Lemme see if I've got this straight. Christian belief has a different epistemology to natural science (I'm pretty sure you got that right!). Natural science is about physical laws, whereas Christian belief is about moral truths.

But the rubber's got to hit the road somewhere, because we are physical beings. So far as the moral precepts apply to humans, there is a potential for, and are in fact, conflicting truth-claims. If the facts are wrong, you'll end up with the wrong theory; or the idea that truth doesn't matter to claims about morality. The question is whether we resolve them by reference to observation of nature and the use of reason, or by appeal to jumbled incoherent theistic codswallop.

The moral vices of Christians through the ages have their origin in this intellectual vice: starting from factual propositions that they either know to be wrong, or should know to be wrong.

By the way, the book of Genesis doesn't start out with a statement by the author saying who he is, and that the purpose of the book is only to exemplify certain moral principles by stories. The fact of the matter is, we don't know
a) who wrote it,
b) what his motivations; for example, whether he intended it as a work of fiction, or non-fiction, or whatever.

It is perfectly plausible that the author did consider himself to be writing a factual account of the origin of the world. It is only later, when science showed the errors in his explanation as a matter of astronomy, geology, biology and human sexuality, that Christians shifted ground and claimed that the whole thing was just a moral exemplar.

I believe that the Genesis author's primary motivation was to gain a sexual and reproductive advantage in his own society. That seems far more plausible to me than that an invisible super-superhuman directed or inspired him to write it.

Briar Rose

I agree with and admire many of your posts. I tire of Sellick being the only regular religious contributor on OLO, particularly because his writings are alienating to many people who either do not interpret Christianity as he does, subscribe to other religions or are not religious at all.

His bald proclamations that non-belief, particularly in Christianity, results in a lack of humanity, a life devoid of meaning, is unbelievably insulting and arrogant. Every day I am greeted by a morning chorus of birds outside my home, my cats are clearly happy to see me beyond just providing them with food, my neighbours' children greet me, I am known by name by my local shop traders, I have a stunning view from my verandah, I am loved and cared for by my friends and family - I have an abundance of such wonder and wealth in my world, even though my mother's health is poor her mind is as sharp as ever and we still have wonderful discussions from the latest political debacle through to the hilarity of shows like Spics and Specs.

I and grateful for simply being born in a country like Australia, yet people like Sellick, Runner, Philo and AGIR condemn me as lacking - what utter rot.

Sellick believe what you want, but respect the right of others to disagree and realise they have equally valid philosophies to yours - if not more so.

I am very heartened by the comments this month to what I regard as an easy and obvious article. I had thought that this had been well explained. A couple of things come up that I might address. Jardine insists that “rubber's got to hit the road somewhere” and he is perfectly correct. That is the point of the incarnation, the enfleshment of God. One thing that we cannot give away is the existence of this man Jesus and his death under the Romans. It is crucial that we understand the words of the creed “Was crucified under Pontius Pilate, suffered death and was buried” as an actual historical event. The name of Pilate gives us an anchor in history. It is likewise crucial that we recognize that Israel was an actual nation that had to deal with its political situation. What we have in the bible is history based narrative that, while not telling us what exactly went on, conveys the important nuances. It is interpreted history in a pre-scientific age.

The other way that the rubber hits the road is the kind of communities that arise under the auspices of this narrative. While I know that there is no a straight extrapolation and that the church has been wrong on many things, it has produced the major institutions of our time and has nurtured numberless individuals in living good and faithful lives.

I was concerned by my insistent use of the word “moral” that that would produce the impression that Christianity was all about ethics. That is far from the truth, the faith is about depth and truth of being, ethics flows out of that depth. The great mistake in the nineteenth century particularly was to understand Jesus as the good teacher of a new and more demanding morality. Rather, Jesus is the Word made flesh, his being is in his acting, his acting breaks down our misconceptions about who we are. His “being” confronts us and transforms us. It is only then that we can be truly moral. Naked morality as such can only produce self deceit.

Severin.
The accusation that I am exclusivist is a constant complaint in this section. It seems that you have me cornered. For me the faith is at the centre of life and my motive for writing these articles comes from an urge to share that with others. This means that I write out of my experience as a Christian, I hope with humility. I am not Buddhist or any other thing, I am a Christian. If that is exclusivist so be it, I can not be other than myself. It is unrealistic to insist that I study all of the world religions and give a balanced view. The world religions can only be understood from the inside, that is why I think comparative religious studies are a waste of time.

But your real concern is my odd throwaway line that suggests that anyone not of the faith is living an inauthentic life. For this I apologise, I cannot see into the hearts of men. I certainly would not want to draw the conclusion that Christians live better or deeper lives than non. The history of the church and the experience of Israel is that they have at times been shamed by the outsider. Read, the book of Jonah for a diatribe on the faithlessness of the insider and the faith of those outside of the faith.

Your claim that I am arrogant has some truth to it. This arrogance is born of my experience that the Christian tradition is so rich when it is properly understood that I cannot see why anyone would turn their back on it let alone pillory it. This experience simply does not let me say that there are many ways, that other traditions are just as deep, just as true, when I do not see this.

I am sure that you have a lovely life and that it is in no way a simulacrum of hell. What I would like you to do is to drop your guard and think deeper about the tradition that has been central to making that lovely life possible.

"Naked morality as such can only produce self deceit."

And nakedness without morality is even worse, I take it?

But seriously:
1. How can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will take as important, or intended to be factual, and which not? How could the criterion ever be anything than one's arbitrary and variable opinion? How do you know the important part wasn't when God commanded whole peoples to be wiped out, and the rape of innocent virgins to preserve their father's honour? I'm from the smiting and slewing school of morality myself - so long as the slewing is of my sword through the guts of the unjust that is.
2. Since at least some interpretation is required, why not cut out the middle-man and lead good and faithful lives without reliance on the dubious guidance of the Bible?

No sir the whole thing is too morally and intellectually bankrupt for words.

Try this:

Imagine religion as the numerator in a fraction, underscored with the denominator as the subjective. Followed with the mathematical symbol for division . Now build a fresh fraction, science as the numerator and objective as the denominator, equals “x” plus “Y”, where “X” is apples and “Y” is oranges.

Science is for physics as religion is for ethics. One is apples one is oranges. It is a totally mute argument that insists on scientific proof for the validity of the Bible, and other facets of debate on relativities of scientific truth versus biblical lore. Apples and oranges grow on different trees,of course.

In my post above, I referenced two books by Darryl Reanney who achieved a remarkable outcome and came as close as anyone has, I suspect, at mixing the apples and oranges of the science and religion debate, in a somewhat unsuspecting way.