Dear Severin,

>>why of formal religious text; why is it taken as the absolute "truth" and not open to growth and change?<<
You were right to put “truth” in quotation marks, since it is a non-controversial term only in trivial, everyday situations. In the general scientific context like “truth about our Universe, about the structure of matter“ I argued that you can look at it as “what is the most appropriate” model (in mathematical physics) of this “truth”. In the religious context, (let us keep to the Christian version), I argued it was something formally similar, only “validation” (Oliver’s term) was much more culture and subject-dependent (faith) than in physics, although there too one has situations (QM) where one cannot separate that easily the observer from the observed.

For the ordinary man/woman, there is just “scientific truth“ and “absolute truth” (if he/she subscribes to that religion) with essentially the same meaning as truth in everyday situations, without these sophistications about modeling etc. The difference is, of course, that there are many more “simple” people who need religion (for whatever reason) than those who need mathematical physics.

If by “religious text” you mean the Bible etc., then what should be subject to growth and change is not the texts as such but their interpretations. One did not change Genesis after the discovery that the world was not 6000 years old, only its interpretation. This is rather obvious. With many other passages in other sacred texts it is less obvious how to change their interpretation without changing the meaning. As I said before, we are just at the very beginning of the rational, critical if you like, stage in human development.

Dear Oliver,

Thanks again for your stimuli. I would be more careful in speculating about God and Heaven in terms of Venn diagrams, otherwise I agree. Also Augustine’s view of God not “existing forever“ but outside time is well known. Today process theologians (building on Alfred Whitehead) say something slightly different (see also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9423#150700). (ctd)

(ctd)
>>One reconciliation would that God "is" beyond (George) existence yet humanity is drawn to substitutionary constructs: i.e., the religions. The other case is the universe "is" and the religions are culural phenomena. <<

If we agree that “God” is the name of that Something existing beyond the physical world, and your “is” stands for “being its own cause and purpose”, then these are the two ALTERNATIVES I have been talking about. I do not understand why reconciliation, and of what?

>> unexpectedly, our near-ability to do so (explain the universe), provides an alternative physical non-theistic alternative. <<

The non-theistic alternative is what I called the Sagan maxim. I just quoted you above. “Near-ability to explain the universe”, whatever you mean by that, does not need to provide the alternative; it is an argument (subjective, as all are in this context) in its favour. I personally find the Occam’s razor argument stronger. Also because I think one can use one phenomenon, theory, etc. to explain another phenomenon, theory, etc. FROM WITHIN SCIENCE, but not the very existence of the Universe, the physical world. It would be like in the story about baron Münchhausen, who escaped from a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair.

Your second part contains a collection of questions - and along the same line also in your post to Dan - that could not be answered explicitly that easily. I thought I answered them implicitly in many of my posts by referring to the persona/cultural factor.

So let me try this metaphor: Your questions are more or less of one of these two kinds:

Why do you write here in English and not in Czech? Because this the language people on this OLO communicate in.
Why do you write in English and not in Turkish? Because I do not speak/understand that language.

However, thanks again a lot for the challenge.

Dear Oliver,
I have to stop biting off more than I have time to chew! Sorry I haven't responded to one or two of your posts of late.

Dear George,
No, ridicule is no better as it suggests a want of substance; but 'tis a trifle.
I'm glad to hear religious folk's "certitude" is more about "the person’s own insecurities" than the object of that conviction.

