'Runner is always commenting about the evil that befalls a society without religion.

as usual a little twisted Foyle

you should of written

Runner is always commenting about the evil that befalls a society without or with religion.

Oh dear, Mr Sellick. You appear to have fallen into a logical wishing-well, and instead of recognizing that you are destined to land with a thump at its bottom, you insist on commenting on the shiny quality of the walls as you drop.

Here you go:

"To confuse the two [creation stories and modern cosmology] is to make a category mistake; they are not the same thing."

It is also the case that to confuse fiction and non-fiction - however you care to describe them individually - is also to make a "category mistake".

The headline would then be along the lines of "Fiction is a more fundamental notion than non-fiction". Or vice-versa, of course. Superb grist to the Year Ten debating team's mill, but ultimately just clever words.

Unfortunately, you go on to make the basic Year Ten debater's mistake of assuming your position is already agreed, within the evidence you present, thusly:

"There is a brokenness at the centre of our lives. Even the most well-intentioned and intelligent person will experience this".

This might well lend itself to an idea for next week's proposition "that this house believes there is a brokenness at the centre of our lives", but is equally unsupported.

But what is your point, exactly? I'll take a stab that it is this:

"The result is that the universe contains no meaning that we can find. It is impossible for late modern people to look at the universe and praise God".

I absolutely agree with the first part, the universe contains no meaning that we can find. And frankly, the chances of finding any - even if there is any - are infinitesimal, given a) the size of our brains, b) the size of the universe and c) the cosmologically imminent heat-death of the sun.

But you are suggesting that the concept of God somehow provides that "meaning". Which, conveniently, turns the whole idea into a circular argument - the meaning of the universe is God, and God is the meaning of the universe.

It's all a bit... flimsy, ain't it.

Dear Pericles,

Some good points:

It is not that "THE RESULT IS that the universe contains no meaning", but the world in fact had no meaning all along, only now people are realising it. That is good: one should not ask people to "look at the universe and praise God", nor even to praise God because He provides a meaning to life, but rather one should simply praise God because "it is good to give thanks to the Lord, to make music to Your name O most high" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euatrO_3tDM).

I don't recall Peter claiming that "Fiction is a more fundamental notion than non-fiction", a more loyal rewording of his could be "Fiction type I is more fundamental than fiction type II". No words can describe reality anyway, so Peter chooses to call the reality where we live 'Creation', whereas others may perhaps use 'Now'. Whatever works, whatever inspires love of God and devotion to Him, should best be used. The specific advantage I can see in using the word 'Creation' in this day and age, is in the humility of reminding ourselves that we have not created ourselves.

Yuyutsu,

“one should simply praise God because "it is good to give thanks to the Lord”

This is a religious idea. It is meaningless to someone who is outside that delusion.

If humans built sentient mechanical beings, which maybe will happen sometime in the future, and supplied them with a planet terra-formed for their needs, it would be the height of arrogance to expect them to give praise to their ‘creators’. It would the ultimate in stupidity, fearfulness and gullibility if they did.

Most sensible humans would be appalled at the idea of being thanked by their creation for their creation.

It would only be humans with an ego problem that would get their rocks off with such adulation. What does that say about the god concept?

Sadly, I cannot carry on with this conversation as the internet speed here is so low as to use the name of a god combined with profanity quite often. I'll leave you with it.

David

The only improvement needed in Banjo Paterson's comment was rendering it in verse.

<In fact all of secular education makes this assumption. That is why secular universities are so opposed to the teaching of theology…>

The evidence for the premiss is? And why does the conclusion in the second follow? Perhaps theology does not meet the criteria for a knowledge discipline.

<At the bases of the provocation is a misunderstanding; that "creation" infers physical causality …> How can creation work deduce meaning? Perhaps "imply" was meant instead of "infer"?
< It is impossible for late modern people to look at the universe and praise God.> Why is this something to be lamented?

< Even though natural science has investigated sub-atomic particles and the almost limitless bounds of space, this is not the world we live in.> Isn't it? The non-nerds might be unable to engage in discussion with the nerds on the nature of sub-atomic particles but once those things have been shown to be part of our world, you can hardly say that we no longer live in a world that contains them. When people talk like this, or of non-overlapping magisteria, images arise of the rugby coach explaining away his team's thumping loss by saying that whereas they thought the game was about amassing, points we knew it was about avoiding penalties, at which we won.

< Creation is a more fundamental notion than nature because creation is where we truly live, where we find the source of life.> Insisting that creation is a more fundamental than nature falls short of establishing that creation was real. Just as right wing commentators frequently resort to calling their opponents names (latte sipping socialists, inner city luvvies) when they can't think of counter arguments, religionists frequently resort to the tactic of exporting the topic to a different domain in which the normal requirements for evidence and logic are said not to hold. And in those unimaginable domains, what things do hold? Whatever it takes?

Dear David (Atheist Foundation),

<<it would be the height of arrogance to expect them to give praise to their ‘creators’. It would the ultimate in stupidity, fearfulness and gullibility if they did.>>

Indeed what a poor reason for worship - I could not agree more!

<<It would only be humans with an ego problem that would get their rocks off with such adulation. What does that say about the god concept?>>

Just as you wrote, that humans have egos.

All concepts are flawed, but alas, some people still think that God is a concept.

---

Dear Glen,

<<<It is impossible for late modern people to look at the universe and praise God.> Why is this something to be lamented?>>

Good point: since it's best to praise God unconditionally, this deserves only a slight lamentation.

If one needs to look at the universe in order to praise God, then what if they get up in the morning on the wrong side, the sky is grey, the body aching, the future bleak, money lost, relationships ruined, should one stop praising God as a result? of course not!

The best religion is when one knows that God does not exist, yet unperturbed loves, praises and worships Him anyway. Otherwise, if one only praises God because one believes that He exists, then that's barter, not love!

Most of us, however, need some symbol like 'Creation' as a crutch, as we tend to find it difficult and too abstract to love God without it. This is but a useful tool, rather than something to be judged by logic, evidence and such criteria. At the same time, as Peter tells us, our chosen symbol must not be assumed a feature of nature.

Religious and scientific language should be kept separate. As Peter notes, it were fundamentalists who made a mess by mixing those up, so this needs to be corrected.