Fortunately I am a non-theist. That means I disbelieve in the whole ten thousand or so gods who have been held by some to be of utmost importance since hominids first stared at the stars and asked,"Why?"
Peter Sellick only disbelieves in 9,999 or one less that I do.
Christianity has only been around for 0.1% or less of the time which has elapsed since the first hominid started hunting for a living. We managed to survive without Christianity and domineering popes and other clerics for much of that time.
If they had their way we would go back to giving them the power over life and death as they had during the Inquisition and the Thirty Year War.
As Terry Lane said in a radio interview after writing "God; The Interview" all theologians make it up as they go along.

Peter, I think you've explained the situation clearly. Unfortunately, apart from those who attack Christian faith from a scientistic (not merely scientific) viewpoint, there are also some within the church who don't understand that God is not supernatural.

Foyle: <<We managed to survive without Christianity and domineering popes and other clerics for much of that time.>>
The article is not about the institution but about some concepts central to Christian understanding. And I would suggest that the Christian path is about being fully human: far more than survival.

Foyle: <<That means I disbelieve in the whole ten thousand or so gods who have been held by some to be of utmost importance since hominids first stared at the stars and asked,"Why?">>
I may be wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that God is simply constructed to explain the material world and the position of humans in it. I think that for many people the starting point of faith in God is not an intellectual effort to find a God to fill the gaps in knowledge. Rather it is an awareness, however faint, of the presence of God in their lives. The intellectual efforts to describe and understand this awareness become what we often call theology.

Sell, I think your whole argument falls down because the Christian church believes that God becaome flesh in the form of Jesus. This is an oxymoron if you wish to continue to believe in God as a spiritual being. He may be one or the other, but not both.

David

Crabsby,

This is an edited version of a paper that I gave at a theological colloquium in Perth this November. Your comment that:

"there are also some within the church who don't understand that God is not supernatural."

is an understatement. In a room of intellectually leaning church men and women I had the distinct feeling that I was the only one in the room that thought that God was not supernatural and who did not exist in the world as supernatural being. It seems that most of them wanted God to act somehow in the material world apart from the power of the Word in the Spirit. The providential God is alive and well!
Peter Sellick

Thank you Peter, for an interesting article. I have recently completed a course on the Trinity and would like to read your paper - would you be willing to post it on your website?

Rhian.

You may find it at: http://petersellick.nationalforum.com.au/admin/upload.php?

It is called "At the origins of antitrinitarianism 2"

"the imaginary world in which believers live"...

Well, you got that one right, Peter. In fact you seem to be getting most things right these days. "God is not supernatural", "God is not physical", "God is not in charge of the Universe" -- how long can it be before you take that last step to "God is not"?

Be careful -- once you get into the habit of describing something purely in negative terms it's going to be increasingly hard for others to take you seriously when you want to claim it still has any relevance to anything. Not only is there no rabbit in the hat, but the hat itself is starting to look pretty nebulous.

Thanks Peter, I would love to see more sermons about the God presence being the embodiment of an uplifting spiritual and emotional experience felt in moments of reflection and celebration of life, perhaps connecting all intelligent, self aware life of this universe.

Can this God ever overcome the supernatural intervening, discriminating God, the 3 in one administrator of prayer petitioners and harsh judge against unrepentant transgressors of holy scriptures? For world peace, I hope so.

Hi Peter

sorry to be a pain, but I can't open that link - looks like the part of the website where you upload material.

John J
Pater is hardly saying here that believers are delusional. Believers or not, we all live in worlds whose meaning is constructed and interpreted by us

the scientific faith belief in the twisted observations of evolution and its ludicrous notion that some sort of accident came to form this perfectly designed world makes the bible look very logical. What you read in Scripture in easily observed in nature. Only men with white coats who can't predict the weather tomorrow want to tell us what has happened in the past. Historically you can't go past the book that tells how it started and tells how it will finish. Only hard heartedness prevents people from seeing the obvious. Thankfully many many scientist are honest enough to admit to the truth. Don't expect them to be seen on the news.

Peter,
Thanks for an interesting essay on the history of the science-religion (theology) relation. You will probably remember that I rather prefer Galileo's view of the TWO complementary books (those of Scripture and Nature) that are BOTH there for us (Christians) to read and interpret. There are those - theists or atheists - who have a rather sophisticated understanding of one of them, but a rather naive understanding of the other one. In both directions. And there are many among us who are rather naive in both respects, but only very few have a decent understanding of both, contemporary exegesis and contemporary physics (quantum mechanics and its abstract offsprings) and what it can imply about the nature of (physical, material) reality.

Of course, I agree - if that is what you were saying - that the time when religion could masquerade as science are over. And that also when science is masquerading as a kind of ersatz-religion it does not do it (and us) much good.

>>The authors of scripture … their description of these events universally pointed to a human and personal reality that may be called spiritual in that it was to do with the psyche of men and women and the health or disease thereof <<

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar–jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.“ (Mt 16:17). 

Had Jesus not spoken to a simple fisherman two thousand years ago but to a twenty-first century Christian, familiar with recent findings in neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and cognitive science, He would have probably formulated it thus: "Blessed are you, son of the twenty-first century, because the source of your faith does not lie in the configuration and interaction of the gray cells in your brain and the way they evolved (those are only the biological carriers of your faith) but my Father, who exists outside and independent of your brain."

