Sells,

I agree with a lot of what you say. Of course I don’t agree that anyone should put their subjective thinking into the arena as though everyone else has the same subjective thoughts.

And that is what I have explained to Yuyutsu.

That which can be questioned by objective science should be, and it should be done via scientific method so all can agree upon it and benefit by it.

That which can only be ascertained by revelation etc should be kept to self if there are adverse ramifications to others involved.

David

Dear David (AFA),

The choice to pay importance to objective existence, is itself subjectively-based.

Objective considerations only tell us what exists, how, where and when, but provide no values: it is meaningless for example to differentiate objectively between good and evil, hence which ramifications are "adverse" to others, is subjective.

---
Dear David F.,

It is funny how Genesis chapter 1 turned to be considered a creation myth. We must remember that at the time it was written there was no concept of history yet, nor of science. Chapter 1 (and the first 3 verses of chapter 2) never intended to be a factual account, but rather a poetical and fictional tribute to the seventh day - the Sabbath, using the 6-day build-up in order to emphasise the importance of taking time to rest.

Turning to the current article, if I read it correctly, especially if we understand that creation is unrelated to Genesis 1, what Peter refers to as 'Creation' has also nothing to do with the natural world, but everything to do with making it meaningful - while nature existed earlier, imbibing objects with meaning is thus likened to re-creating them. In Peter's words: "Creation is a more fundamental notion than nature because creation is where we truly live, where we find the source of life." Nature may have existed longer, but without meaning and [subjective-]life, existence is of no value.

Right on Yuyustu!. The whole point of the article is that creation is not nature. In the NT creation refers to the creation of a new people, the church that lives in the resurrection.

David, I cannot agree that the theological should be relegated to the private realm, after all, it consists in a social reality. The attempt to make religion private was initially proposed to inhibit religious violence. It results in relativism and perspectivism which enabals people to say: That is only your point of view. Taking the theological out of the public square robs us of the discussion that we need. You must remember that theology used to be understood as the queen of the sciences in that it ordered all things aright. I mourn the loss of this status and this is due to its relegation to the private.

When theology was barred from our universities the natural sciences were left undamaged but the humanities became fragmented and lost all direction. We are having this discussion now because the theological has been so neglected.
Peter

So much discussion! So many words! So little progress! People see what they want to see.

The clerics continue to have a field day exploiting human weaknesses. Dressed in their fine robes and elaborate head-wear, they continue to regurgitate conflicting words from ancient manuscripts while they make mysterious signs and put things in peoples' mouths and have them drink sips of wine and promise them eternal life!

These are promises that they know cannot be kept. They know that they are frauds but they live a comfortable lifestyle so what do they care?

The jails are filled with criminals. Clerics should be there too!

Yuyutsu,

Ah, solipsism, the last retreat of the wishful thinker. Solipsism relies on possibilities and not probabilities. One can live their lives in a non-caring way about others in a dream state by ascribing to such mind meandering.

I prefer to live in the world where I trust my senses and I can have due regard for life I observer and that I know about. It was summed up nicely by Bertrand Russell which I often quote. It is possible my most favourite.

"To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true."

Bertrand Russell in "The Prospects of Industrial Civilization" (1923)

David

Sells, (Peter)

Unfortunately for religion, it attempts to propagate itself at every opportunity with disregard to ethical considerations. I agree - religion began its journey as a basic science trying to work out the world. But, when science got its act together, both it and religion parted company. Thankfully.

Rather than the loss of religion being a negative, it has proven to be very beneficial to those societies who have gone down that path. Countries with less, rather than more regard for religion are always at the top of the happiness and wellbeing scale in surveys.

Regardless of that point, even though you and I and everyone else living in such a fortunate country as Australia benefits by the godlessness, it will never be the case that all people will believe in supernatural concepts without full-on indoctrination. To think otherwise is to not understand how religion is believed in and propagated.

David

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

"Then you are well on your way to God. God bless you!"
.

That's very kind of you, Yuyutsu, but as the existence of "God" is a question of faith, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to let me have your own blessing instead.

"On my way to God"?

I am sure your god is a nice person and pleasant company, but that's not exactly where I would like to be heading. My idea of heaven is a little different.

Please forgive me if this offends you, but I have fairly simple tastes and do not aspire to eternity.

Here is the sort of thing that could please me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NI83UrxIKY

.