<I never heard of conflating (“combining into one“, in my dictionary) science and (religious)doctrine.>
Come come, George, what is Intelligent Design? But actually there was no need for the "religious" you intercalated as my point was more a jibe at those who worship science as some sort of deity.
<I cannot jump out of my (cultural, Christian) skin, and neither can others. Aware of this bias I am still trying to look through other “lenses“ as well.>
I knew you'd say something of the sort, which is why I added, "or at least to try to critique doctrine with a more phenomenological eye?", though I don't actually believe in Husserl's phenomenology.
It seems to me you're already far from doctrinal in your views, and while I see no harm in your participating in your cultural tradition, I don't see how its outdated theological premises are helpful analytically, or how you can disinterestedly enquire into our mysterious reality in such a pre-conceptual fashion (though admittedly science is also pre-conceptual).
Habermas is a big part of my research but I haven't formed an opinion on my grasp of his vast oeuvre as yet.
The reason we should critique doctrine, especially old doctrine, is it is dangerously archaic and inflexible in a world of flux; and as you know, I'm more interested in making the best of this world. I appreciate your (and Dan's) rather pedantic point about ignorance, and I don't pretend to be versed in the church's arcane mysteries, but that shouldn't preclude our being critical of an institution's influence in the world, unless of course it sets-up as being above the world, which it does both literally and figuratively: the point of my criticism.

..ctd.
It is perfectly legitimate to use "gospel" figuratively and without being disparaging, indeed it's a cliche. "Certitude" was my word, but I couched it more carefully than your paraphrase suggests. My default position is ignorance, which is to say it is declared rather than undeclared.

<>> I have contempt for the way religion (in the popular mind) demotes this world to disposable reality status.<<
I am not sure what you are referring to - mysticism, transcendental meditation, belief in afterlife, striving for nirvana or what? Or do you have contempt for the consolation people in hopeless situations (terminally ill, starving, ill-treated, etc.) find in the belief that there is a “higher“ justice and compensation? Otherwise I would endorse Dan’s response.>

I cannot be plainer than I am in that sentence, except I should have hyphenated "disposable-reality status".
Whatever wonderful depths there are to what, according to Dan, "a religion really teaches from within", surely we must also judge its effects without? Especially when manifested in the popular mind (those who appropriate an inexhaustible commodity rather than develop spiritual depth within) and what I would argue is a logical extension: a disposable-reality mentality. Even Christianity's "deepest" thinkers were ascetics who despised the world.
In many ways our reality is despicable, but maybe that's partly due to centuries of the world being devalued. In any case, a different mentality might make it less deplorable.
<As I said before, we are just at the very beginning of the rational, critical if you like, stage in human development.>

I couldn't agree more, George (and I don't rule out the need for religious/spiritual beliefs in that hoped for dispensation), at present as a race we are still vicious and thoughtless. I hope the world will allow us to grow up.

Dear Dan,
can I invite you to elaborate on what "a religion really teaches from within"

Dear George,

I am still following this thread with interest.

Dear Squeers,

You wrote: "I'm just a quiet presence here as find myself out of my depth---though I've read my share of pop-science and respectable names like Hawking, Gardner, Dawkins, Gribbin, Pinker and others. They do, I think you'll agree, fall into the golly-gosh David Attenborough camp of scientists, at least, as I say, their pop stuff---it's all in the packaging :-)"

I would not agree in comparing David Attenborough with those names you mentioned above. I think the pop stuff of the other names is, as far as I know, thoroughly checked. I know Attenborough's isn't.

I enjoy Attenborough's programs very much. However, I saw one of his programs where he showed a California woodpecker drilling holes in a tree. In each hole the bird stored an acorn. Attenborough said the bird stored the acorns for future consumption. I have walked in those woods and am aware of the nature of the bird's action. The acorns are eventually attacked by grubs who eat the insides. The bird has acute hearing and can hear the grubs eating inside. The bird then drills into the acorn and enjoys a juicy grub. I feel reasonably certain that in meeting deadlines and concentrating on what is visually striking Attenborough misses other items of interest.

Dear david f,
thanks for sharing that fascinating Woodpecker anecdote; nature is devious in the unravelling. If circumstances had allowed, I think I'd have chosen the life of a natural scientist, and have read more semi-popular works on it than physics.
I just wanted to say that I didn't intend to impugn any of those names I dropped or their works; with no higher maths, they provided what limited access I have into their respective fields.