In other words, ever since more people are actually educated, and know what ACTUALLY causes most phenomenon in the world to occur, they are now simply too smart to buy into the idea that a magical spirit does it all for them, so long as we make offerings and obey whatever its druids and wizards tell us we should do. Consequently, now that these people realize that all these things occur without divine intervention, they realized there was no actual evidence left that this magical spirit even exists at all, and concluded that it therefore, does not exist either.

I'm glad you understand now Sells.

George,

It’s pretty unfair to compare atheists who have naive understandings of scripture with theists who have naive understandings of science and/or scripture because, unlike science, there is no definitive, reliable or objective method of determining what a naive or a sophisticated understanding of scripture is.

<<There are those - theists or atheists - who have a rather sophisticated understanding of one of them, but a rather naive understanding of the other one.>>

Until you can objectively demonstrate what a naive understanding of scripture is and how it differs from a “sophisticated” understanding, this claim is meaningless.

I would suspect the closest you could come to demonstrating the difference would be to describe what could also be understood (and arguably more rationally) as an obfuscation and cherry picking of scripture in light of what we now know due to factors completely external to scripture itself. Meaning that the scripture was near - if not totally - useless in providing any understanding of it meant in the first place.

Hardly the stuff of a divine being.

<<In both directions.>>

They are not two equally opposing views and to equate the two in such a way here (as you do in so many other aspects on so many other occasions) is misleading.

I won’t hold my breath for any acknowledgement of this any time soon though, since this is clearly just a mechanism you employ to assuage both the discomfort of the position your intellect has lead you to and the sheer absurdity of religious belief in general.

"He could not be, in Luther’s terms “the crucified God” and his death could not give satisfaction for the sins of the whole world."
Satisfaction to whom, precisely? Himself? I'm sorry, but that sounds like so weird form of moral masturbation to me.
In an age -and a country- where even painless capital punishment is unacceptable, and torture is definitely considered barbaric, it's difficult to understand how anyone could revere a God who would use such methods just to make a point.
To Himself.(Herself, Itself, whatever).

King Hazza: Actually you are the one who finally has got it. Peter had it all along. If you'd actually read his previous articles on similar themes you would know that he has consistently asserted that God is not a supernatural being, that he does not intervene in the material world, etc. You have finally understood him. Well done!

Jon J: You seem to suggest that Sells' reference to "the imaginary world in which believers live" shows that believers are deluded. You're scared of imagination, aren't you? It can lead to reality that emanates from the deep unconscious, and you don't want to face it. The empirical perception that science needs to study the objective world cannot lead to awareness of the Divine. For that awareness to develop we first need to drop some defences and allow the inner world to yield images for our careful conscious contemplation.

Perhaps you should seek advice from "The Greens" or the "Climate Change Theorists" for they "Excel" at what you desire to do .

Rhian,
Sorry, try this:

http://petersellick.nationalforum.com.au/articles.php

VK3AUU
Good point. Socinius in the early 17th C made the same point about the two natures of Christ, to say that he was both human and divine is like saying that something is both fire and water. I have been accused of referring to the imaginary world of believers, meaning perhaps that this is not a real world. But as one writer replied, we all live in imaginary world that we construct. There is no alternative. The Question is really about the truth of the world we construct. Does it allow us to penetrate to the really real? Or is it fantasy world. i.e. does our imaginary world enable us to interact with the real world in an accurate fashion? I would contend that the imaginary world of Christians allows us to penetrate to what is real but unseen, the reality below our surface perceptions. The things seen and unseen as the creed will have it.

Dealing with paradox is essential to seeing the unseen. Although the Word becoming flesh is a paradox it points to something else that is very real in the lives of believers, real enough for them to willingly die for it. So what seems useless myth becomes the essential thing of life.

Peter Sellick

A dark cloud remains over Solomon’s Temple!

The Lord hath said that he would dwell in the thick darkness." 2 Chronicles 6:1

Peter,
>>Socinius in the early 17th C made the same point about the two natures of Christ, to say that he was both human and divine is like saying that something is both fire and water.<<

There is no need to go into 17th century. The quantum physicist/theologian John Polkinghorne in his “Belief in God in an Age of Science” (Yale Univ. Press, 1998, 2003) compares the scientific investigation into the nature of light that led to the quantum theory with the theological investigation of the nature of Christ's being that led to the Chalcedonian Creed.

Well, nothing can be both fire and water but contemporary physics has forced us to accept that something can be both particle and wave.

AJ Philip,

>>It’s pretty unfair to compare atheists who have naive understandings of scripture with theists who have naive understandings of science<<

I did not make any such comparison. Since there are more atheists than theists on these threads I think one can safely assume that there are also more atheists than theists among them who have a naive understaning of e.g. quantum physics, although that was not my point.

I apologise if my remark came out as “pretty unfairr” to you, although it was addressed to Peter, not to you. As for what a “naive understanding of scripture" is ("naive" here usually means "verbatim") maybe you keep on providing good enough examples yourself, although I agree it does not constitute an “objective demonstration”, whatever that means in this context.

You do not believe in the compatibility of contemporary science and Christianity (more precisely appropriate interpretations thereof). The same as e.g. runner and many others. This I have been aware of for a long time, and I respect it; the difference is that runner has never become personal by expressing his inability to understand me by describing my world-view as “just a mechanism you employ to assuage both the discomfort of the position your intellect has lead you to and the sheer absurdity” of beliefs and opinions he does not share.

Ah the much hyped "trinity".
Has anybody ever seen this trinity?
Where is the photographic evidence of this trinity?

There is of course the famous trinity of Curly, Larry and Moe, plus Groucho, Harpo and Chico, plus the three Musketeers Athos, Porthos and Aramis. They are of course real because you can still see them on TV.

