...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