Dear Yuyutsu,

For most of our history we have been tribal creatures thinking that our values and our ideas are the only ones worthwhile. For many years both Christians and Jews have accepted their parts of the Bible as literal truth.

With knowledge of tribal cultures in anthropology and knowledge of other advanced cultures we have come to realise that the development of our myths have gone through a process analogous to that of other people. We have also acknowledged the syncretic process where religions take from other religions and other cultures. With the translation of cuneiform tablets and other increased knowledge we have become aware that the Bible stories are the Hebrew version of legends current in the society of the time. The Bible has absorbed creation stories of the Sumerians, the Babylonians and other surrounding peoples and treated them as the word of God.

Many of us now influenced by that knowledge are aware that the Bible is merely the product of a people analogous to the way other people have produced their founding myths. We can talk of God, but we can also realise that God is a human invention. In Asia there are religions such as Buddhism which do not postulate the existence of a God. One can have religion without God. God is a human invention, and the Bible contains a collection of myths along with other material. The first 18 chapters of Genesis are pure myth.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: “… 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.”

I do not feel that the mumbojumbo of Peter’s religious myth contribute to making anything meaningful. We may enjoy biblical legends as poetry, but they do not add meaning. I don’t agree that existence is of no value without meaning, and I also do not agree that Peter’s mumbojumbo is necessary to give it meaning. I agree that nature in itself has no meaning nor does life.

Existence is of value in itself. I wake up in the morning and am happy that my wife is there. If there is sunlight it is beautiful to see the pattern of the dappled shadows. If there is not sunlight I enjoy watching the rain. I so love this world and am glad to be alive in it. I did not know what it was before I was born and will not know what it is when I am dead. I feel that it is in my genes to enjoy life and assume that some of my ancestors felt the same way. Perhaps feeling that way is an aid to survival, and my feelings are a product of Darwinian natural selection. I am still interested in learning what I can about our world - good things like mathematics, geology, art etc. Life and what I can experience is enough. I do not need to create a Creator.

Dear Sells,

You wrote: "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."

People say, "That is only your point of view." because that is all it is. That is all that religion is, a point of view shared by a number of people.

Science is more than that. Experiments or observations can show a scientific theory to be false. If it is then it is abandoned. However, if no evidence can be found to challenge it is accepted provisionally and used as a basis for creating technology or further scientific investigation. It can still be proven false or inadequate as Newtonian mechanics has been for objects traveling at high speeds.

There are no tests to prove any religion false. They all rest on faith. As such all religions including yours are merely points of view.

David,
No religion began as a protoscience. You forget that natural science only arose in the 15th C and all religions, including Islam began before that. This mistake is disastrous for our conversation because it posits religious ideas as scientific or an attempt at what we now understand as scientific. That is to project modern concepts back to the ancient world. For example, the creations narratives were not causal explanations of the genesis of the world. Read the first (the priestly) account and it sounds like liturgy it does not even look like a scientific explanation.

I reiterate my point, creation is not nature. Having worked as a scientist and a theologian I know the difference. Again we attempt to filter all ideas through the sieve of modern scientific epistemology.

The attempt to spread Christianity in its pure form is to simply tell the stories of the faith and hope that something in them will resonate with hearers. That is all we can do. All this talk about indoctrination is absurd, except for the dangerous cults like scientology. Interesting mix!

Peter,
I was using science loosely as an explanation of the world which as you say, was achieved by religious metaphor and allegory. Proper science grew out of this.

>>>” The attempt to spread Christianity in its pure form is to simply tell the stories of the faith and hope that something in them will resonate with hearers.”<<<

Love that phrase, “Christianity in its pure form”. That’s the plaintive cry of all religious adherents of all religions. My suggestion is to tell such stories to children who have been informed of all or the main faith stories out there and let them choose one or none when they are mentally mature enough to do so.

It seems pointless to converse with you if you don’t accept that religious indoctrination of the young works. Each culture does it in a similar fashion.

Let’s for a moment assume you do understand that incontrovertible fact. What steps have you taken to stop the insidious religious intrusion in Australian state schools? Or, do you consider there is no ethical problem with it?

Cult or mainstream religious indoctrination works on the same basic principles.

If you are a religious person, why is that so? I’m not and even if there was a god, I would not change how I live. What is the point of slavish obedience to such a creature that you do not know if it exists or not. Good or bad fortune happens at the same rate to believers and non-believers. The only point I can work out is fear of hell, hope for eternity of bliss and some kind of big-daddy comfort for this life. Just think about the eternity of bliss for a moment. Boring comes to mind very quickly.

Why aren't you a Muslim and why aren't most Australian religious people Muslims and why aren't most Iranian people Christians.

None of these questions can be answered satisfactorily without employing mental gymnastics so I don’t expect any answers.

The AFA is more interested in undoing the damage caused by faith than debating the existence of a god or not.

David

David,
This is a disappointing reply that brings up all the same old tired arguments about "religion" without attempting to look deeper. I agree with you that religion is the problem. Jesus, was after all crucified by the religious. I do not see myself as religious. When I look around the world "religion" does seem to coincide with chaos in all of life. It is of course forbidden to point the finger but religions are judged ultimately by the fruits that they bear in public and personal life. I think the West has done particularly well and that is because the religion that causes so much harm in the third world has been tempered by Christian faith that alone understands the danger of religion.

Since it was the religious who crucified Jesus, we are dead to that kind of religion. It is simply wrong to talk about the religious as if we can lump it all together and tar it with the one brush.

Peter