Trinity was of course the code name for the first nuclear bomb test by the USA. That dreadful trinity project did occur.

One wonders what century Sells lives in? It would seem to be the 19th.

It is as though Einsteins famous E=MC2 equation never occurred.And the entire realm of quantum physics and theory.

Notice too that Sells does not (as usual) even use the words Consciousness or Light (the Energy of Consciousness). And yet Consciousness and Light are the two irreducible and intrinsic features of Reality.

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-god.aspx

http://www.dabase.org/dht6.htm

http://www.dabase.org/dht7.htm

http://www.dabase.org/christmc2.htm

I much prefer the Hindu trinity, namely Brahma the "creator", Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer or transformer (the overwhelming reality of change and death, or conditional existence as a Klik-Klak machine).

The Christian "trinity" does not even take death into account, and is therefore not true to the real facts of conditional existence.

Namely that all of this marvelous "creation" rots and dies, and that the creative force or Primal Energy that generates it all, is completely indifferent to the well-being or survival of any of the billions of forms that arise - they all disintegrate and die.

And yet this Primal Energy always remains the same. Primal Energy is neither created or destroyed, it only goes through beginning-less and endless changes of form. In a Process that is ultimately unexplainable.

The only way to understand this Process is to surrender to IT unconditionally. After all IT did (in the first place, and over and over again life-time after life-time )"create" the body-mind complex that we all identify with.

Such unconditional surrender is the nature of True Faith.

First mentioned Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180, the Trinity was further defined by Origen in the next century. The Trinity is never referred to in scripture.
You have to give it to the Catholics though because they have attempted to meander down the dangerous path of theology by using logic as a map! They actually attempt to define it! http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
I claim this piece of theological nonsense as described by the Catholics should be used by all schools in the study of reason and logic.
I have read Peter at length on the subject and I confess I just plain don't get it......maybe it's me.

Energy is Eternal Delite (Light) declared Billy Blake.

Old William Blake was one of the first to see the dark consequences of the Newtonian world-view. Much of his writings were effectively a tirade against Newton's single vision.

Sells world-view is mis-informed by that of Newton. It certainly has nothing to do with that of Blake.

Peter

Thanks for the revised link, I appreciated the article.

I wonder if you and George might find some common ground in the theology of Thomas F. Torrance, a student and admirer of Barth, and Templeton prize winner who wrote extensively on the Trinity and on relationship of theology and science. He wrote of “hidden traffic” between theology and science, as both are in different ways concerned with apprehending and being conformed to reality. He argues that science and theology both let reality reveal itself to us as we submit out minds to their coherence and order – echoes of Bart here. He argues that theology benefits from natural science (and vice versa), as theology is not just about God-man relations but God-world-man relations – echoes of Polkinghorne. We are situated in the universe and related to God, and need to develop our understanding of both with scientific rigor.

George,

<<I did not make any such comparison [between theists and atheists].>>

Oh okay then, sorry. I should have said “equate” rather than “compare”. Although I would have thought you knew me well enough by now to know what I meant; especially since I made the same point in regards to your very next sentence.

<<I apologise if my remark came out as “pretty unfairr” to you, although it was addressed to Peter, not to you.>>

Thanks for your apology, but whether or not your remark came out as pretty unfair to me personally is a side issue that has no bearing on the accuracy of my point. So whether your remark was addressed to Mr Sellick or not is inconsequential.

<<As for what a “naive understanding of scripture" is ("naive" here usually means "verbatim") maybe you keep on providing good enough examples yourself...>>

Yes, I predominantly criticize naive/verbatim interpretations of the Bible for two reasons:

Firstly, contrary to the impression sophisticated Christians like to put out there when accusing Dawkins et al of attacking strawmen, the ‘unsophisticated’ ‘people in the pew’ whom sophisticated Christians look down on are actually a vast majority. So criticizing their interpretation of god and the Bible is more productive than criticizing the beliefs of the more benign sophisticated Christian.

Secondly, if the Bible can’t be taken at face value, then the Christian god has failed the most basic test of communication.

If the Bible was inspired by god, then surely it would be timeless; surely it could have occurred to this god to include one tiny paragraph to explain why slavery is wrong instead of wasting chapters on ancient barbaric law; surely there would be no competing holy books as no book written by humans could possibly compete.

But that doesn’t mean that that is how I interpret the Bible for myself. Personally I interpret it all as insignificant ramblings of primitive people; some of whom were clearly undiagnosed schizophrenics.

Continued...

...Continued

<<...although I agree it does not constitute an “objective demonstration”, whatever that means in this context.>>

I’m glad you agree here because this goes back to my main point. That being, that without providing a clear and objective method of determining what interpretations are naive and which are not, it is not fair to equate atheists who have a naive understanding of scripture with theists who have a naive understanding of scripture and/or science.

<<You do not believe in the compatibility of contemporary science and Christianity...>>

Christianity and science are seen by many to be compatible and they try to justify this in many ways, but it’s never done very well. It’s often just clumsiness dressed in big words strung together poetically.

Some like to explain god as something that transcends science and the material world, but this is a mere assertion since, if this were the case, then how could they possibly know it was the case?

I believe Christianity and science are compatible to the extent that the methodology we use to determine whether or not something exists should apply to god as well. Otherwise, we have no way of distinguishing between god and something that doesn’t exist.

<<The same as e.g. runner and many others.>>

This is a gross oversimplification done (I suspect) to equate anti-theists with the likes of runner. The equation is totally unfair considering one perception of incompatibility is based on a desire to take an honest and proven-to-be-reliable approach to seeking the truth, while the other is the result of sheer ignorance used to block out anything that may threaten an unsupported belief.

