too, tends to put more emphasis on patterns in history than history might support.

Yes, morality is a relative term. Wherein, I meant a mature society should be able sustain what the man in the street would call moral without redress to a religious code: That as a society, we agree that certain values are self-evident. Of course, posits would be an artificial constructions but of no lesser value for that reason. If our descendants in 2500 CE eat synthetic food, the idea of killing an animal is likely to be repulsive.

Maybe, we are too primitive to accept human made constitutions might very well equal or exceed the moral codes of the religions. Modern democracies, if these societies remain sustainable over long centurie, do offer some hope. On the other hand, religionism is so very entrenched now and it is handed down generation after generation.

The trial of Galileo involved the Catholic Church usurping observation and defining Science, as, at best, Instrumentalism (Popper) and Science’s claims to descriptions of reality as not necessarily so. Yet, I think too that in more recent centuries, in the face of the obvious, the Churches have moved to cite scientific knowledge as evidence of the divine: e.g., all snow flakes have six sides and of all the quintillions of snow flakes no two are the same.

At OLO, I have found it a challenge to encourage theists to take a detached view and study religion as might an academic or behavioural scientist. Reading about religions in their historical contexts is very interesting. I haven’t read Robert Winston’s, “The Story of God”. I will look out for it.

OHLIVER..quote..<<That stable DNA/exhibits left-handedness is falsifiable.>>>of genetics..yes..not evolution...one/of which[genetics]..is/science...the other..[evolution]..a theory

<<Genus"..is a hypothetical construct..>>how despirite you are...are you claiming..i made genus up?...or that some religious/godhead made it up?

you do grasp at straws...lets say/..it is hypothetical
..WHAT ARE ITS FAULSIFYABLES...?

see how..saying science is hypothetical...dont supply the required evidense...?

to/say..that science includes evolution/has no faulsifyable-facts...because evolution/exta genus..has no verifyable fact...and no fact/allows no rebuttal...its trickery...lol

is not science..BECAUSE it cant produce..its faulsifyables...
THUS REMAINS A BELIEF...to decieve those decieved..into thinking it is/a..science

<<:Genus" is a hypothetical construct..in the form of a taxonomy...It is merely a system of classification...There are several classification systems used in biology.>>yes...BIO_LOGY...not/evolution

<<..in the form of a taxonomy.>>>>ok your saying taxonomy..is fraud?

<<<It is merely a system of classification.>>lol..one put forward...BY SCIENCE...!

yes it has flaws..but its/the best...YOUR LOT COULD COME-UP WITH...

i have debaited taxonomy/classification in court...the judges have even less/a clue than you...they put an expurt/on the stand...who said taxonomic classification...of cannabus sativa...as a genus is fact...

so go put your delusions before the courts...

they ruled taxonomic/classification/a fact/live withit...or rebut it with more..than mere words..

and i will go lodge my appeal/to the courts..tomorrow...lol

the judges are as ignorant of science/as the rest of you evolving believers/putting your faith in not..just us..but the dead-fraud/godheads..that believed /decieved..in an ever evolving THEORY/...of evolution/of genus..

JUS/you..as you lot do/do..here/now

<<<There are several classification/systems..used in biology.>>.yes there are...lol...i wont ask you..to look upgoogle-up..their names..lol

BUT>.your point being..?,
..that means..they are your un-named faulsifyables?..
or that they rebut taxonomy...?...
or rebut intelligent design-ER?...

you must/try..be more scientificly correct..not make broad/brush orphin statements...*rebutting your own..[shooting yourself in your/own foot*]

please grasp at straws more efficentially...
with referances/links/facts

you must do more..than use mere words..my fiend

david f,
>>I eagerly read those books which are based on anthropology, sociology, evolutionary biology etc. <<
I can understand that very well, see also my earlier post (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8567#136197), where I state:

“As for religion … I like to see it as the “elephant” studied by the “six blind men“: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist (of the Dawkins or D. S. Wilson kind), a philosopher, an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven). They all can agree that there indeed is a phenomenon called religion but have no idea what it actually is, what is its purpose or why it is there at all.”

Also e.g. mathematics (or physics) can be looked at from these many perspectives. This is OK unless, one draws conclusions from these outsiders’ views, without understanding the subject matter of mathematics (or physical theories), as some postmodernist “social constructivists” sometimes do.

However, I would agree that for a mathematician (or physicist) these outsiders’ perspectives are not as illuminating for his/her understanding of mathematics (or physics), as these many external views are for an educated person’s understanding of his/her faith, of whatever denomination.

For me, one of the most revealing definitions of religion, albeit from an anthropologist point of view, is the one by Geertz quoted in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816#124645.

Oliver,
>>I have found it a challenge to encourage theists to take a detached view and study religion as might an academic or behavioral scientist.<<

Do you mean to say that there are no “academics” among your “theists”? On the other hand, I agree, that “behavioral scientists” should be added to the seven “wise men” I spoke of above.

David and Oliver,

I've been following this thread with some interest, albeit at a distance. It seemed at first to be a 'same old, same old' discussion to which nothing new would be added and in which many people would get fired up about the same things. But you two have raised some interesting questions that perked my interest - thank you!

David, you (rightly) attempted to redirect the thread to its original purpose, asking (among other things) why we should take scriptures seriously as history. Oliver, you raised the question of theists' reluctance to take a detached, academic approach to their belief systems.

