Such a lot to digest, but not impossible. Squeers, do not underestimate yourself, I need your contributions they are very welcome and inspiring.

One does not require a degree in theology to either be religious or to critique the view put forth by the religious.

Nor does one require a degree in pure mathematics to operate a theodolite while surveying a building site, as I have done in my degree in Applied Science (Landscape Architecture). In fact, my studies being across so many disciplines is advantageous, even if I do lack the sophistication of both George and Oliver in expression.

Dan

You suggested a study of religion from within. I presume you mean Christianity. Might I ask whether you would consider studying a religion "from within" such as Vodun? No? I am sure you have opinions about this African religion. Probably quite valid opinions.

George

Thank you for you very considered response. By "religious text" I am referring to both the Bible (more specifically) and other religious tomes (more generally). For the following reasons, I attended Christian Religious Instruction at both school and the Anglican Church and am aware that your religious foundation is in Christianity. But also, generally because all religious make the same claim; they hold "absolute truth". Being atheist, one tends to take a broader look at formal religions.

I appreciate that interpretations change rather than content, else holy texts would become more like scientific theorem and, as such, would no longer be dogma and would, therefore, become irrelevant. Better to re-interpret, yes? However, the human capacity for varied opinions is almost infinite - hence we have believers in creationism (such as Dan) and those who accept that our universe is far, far older than 6000 years (such as yourself). Therefore I ask, how long can religious texts remain valid in the face of constant increasing knowledge as we achieve greater understanding of the micro and macro universe around us?

Cont'd

Cont'd

George

I was struck by your statement:

>> The difference is, of course, that there are many more “simple” people who need religion (for whatever reason) than those who need mathematical physics. <<

Apart from its obvious condescension, I would posit that “simple” people, that is people like me, require a foundation in critical thinking far more than either religion or math. From such a foundation “simple people” are then able to assess their need for either religion or other knowledge.

Davidf

Loved your anecdote about the woodpecker, I remember watching that particular David Attenborough doco. What you say about the grubs in the acorns makes perfect sense and I am sure that David would not claim to be the font of knowledge on all things. That he has managed over many years to bring natural science into the living rooms of “simple people” is a huge contribution . Any true scientist knows that “knowledge” is always in a state of flux.

And here I have come full circle from the stasis that is religion to the evolution that is science.

"Squeers, do not underestimate yourself, I need your contributions they are very welcome and inspiring." - Severin

ditto

as one/of them..simple people...gratefull..to religions..for retaining the thinking of/about god...

but resenting how they have abused and missrepresented...the all/loving..all living/cause of causes...[him of grace and mercy]..as revealed and reviled by their various works...i wade-in..where the wise..refuse to go

oliver/quote..<<..God isn't eternal/because enternity implies an infinite,>>this would demand evidence/that god..or his creation..the uni-verse..is/finite

we arnt even/..that sure..the universe is finite..[see how we just found a sun/1 million times brighter than our sun...if the maps showing the universe/..to be limited..are true...again i would need see the evidence

but lets presume it..[the uni-verse]..is limited/presuming..further it all began..with a big bang..[even though space/vacume dont carry sound]..what we are seeing is affect....not cause

a..<<linear series of cause-and-effect events.>>>means we definitivly/must be able to observe ALL affects/to reasonable cionsider...ALL POSSABLE CAUSES

...and we are far/from being able to declare the facts in/on that...let alone what caused/this

eg what if god made blackholes first..
remembering it was/in the beginning..dark/void

presuming god is...that unmeasurable constant/behind<<the measure>>>he..<<would be>>..or...is likely to be..that..<<..something other-than eternity>>.

we could go further and say that there wasnt only one...big..let there be light..moment...but an eternity of them...

and this is but one of the latest...
but all having..the same/...CAUSE

think of it as/like the chicken or the egg
we know there is/uni-verse...does it have uni-cause
we know everything has a cause...as matter cannot create itself

Dear Dan,
Thanks for the questions. I am sorry for the delay, but after having written the other comments I had to wait for 24 hours.

I describe myself as a seeker in the sense of St Anselm’s “faith seeking understanding“. That certainly does not go against what Jesus said.

>>Is there any chance that any of us are going to find some answers here?<<
You have to answer that for yourself. For me the challenge is to broaden my own perspective by trying to understand those who look at the world and our place in it from a different angle.

So in that sense, yes, I found some answers that help me to understand the rational aspect of my faith.

Dear Squeers,

>>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 wrote that, and you know it. I wrote that people who try to shove down your throat their “certitude” act so because of their own insecurities. I referred to my own experience with those whose “certitude“ (whatever it was, I am not a psychologist) was related to their negative attitude towards religion or Church. Of course, I agree that there are also many “religious folk” who act thus.

I inserted “religious” into your statement about science and doctrine to make sure I understood what you meant. I apparently did not, however, if you object to “worship(ing) science as some sort of deity” then we agree: it sounds the same as my objection to science as ersatz-religion.

>>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).<<
I might guess what you mean by “outdated theological premises” though I do not see where I used them as an “analytical” aid.

Neither did I “enquire into our mysterious reality“: I just tried to define the two starting world-view positions, one that I refer to as the Sagan maxim, and its alternative, without offering any arguments for the one or the other premise. Please elaborate on what you mean by “pre-conceptual” that you assign to both theology/metaphysics and science.

I really do not understand how do “church's arcane mysteries” and its “influence in the world” come into this: there are many people who reject the former and condemn the latter and still do not opt for the Sagan alternative. These are debatable things, but a completely different topic.

Another different topic concerns Church doctrines. Of course, they can be critiqued, provided one realises that many concepts and statements therein make sense only if one understands their symbolic character. (ctd)