This difference is demonstrated in the fact that I attempt to cover every point of those whom I disagree with as thoroughly as possible while those you compare me with make the same assertions time-and-time again; only to cut and run when the hard questions are asked, and then repeat the same discredited assertions on another thread.

Continued...

...Continued

<<...the difference is that runner has never become personal by expressing his inability to understand me by describing my world-view as “just a mechanism you employ to assuage both the discomfort of the position your intellect has lead you to and the sheer absurdity” of beliefs and opinions he does not share.>>

Firstly, I described your persistent equating of theism and atheism as two equally opposing views as such a mechanism, not your world-view.

Secondly, to compare myself (or most here at OLO for that matter), in any way, with someone as hateful as runner is as below the belt as it is inaccurate.

Thirdly, if it’s any consolation, I had extreme reservations of mentioning that. But since you’re a character here who has intrigued me to the point where I just HAD to try to figure you out and understand where you’re coming from, I simply couldn’t resist.

Fourthly, we are not just talking about some beliefs and opinions but a demonstrably false (albeit subtle) implication that is done regularly. My past methods of explaining to you why the equation is wrong hadn’t worked, so I thought maybe a little insight into why I think you do it, might.

And finally, you’ve at least got to admit I was pretty spot-on there, wasn’t I.

"men forgot that all deities reside in the human breast"

William Blake.

Science asks 'How?'

Metaphysics asks 'Why?'

When the two questions are understood there is no conflict between science and the metaphysical. The conflict comes about because Christianity (and religion in general) asks neither question. It serves up meaningless dogma masquerading as the word of God.

It is a pity that so many see that religion is total garbage and then take that to mean the concept of God is garbage. There is no correlation between Christianity and Spirituality and definitely nothing to do with God.

AJ writes

'Secondly, to compare myself (or most here at OLO for that matter), in any way, with someone as hateful as runner is as below the belt as it is inaccurate. '

Big call mate. Can't think of anyone that I actually hate although you obviously have some spiritual discernment in coming up with your 'scientific' mythologies.

"This is not so for Christianity because it does not contain a dualism between spirit and matter, the spiritual is not in opposition to the material but in opposition to the flesh. The dualism in Paul is between spirit and flesh, or between the spirit and the law."

Peter, I confess i find it hard to relate to (or comprehend) this description of God and His creation. For me, it makes more sense to say God is the uncaused cause and everything else (including "the Spirit" and the "flesh") are effects.

“Say He is God, the One. The uncaused cause of all creation. He begets not, neither is He begotten, and there is nothing which can be compared to Him.”

salaams

""First mentioned Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180, the Trinity was further defined by Origen in the next century. The Trinity is never referred to in scripture.""
Posted by Priscillian, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 11:59:04 AM

It seems itt was Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (born about 150 A.D. in Carthage, North Africa) who coined the Trinity (before he became a Montanist) -

He did so in one work titled "Adversus Praxean", in which the doctrine of the Trinity comes into clear focus for the first time, in response to a heretic who was twisting the biblical balance between the persons of the Godhead. In this work, he created most of the terminology with which this doctrine was to be referred (and is still), such as Trinitas, etc*

<http://www.tertullian.org/readfirst.htm

* For Trinitas, see "Quasten", vol 2, p286, who gives ch.2 of 'Adversus Praxean' as the first use of Trinitas as a technical term by a Latin writer

I forgot to read the url http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm before posting, where it says

"" The word 'trias' (of which the Latin 'trinitas' is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom" (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time.

" Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. ""

Rhian,

It is interesting you mention a theologian with scientific knowledge, rather than scientists with theological knowledge/qualifications like John Polkinghorne (or Ian Barbour, Arthur Peacocke, George Coyne, Francisco Ayala etc) as that "common ground". Indeed, Torrance might be closer to Peter’s position than Polkinghorne, and the others who seem to be closer to mine, as little difference as there is between the two kinds of approaches. (There is also the Catholic philosopher Mariano Artigas with his “The Mind of the Universe: Understanding Science and Religion, Templeton 2000; reviewed in http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft0102/reviews/mcmullin.html). What you wrote would probably be endorsed by all of them.

I have to admit I know very little about Barth and Torrance, however there is a whole Section devoted just to Torrance in Polkinghorne’s “Faith, Science and Understanding” (SPCK 2000, pp. 173-185), where Polkinghorne seems to endorse his theology but is slightly critical of his forays into physics. Nevertheless, he appreciates Torrance’s use of the metaphor of physics and geometry - until Einstein two completely different and unrelated areas of investigation (it caught my attention since I happened to know something about these things): Like mathematics can provide the physicist with an insight into what reality is all about so can also religion/theology provide a believer with an insight, albeit of a completely different kind.

AJ Philips,
I don’t seem to be able to harvest some feedback from those on these threads I think understand what I mean without causing a release of opinions, beliefs and “explanations” from you aimed at me. I have known them for quite a while now, and know that many - though not everybody - accept and share your outlook. So please, just take it easy -nobody is trying to reconvert you into Christian theism, certainly not I.

It is difficult to defend spirituality in that it is difficult to defend anything that does not exist. As to Christianity and its alleged place in society, the earlier comment by Foyle says it all.

You sound very confused, Daviy.

Metaphysics is just the philosophical study of being and knowing. I don’t know of anyone who claims that it conflicts with science - some of the conclusions might though.