I'll start by stating what is probably obvious - I am a theist. I'm also an ancient historian of sorts (nearly finished my Masters - Round 1 coming to a close!) and, as such, I have been required to detach myself from belief and study scriptures through the lens of historical inquiry. It's hard to study Rome in the Near East without looking at scripture!

One thing I have found is that scriptural sources must be treated just like any other. While they are unafraid of hyperbole and painfully long anecdotes (often with no real historical value), there is often a glimmer of verifiable truth in them. The two books of the Maccabees (don't look for them if you don't have a Catholic Bible, or you won't find them) are verified by a range of other sources. The existence of a historical Jesus is alluded to by a number of other sources, albeit in nowhere near as much detail as the Gospels. When used alongside other sources, the scriptures can shed some light on history. As a scholar, I cannot trust their historical veracity any more than Josephus, Tacitus or the scandalous Suetonius. But I would be a fool to dismiss them altogether.

I can do this without weakening my faith - in many ways, it strengthens it. It certainly contextualises it.

Just thought I'd add my ideas here.

religious/texts..must be read...in the context..of their times

at the time of the..'water/into wine'..''the feeding/of 4000/5000..is helpfull...if read..in context..of the'shew bread'...where jesus deciples/ate of the shewbread...without the ritual..of handwashing

this is a huge point...as the eating ritual/*of the times insisted..on the ritual...washing..of the hands...via progression of up to 7 jars...gradually progressing/from the more unclean..to the final/presumably..more clean

to eat...at these times...needed the ritual...!..no believer/of the time...would touch/food..with unclean hands...thus giving them...'all they wanted'..becomes as if nothing...[as no one'wanted to eat'..with unclean hands]

thus as jesus said...a servant/shall lead you...meaning to look through..the eyes of a servant....like with the wine/cana/wedding..

see that/servants arnt all equal...the servant of the high-priest had higher standing..than any other[servant or freeman]

see thus a face/saving exersize...if the master looses face...how much more the servant to loose....

as jesus clearly says...'its not my time'..we can KNOW..he DIDNT..make toilet water..[for such would be the equivent]..into wine

would you drink the..'best wine'...from a toilet...?

well neither the guests...see that servants/simply served the masters/best wine..better the masters/private wrath...than the discrace/publicly..of serving toilet water

so we move along...recall jesus talking/of this generation...needing miracles...that wasnt jesus way..[nor that of mosus]..any maJition then could fake/the tricks...

so there needs be more/to the matter

ditto science...it claims repeatability...
claims fact...not fiction...yes species evolve/within their genus..but the genus bounds hold firm...

expoliating evolution/within the genus...into delusion of creating new genus..is pure fanticy...as much as/turning water..into wine..

only the decieved decieve themselves...believers are not anything...less than the fanatics/dissBELIEVERS...who kill/take LIFE...for the life-giver*..LOL

think you/god is pleased...that you given/mind/logic/life...subvert others..EQUALLY GIFTED gods gifts*..with delusions or murder/or insane ravings of zealets

darwin/clearly wrote..evolution of species...not evolution evolves genus...evolution is a theory...it is not science...anymore than the pope/is jesus/king on earth...

jesus died for you/then came back*..to wit/he aint dead..get it...!

he was born/again...thus still rules...!
not in these/..satans realms...but the next realm...

the lord/of this..prison/planet..isnt jesus..

lets evolve/folks..evolve our thinking..god/the giver/sustainer of ALL living..has grace/mercy...not judgment..

jesus proved..THERE IS NO ENDTIME/JUDGMENT DAY...
AS HE SAID...THAT YE SEE ME DO...YE SHALL DO GREATER

LETS MAKE/JESUS...and DARWIN PROUD...
READ WHAT..THEY REALLY SAID..*
NOT WHAT..WE WERE TOLD/or think..THEY SAID

Dear George,

You wrote: “As for religion … I like to see it as the “elephant” studied by the “six blind men“: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist (of the Dawkins or D. S. Wilson kind), a philosopher, an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven). They all can agree that there indeed is a phenomenon called religion but have no idea what it actually is, what is its purpose or why it is there at all.”

Religious believers can also use the techniques of science. I do not read books by fundamentalists who take scripture literally, but I do read books by religious believers who use science and rational analysis. I have read historical material by Hans Kung, a believing Catholic, biblical analysis by Bishop Spong, a believing Anglican, and general reflections on the origins of religion from a background of medical science by Robert Winston, a believing Jew. I do not restrict myself to reading Dawkins, Hitchens or others who don't believe.

Religious believers like Otokonoko are able to use the techniques of science, textual analysis and logic to examine the meanings, purposes and logic of their faiths.

it is unnecessary to have a belief in religion to learn about it and to have an idea of what it actually is, what is its purpose or why it is there at all.

Although I see no point in dialogue with literal believers in scripture, dialogue with other believers can contribute to understanding. One need not accept scripture as literal truth or discard it entirely. I'm with Otonoko on that. We can examine the first 18 chapters of Genesis as legends originating from the ancient peoples of the Middle East and modified to suit their purposes by the authors of Genesis. The Book of Esther so far has absolutely no historical verification, but we can speculate on why it was written.

We are islands of separate consciousness. We can only see outward physical manifestations of the workings of other people’s consciousness. However, I think we can make useful studies of both consciousness and religion without sharing either.