correction ... *there* being answers at the end ....

Desperate stuff, intempore.

>>I’ll attempt to break it down some more. Try to keep up<<

Condescension, by the way, is a weapon only the genuinely intellectual are able to employ effectively.

>>I would have thought the key implication of such a worldview is it’s pointless attempting to define anything of consequence, as all preliminary conclusions are swamped in the end by the unknowable.<<

That's odd. You earlier asked:

"What if our magnificent responsibility involves appreciating we cannot define existence or the self?"

The indication being, "I would have thought", that the worldview you refer to, is one that you share.

Or is the question meaningless too? That's certainly a possibility.

My, that IS subtle.

>>By making it about right/wrong, not freedom, atheists fall into the same trap by ending up being defined themselves<<

Ahem. Is it not religion that is always "making it about right/wrong"?

It certainly was at the church I went to as a lad.

>>We should be asking why it is we cannot grasp such matters.<<

To what purpose, exactly?

How does this differ from asking "if God exists or not"? Which you have already deemed "pointless".

>>Western civilisation is built upon lie because all past action is premised on there being an answer at the end “of all this”<<

Sez who?

Sure, there have been a whole lot of people who believe in some form of afterlife. But are you suggesting that this is entirely responsible for the manner in which Western civilization has developed?

If so, your position tells me that religion has far more to answer for than has so far been admitted.

But please, do continue with your explanation to us slowcoaches.

In many ways, it is more entertaining than the article itself.

Oh Boaz, you do try so hard, don't you.

Even if it means gilding the lily every so often.

>>...you can have to closely related people.. both looking at the same evidence..and emerging with totally different conclusions<<

They are definitely related. But "looking at the same evidence"? Don't think so.

The pair of them had massively different life experiences, from university onwards - Christopher at Oxford, Peter at York.

It was Christopher, for example, who in 1973 travelled to Athens to retrieve his mother's body, following her suicide pact with the ex-clergyman she had run away with. It was Peter who worked for the same newspaper - the Daily Express - for 23 straight years, and settled into middle-class conformity at the age of 30.

That's not in any way "looking at the same evidence".

>>In Peter's case...he "began" where Christopher still is, as an Atheist but he is now one of Christs own.<<

Actually, they both started out as Anglicans.

Peter burned his bible at the age of fifteen, which was a nice and dramatic piece of teenage rebellion.

Here's his story.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255983/How-I-God-peace-atheist-brother-PETER-HITCHENS-traces-journey-Christianity.html

Here are the two of them at the Guardian Hay Festival in 2005.

**Ian Katz (Guardian features editor): "Peter when did your belief kick in, when did this become an issue between you?

Peter Hitchens: Oh, it's never been an issue. I returned as it were to the Anglicanism of my childhood. Such as it was - it wasn't particularly strong: one has some background music of Hymns Ancient & Modern and the King James Bible, but not very much more than that. I'm probably keener about it now than I was then. I suppose [I returned] in my early 30s when people sometimes do, when various things start happening.**

Do have a look, when you have a moment, it really is very interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/may/31/hayfestival2005.guardianhayfestival3

It might even encourage you to take a few moments to check the context of your pronouncements every so often.

But I promise I won't hold my breath. So you won't need to worry about having that on your conscience.

Christopher Higgins and Richard Dawkins are, essentially, railing against a deity of their own creation, - or against an outmoded understanding of a deity.

True, the polytheism of the Greeks and of the Romans gradually gave way to monotheism. We should also realise that the English word for a deity is a concept that most Christians, without the propensity for academic inquiry, can visualise and accept.

What is fundamentally true is that humans have an inbuilt sense of sel-discipline. This is quite different from the convoluted way Freud describe it. Without sel-discipline a human is "no good for man or beast", and ultimately self-dstructive. The Old and the New Testaments, and the various modern religions are, in effect, a testament for the need for sel-discipline.

What is the source of this self-discipline?

Perhaps it is a force outside of human influence, - though this does not mean a physical deity.

Do not know how I confused Higgins with Hitchens. Christopher Hitchens is a garrulous journalist, who is somewhat removed from being a serious philosopher as a wasp is somewhat removed from a honeybee. A wasp is attracted by anything sweet. Naturally, a wasp is attracted to honey, but a strong colony will simply eject them.