Nor do I know of anyone who claims that the concept of god is rubbish just because religion is; just that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of a god...

<<It is a pity that so many see that religion is total garbage and then take that to mean the concept of God is garbage.>>

The criticizing of religion is done because of the harm it does in the name of something for which there is no evidence.

On another note though. The more I read of your posts, the more I’m convinced that you’re one of these people who believe in a god, but don’t believe that we can know who that god is.

Would this be right?

<<There is no correlation between Christianity and Spirituality and definitely nothing to do with God.>>

Your fervent defending of this god that “definitely” has nothing to do with religion would appear a little strange otherwise.

If you are one of these people, has the irony of claiming to not be able to know who this god is, while on the other hand, asserting who this god definitely is not, ever occurred to you?

Pick a religion and you’d make a good sophisticated theologian. They’ll quite happily waffle on all day about what god is not, but try asking them what god is and you won’t get much.

runner,

I never said you hated anyone, just that you’re a hateful person.

George,

Think of it as a compliment...

<<I don’t seem to be able to harvest some feedback from those on these threads I think understand what I mean without causing a release of opinions, beliefs and “explanations” from you aimed at me.>>

These days, I’ll often start to type-up responses to other theists, but then end up scrapping them because the more I type, the more I begin to feel like I’m picking on someone with, shall we say, “special needs”.

<<I have known them for quite a while now, and know that many - though not everybody - accept and share your outlook.>>

Yes, well this is why I try to avoid my personal outlook and focus on logic and reasoning.

<<...nobody is trying to reconvert you into Christian theism, certainly not I.>>

Even as an atheist now, I can still hear baby Jesus cry every time a Christian says this.

My understanding of Christianity and (from my observations) the understanding most Christians have of Christianity, is that it is an obligation of each and every Christian to do as the alleged Jesus allegedly instructed his disciples to do and go and be “fishers of men”.

Since god - for obvious reasons - can’t do this himself, Christians are obliged to spread the word, and considering the eternal consequences for believing or not believing, I would certainly hope that all Christians felt the obligation to convert others. Not doing so would, I’d imagine, be a grave sin and an act of gross negligence.

Boaz’s evangelizing is one of the most irritating aspects of OLO, but to his credit, he is at least doing what Christ instructed - as meaningless as his Bible quoting is.

All that aside though, you make it sound like my responses are a defence mechanism, or a wall I put up because my lack of belief is being threatened.

Continued...

...Continued

But unlike theists (and going back to my point about theism and atheism not being equally opposing views) atheists don’t need to use a defence mechanism to protect their lack of belief as they are not emotionally tied to it, and lets face it, what possible reason could anyone have for passing on an eternity of bliss if it was shown to be real? Hardly something you’d want to put a barricade up for. But losing the belief in such a promise? Now that’s a different story!

But let me remind you of the last time you appeared to try to make it seem like I was feeling threatened and getting all defensive:

“Let me repeat: I am not trying to take away your world-view certainties...” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#179145)

To which I replied:

“Yes, and it’s a pity. What better way for me to help ensure that my beliefs are as close to true as possible?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#179293)

Please don’t confuse my passion for truth and reason with defence mechanisms.

Thank you.

AJ Philips,

>>Please don’t confuse my passion for truth and reason with defence mechanisms.

Thank you.<<

Thank you too, for another exposé of your “passion for truth and reason” (masquerading as “defense mechanisms”, or vice versa). After all, “passion for Truth”, and implicitly also for reason, is a traditional Christian virtue. I shall keep on reading them - and hopefully learn more about these “passions” of yours - but I don’t think any more responding to them will get us anywhere.

George,

<<Thank you too, for another exposé of your “passion for truth and reason” (masquerading as “defense mechanisms”, or vice versa).>>

So what about my posts makes you think that the logic and reasoning in them is simply a passion for truth and reason masquerading as defence mechanisms, or vice versa? Can you provide any examples or reasoning as to why this is the case?

If you’re going to make such a claim, you could a least have the courtesy to back it up.

I had provided some reasoning as to why this wasn’t the case when I mentioned the absurdity of putting up a barrier that would result in the passing up of an eternity of bliss, along with the total absence of an emotional need to cling on to disbelief. Not to mention that response of mine, to a past post of yours assuring me that you’re weren’t trying to take my world-view away, that I quoted.

But I don’t think you had considered any of that because there’s a block there to protect you from absorbing anything that may force you to concede that atheism and theism are anything more than two equally opposing views.

<<After all, “passion for Truth”, and implicitly also for reason, is a traditional Christian virtue.>>

Interesting qualifier there with the capital ‘T’. By that I assume you mean the subjective adulteration of truth that amounts to mere belief. But I’m more interested the real objective truth - facts that have been, or can be verified - the kind of truth that Christianity is not only disinterested in, but that many Christians spend a lot of time hiding from.

Theists like to think that their chosen religion is a pathway to truth, and it CAN be in the same sense that a wild guess about anything, could be correct. But it’s not a pathway to truth in any real, demonstrable or reliable way.

The pathway to truth is evidence and applied reasoning based on logical absolutes. This is the only way that has proven itself reliable given what we currently know.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I shall keep on reading them - and hopefully learn more about these “passions” of yours...>>

Ah, you see, George? There’s a block here too.

If learning more about my passions is all you’re going to get from my posts, then that’s pretty sad.

My passions are the driving force behind my posts, not the content - as you are trying to make out.

