Oh I don't know, imajuianutter,

It's in the nature of man to imitate and copy the physical universe. I'm of a mind that much of "truth and beauty" is communicated subliminally through the world around us.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IOovpV_hX9I/TKNARzp8NzI/AAAAAAAAAPI/rm1IilRgso8/s1600/cave_painting_l.jpg

Exquisite....

http://www.paradoxplace.com/Photo%20Pages/UK/Britain_South_and_West/Wells_Cathedral/Images/800/Nave-Sep06-DC4278sAR900.jpg

This one came from the space station a few minutes ago...

https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/333846272823947264/photo/1

It can't help but permeate our consciousness in ways beyond our ability to consciously comprehend.

Of course, we moderns are much to distracted to notice its effect.

That's odd, imajulianutter.

You reminded me that I had previously observed that:

'Reason cannot accept that religion has any factual basis ...'

But surely, this is a statement with which you must be very much in agreement?

Because, as far as I can tell, it is the simple truth that occupies the very heart of Mr Sellick's article. Let's face it, if the opposite were true - that Reason happily accepts that religion has a solid factual underpinning - where would that place his entire argument?

I'm not at all clear as to how it relates to David G's offering of...

'... he reverts to type and the myths and fabrications of theology...'

...which is hardly an objective stance.

>>I myself am much more nuanced when it comes to the religion of Christainity.<<

Nuanced, eh. A useful, non-specific qualification. Much like my own stance on rendition of terrorists for interrogation - I thoroughly approve of it, so long as there isn't torture involved. Pretty "nuanced", wouldn't you agree?

I was on a slightly different track with this one, though:

>>If you like to check you will find I was addressing the issue of literature...<<

I had obviously misinterpreted this statement of yours:

>>I suppose where you see physical representations of Christ as representing truth and beauty, I need only his message<<

And I thought I was exceptionally clear with this:

>>and your statement 'in that truth is a slippery concept at the best of times, and beauty - as we all know - is in the eye of the beholder.' is hardly any sort of reasonable answer to my querry of how you would represent 'truth and beauty'.<<

You yourself admit that...

>>I do not accept all of the basis of Christainity, which is in fact the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.<<

...which is pretty much what I was getting at with my observation on "truth". Selective truth, if you will, is a slippery concept.

As for beauty, I'm pretty sure that no-one has yet identified an absolute measurement. I certainly haven't.

Pericles

I've never seen truth as slippery, you think it slippery and those beliefs are on display here.

I can certainly understand that, imajulianutter.

>>Pericles I've never seen truth as slippery<<

It would certainly be a very difficult concept for you to come to grips with.

Particularly as you have already explained to us:

>>I do not accept all of the basis of Christainity, which is in fact the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But, I unlike both you and David, do in fact accept parts of it. Some I put great faith in, parts little faith in and some no faith in.<<

By "accepting" only a selected subset of the Christian gospels and rejecting others, you must have an extremely finely-honed capability to determine which you "put great faith in, parts little faith in and some no faith in". I completely understand that it would be impossible for you in those circumstances to admit that truth, in these instances, could be even the slightest bit "slippery".

However, these are exactly the circumstances - an apparently seamless presentation of truths, half-truths and non-truths - where I find the concept of truth to be at its very slipperiest.

It would be fascinating to understand how you determine which is which. And whether you have ever found it necessary at any time to move any of them across boundaries, from truth to half-truth, or from non-truth to truth etc.

Any clues?

No new clues Pericles.

When I have given them to you in the past you stumble over them or miss them or twist them.

It is you who have forgotten the original arguments. Peter's, mine and your own. You'll find plenty of clues about my positions in there... if you can develop some skills in simple comprehension.