I made it clear before (and as evidenced in my posts) that I usually stick to logic and reasoning and avoid my personal opinion when I said: “Yes, well this is why I try to avoid my personal outlook and focus on logic and reasoning.” When I state my personal opinion, I usually include qualifiers such as “in my opinion” or “Personally I think” or something along those lines.

But as a defence mechanism, you try to pass everything off as mere opinion.

Yes, when all is said and done, you’ll have your opinion and I’ll have mine - as you are trying desperately to implicitly emphasise here. But at the end of the day there is still such a thing as truth - objective truth - and only one proven reliable method of uncovering it.

And it doesn’t include religion.

<<...but I don’t think any more responding to them will get us anywhere.>>

On the contrary, I think this discussion has been most productive and if you read through the thread again, you’ll notice just how much we’ve established. An agreement doesn’t have to be reached to 'get somewhere', nor does the lack of any agreement mean that we’re going around in circles - as you seem to be implying.

At the very least - and as someone who often expresses a desire to learn about others - you should have learned a bit more about me, such as my take on the Christianity’s compatibility with science, and what I consider to be the only reliable method for establishing the truth.

We learn the most when we’re pulled out of our comfort zone, but you just seem to clam-up instead.

Pity.

A J Phillips

Although I am a fellow traveller in your attitude to religion I don't think a series of long and multiple posts dedicated to answering criticisms of your motives/beliefs/logic etc. is doing your case much good. The believers that so annoy you are never going to change their minds (as is the nature of a true delusion)and in any case you are getting right off the topic of Peter's article which, although I disagree with almost all of it, raises some interesting discussion topics which should be addressed calmly.
Lets forget the Ad Hominem stuff.

The problem with the church and science is that it has so often found itself in the position of trying to defend the indefensible. As an example, it took a long time for it to admit that Galileo was right and it was wrong. Certain sections of the Christian church still insist that the world was made in six days etc., despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This means that in the eyes of the unbelievers, any pronouncements by the Church will be treated with something more than scepticism, perhaps disbelief more likely.

The problem then arises, that for any argument based on logic to be credible, the starting point must be not only true, but credible and this is where science wins almost every time.

David

Priscillian,

I must be reading my posts very differently to others if you feel I’m not addressing this calmly. I’m even doing by best to avoid reacting to the occasional snipe - which I don’t mind too much anyway.

In regards to Mr Sellick’s article, I was concerned that I was too far off topic, but at the same time, I think my point about not being able to distinguish between god and something that doesn’t exist (a point relevant to all sophisticated Christians) pretty much covers the premise of the article to render the rest of it fairly meaningless. Although, I will add that as far as the trinity goes, I think Thomas Jefferson said it all that needs to be said:

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”

As for the length of my responses, I feel it’s important to address these misconceptions thoroughly as possible so as to not leave any sense of doubt and uncertainly or drag it out any longer than necessary.

I don’t hold too much hope of changing anyone’s view here, although I am walking proof that it’s not impossible. I like to communicate my points on this topic in such a way that I believe could have made a difference for me when I was a believer.

A J Phillips
I say "fair enough" to everything you just said.
I find your ex-believer status very interesting. I bet you that your attitude to religion was not changed by someone who talked you out of it but that it occurred in increments(like evolution). In my case I was born an atheist (like we all are) and have found no reason to change.

In the book "godless" by Dan Barker he explains how he moved from fire and brimstone preacher, to atheism. A fascinating story. You would be surprised what initially sparked a niggling doubt in his mind, and it wasn't a non-believer. I saw Dan speak at the Atheist convention last January and his description of the mind of a true believer was a real insight. I recommend the book to anyone reading this, believer or skeptic.
American philosopher, Dan Dennett, delivered, at a seminar, the results of a study that investigated the level of disbelief amongst the clergy in the USA. This talk can be found on Youtube. The results are astounding.

That’s spot on, Priscillian...

<<I bet you that your attitude to religion was not changed by someone who talked you out of it but that it occurred in increments(like evolution).>>

From what I’ve read, my de-conversion process was similar to that of Dan Barker’s actually.

I was a very enthusiastic Christian. From an early age, I would debate the existence of god with the kids at school and try to bring them to god by convincing them of his existence. When I got too old for Sunday school, I immediately volunteered to assist to one of the Sunday school teachers and then - being someone who gets along well with children - eventually became a Sunday school teacher myself.

I didn’t consider myself an “evangelical” as that was a bit of a dirty word in the Lutheran church I attended (it’s association to the real crackpot, happy-clappy Pentecostal churches was too strong) but I would preach to anyone who seemed the slightest bit interested in hearing the “Good News”.

I'd attend weekly Bible study and even had my own little pocket Bible I carried around with me everywhere. The thought of seminary would even cross my mind occasionally.

Yep, I lived and breathed religion; and god’s love was like a constant high for me.

My de-conversion process is a long story, but it’s best summarized by the chapter “I Just Lost Faith in Faith” in Dan Barker’s book: http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=lostfaith

I’ll be sure to check out that talk of Dan Dennett’s. Yes, disbelief amongst the clergy and Pastors of the Protestant denominations is quite surprising. Many stop believing but continue the work anyway because it’s all they know.

Reason starts to set in for some theists and in my observation, they’ll usually respond in one of two ways:

-admit that there’s no good reason to continue believing, or;
-push god further and further into an untouchable realm of the unknown.

Anyway, thanks for your responses, they were a timely reminder that I’ve said quite enough for now. I’ve made more than enough points to be content to leave it at that.

A J Phillips and anybody else interested
The Dan Dennett talk I mentioned earlier can be found at:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ
Highly recommended.
Thank you for your story A J. I guess it hasn't been easy for you. You have my admiration.

AJ

Do you believe that science is able to reveal all that there is to know about life?

Waterboy.
I'm not speaking for A J but I think your question is an interesting one. I don't think science or scientists have ever claimed that they can know everything about life. What they do claim is that the testing and re-testing of theories can lead us closer to the truth and that superstitious beliefs deny the beautiful complexity and wonder of the natural universe . Although the ancient texts so loved by the believers make extraordinary claims they fail time after time to deliver proof. I will be the first to convert when this proof is delivered in a logic and testable fashion.The same goes for water divining and fairies.

Priscillian

If I understand Sells correctly he shares your distrust of belief in the supernatural. I believe he is arguing (and it seems cogently to me) for a radical freedom from the strictures of an excessively 'scientific' worldview.

Without doubt science is a very powerful intellectual tool but we all, theist and atheist alike, recognise its limitations, which was the point of my question.

The truth is we all depend on knowledge that cannot be drawn from science or proved by science. Personally, I find the prospect of a world of purely physical/material causation/motivation impossible to reconcile with the reality of life set out before me on a daily basis.

As beautiful as the material world can be (and it is not all beautiful) hominids (as someone in this thread is want to call us) have always reacted to a dimension of life that can be called spiritual (without necessarily meaning supernatural). For me it is as natural as breathing to explore the possibilties, puzzles and paradoxes of this 'spirited' life that I am living. I might even, at times, resort to the naive language of 'theistic belief' as part of that exploration.

While I dont conform intellectually to the Nicene formulation, and find the arguments that moulded it arcane, nonetheless the construction of that paradox has proved theologically and intellectually productive (for both good and evil) and is a landmark in the development of modern thinking.

You would do well to discard your anti-religious presuppositions and read Sells more carefully. You assume too much and as a consequence make serious interpretive mistakes in reading Sells article

Waterboy,

By all means you and Peter can "free" yourselves from the "strictures" of of an "excessive scientific world view". I have absolutely no problem with that at all. I agree science has limitations. There way well be knowledge that cannot be drawn from science (yet) and you may indeed living a separate "reality" from me. We may indeed have a "spirit" of some form (although I think the "spirit" in the Bible refers to a collective "spirit" or "esprit de corps" as in "The fellowship of the holy spirit". The "spirit" residing inside an individual is a relatively modern, pagan concept).

The point is that you are unable to convince me of any of this or even demonstrate even the basic tenets of Christianity other than quote the opinion of another human being.

e.g
Son of God
Die for our sins
Resurrection
God on earth in form of a human
Superior code of Christian morals
Inferiority of other beliefs
etc. etc. etc.

I admit I had drifted off topic concerning Peters article much of which I have thankfully forgotten. I mentioned my thoughts on the Trinity earlier in this forum. In short the Trinity is theology formed by a committee and ratified by Constantine in an effort to placate warring parties disagreeing about the nature of God. In any case I have no problem at all with you or Peter or anybody else holding to any view of the Trinity.

What I basically have a beef about is that I am paying for your superstitions with my hard earned taxes and suffer under the law because of the nonsense the religious hold to.

If parasitic religions earned their keep, were self sufficient, non political, paid their taxes and kept the hell out of our secular public school system and the law I say, "live and let live".

P

I totally agree with you that religions should not be exempt from taxes or from compliance with the law in any special way. To the extent that they do charitable work they should be treated like any other charitable organisation. If they 'behave' like a business then they should be treated like any other business, if a 'club' then be treated like any other club. Increasingly this is the case.

As for 'interfering' in any aspect of society Churches have the right to hold opinions and express them. Churches are now and always have been 'political' in some sense. That is inevitable. I do, however, think it wise to maintain the separation of Church and State. History tells us that Churches can no more be trusted with power than can secular governments.... checks and balances are needed.

I dont condone governments of any type silencing criticism by legislation or force. To paraphrase John Howard "I disagree with much that the Church has to say but I will defend with my life their right to say it."

BTW I have no particular desire to 'convince' you of anything. To the extent that you have intelligent argument to offer I enjoy debating with you and believe I am open to hear different views even if I dont necessarily adopt them.

Waterboy,
I agree with all of this.
In my reference to "political" I was not referring to the day to day input from religious groups which I agree is valid and part of healthy democracy. I am referring to influence on government that has resulted in things like the so called "Chaplains in (secular state) Schools" program and in Victoria the ridiculous Religious "Vilification" laws aimed primarily at protecting the sensitivity of Muslims. At the UN we have the real prospect of a resolution against even criticizing religion, particularly Islam.

I must say, however, that Christianity stands like a beacon of tolerance today as a religion that can handle and address criticism without resorting to burning and head chopping. If only Islam could see the advantage of this.

That’s a big question, Waterboy!

The way you’ve worded your question by adding “about life” to the end of what I simply would have worded, “Do you believe that science is able to reveal all that there is to know?”, says a lot about where you’re coming from, I think.

Since I don’t know everything there is to know, my answer to your question is, “I don’t know”, and I don’t think anyone can presume to know that there are things that science will never have a way of explaining or addressing.

But I don’t think writing science off so quickly is an honest way of searching for the truth considering it has so far proven itself to be the only reliable method of investigating reality that we have, and I suspect that anyone who does this is just looking to plonk their god into the real world in a similar fashion to how many Christians use the weirdness of quantum physics as a way of shoe-horning their god into science.

It’s often said that science answers with the ‘how’ and religion answers with the ‘why’. But religion doesn’t answer anything; it simply asserts it. Religion isn’t concerned with the truth; it never has been. All religion does is invent a problem, then dangle the cure in front of your face; when in fact, it was the problem all along.

<<Personally, I find the prospect of a world of purely physical/material causation/motivation impossible to reconcile with the reality of life set out before me on a daily basis.>>

I’m interested as to why this is, and how you would distinguish between something that cannot be reduced to the “purely physical/material” and something that doesn’t exist.

Occasionally, I’ll have feelings and experiences that seem deep and almost ‘on another level’, and when I have such experiences, I’m faced with two possibilities:

-I had an experience that was influenced by something that transcends that which is reducible to the physical, or;
-My right-brain got a bit overactive (or something chemical, etc.) and effected how I felt mentally and physically.

Continued...

...Continued

Being a person who cares about the truth of my beliefs, I go with the latter explanation and probably always will because, as with anything that we can know - to any useful extent - manifests in reality, it’s measurable, demonstrable and verifiable.

As I said to George, applied reasoning based on logical absolutes is the only reliable method we have of arriving at the truth given what we currently know.

We can explore other things like religions and philosophies of different cultures; and that can be an enriching and enlightening experience. But if we really care about our beliefs being as close to the truth as possible, then there is only one method we know we can rely on.

P.S. I could be offline for several days, so I may take a while to respond to any further posts.

Priscillian,

Thanks for the link to the Dan Dennett lecture. Fascinating study!

A.J. You are so much more succinct that I.
I too will be overseas for 2 months+ but I would like to thank Peter for this article and all his articles that provoke such interesting responses.

Keep up the good work Peter.....we love ya!

AJ

Two observations:

Even if science might one day explain everything... thats not much use to me today.

Scientists are already resorting to metaphor and paradox to describe things that they cant really understand. Religions have been doing that for a very long time. Perhaps these also turn out to be powerful intellectual tools even if the 'knowledge' they 'reference' is imprecise, uncertain and open to debate.

You bible thumpers take a lot of convincing that the fairy tales that you so earnestly believe in have all been dreamed up by men and are not the Word of God. Go back and check out the talk at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ
if you are game to listen to reason.

David

Also read and hopefully digest
http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=lostfaith.

David

VK3AUU

<<You bible thumpers take a lot of convincing that the fairy tales that you so earnestly believe in have all been dreamed up by men and are not the Word of God.>>

The Word is not words. Fairy tales and the dreams of men –- and women and children! – can lead us to profound understanding of reality. Reality is not only the factual: the unconscious is utterly real and it drives us. Symbols, metaphor, imagination, dreams – all these can give us some insight into our unconscious life.

That is where the Word is and always has been. To the extent that imagination and dreams helped to create the Bible and other scriptures – and I think they did – they are a pathway to hearing the Word. But of course the Bible has historical and other factual material as well.

<<Go back and check out the talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ
if you are game to listen to reason.>>

OK, done it. Interesting and brought up a few angles worth further thought. On the whole though, Dennett presented nothing very new to me -- and certainly nothing to make me question the validity of my experience of what I usually call “God”. I'll look at your other link when I have time.

Cheers

Crasby,

I agree with everything you say here especially:-
"the unconscious is utterly real and it drives us. Symbols, metaphor, imagination, dreams – all these can give us some insight into our unconscious life."
The problem is that many who have these "dreams" insist on inflicting them on others who have different "dreams" or no "dreams". Religious belief as a path to reality is fine but it does not guarantee a higher moral or ethical plane. It also should not entitle the dreamer to special treatment in a society. This of course is the basis of secularism, where people are free to "dream" or not to dream without
being disadvantaged or favoured, which is the case at present.

Priscillian,

Thanks for you kind words, but I don’t feel like I deserve them. I can be such a klutz with this sort of stuff.

Waterboy,

Unfortunately what your response says to me, is that you’re more interested in quick answers than accurate ones and that you’re not so concerned about the truth of your answers as you are about having them now. It doesn’t seem like a very honest search for the truth.

If you don’t know the answer to something, what do you do? Admit that you don’t know, or make something up?

Admitting that you don’t know something is a far more honest way to go about approaching an unknown and for all intents and purposes, religion amounts to simply making it up. Particularly for those Christians who acknowledge that the more literal religious claims are fundamentally false and internally incoherent and thus move their god into such an unknown realm and make it so mysterious that it’s effectively useless. After all, you can’t answer a mystery with a mystery.

It all goes back to what I was saying in regards to caring about whether or not your beliefs are as close to the truth as possible.

<<Scientists are already resorting to metaphor and paradox to describe things that they cant really understand. Religions have been doing that for a very long time.>>

This, to me, sounds like an attempt to drag science down a little to bring it more in-line with religion - even if only by a tiny bit - while also trying to elevate religion a tad closer to science too.

While there are unknowns that both scientists and religion use metaphor and paradox to describe, there is nothing to suggest that it has anything to do with a god, or that they are even referencing the same thing to begin with. In fact, there’s good reason to believe that they’re not...

Continued...

...Continued

<<Perhaps these also turn out to be powerful intellectual tools even if the 'knowledge' they 'reference' is imprecise, uncertain and open to debate.>>

Perhaps.

But the difference between scientists and religion here, is that scientists attempt to learn more and more about the knowledge that is referenced (to borrow your terminology), so that it is more precise and less uncertain, whereas religion - in direct correlation - mystifies and obscures god the more scientists find naturalistic explanations for what used to be mysteries.

Crabsy,
That is a very honest summation of the subject. I wonder what Runner has to say to your post. Let's hear from you.

David