You're probably right, Banjo Paterson.

>>And to cap it all off, I have the impression that our dear friend is not particularly endowed with communication skills. A little patience and indulgence can do no harm.<<

It is probably best if I don't try to extract any sense out of the communications, having foolishly committed myself to imagining that there was some to extract in the first place.

I'll just back away, slowly...

Dear Pericles,

<<I'll just back away, slowly...>>

And I thank you for freeing up my time to do better things.

.

Dear Pericles and Yuyutsu,

.

The king's a beggar, now the play is done:
All is well ended, if this suit be won,
That you express content; which we will pay,
With strife to please you, day exceeding day:
Ours be your patience then, and yours our parts;
Your gentle hands lend us, and take our hearts.

Exeunt

(Epilogue, "All's Well That Ends Well", Shakespeare)
.

And we, attentive observers, the more wise of it !

.

George,

Thanks for the instructions. I’m not very familiar with amazon.com and I glossed over the image of the book as nothing more than that. I’ll have a read of it shortly.

<<Do you want me to write a story of my life, or what, presumably in less than 350 words?>>

So are you saying that it’s ‘revealed truth’ then? That God has revealed Himself to you through your life? If so, then this poses many problems, such as why a God - who has an important message for us all - would choose to reveal himself only to certain people and in obscure ways that would be ignored by most rational people.

<<Even if I tried, you would again pick it apart, sentence by sentence, to resist my non-existent attempts at converting you (I can’t see any other reason).>>

To understand why others believe what they believe and see if it stands up to scrutiny; to get me thinking; to challenge my own beliefs; to defend reason if I think it goes against it.

There are many reasons. And as I had mentioned once before, one of the fundamental differences between the theist and the atheist is that atheists generally don’t have emotive reasons for their non-belief. So there is simply no reason to assume a resistance on my behalf. That would suggest that I don’t want to believe.

<<I presented my worldview beliefs (representations or models of reality, to use a language borrowed from philosophy of science) in four steps or levels (1. disbelief of Sagan’s maxim, 2. God who can be communicated with, 3. Christianity in general, 4. the Catholic version of Christianity). You want me to talk about jumping from level 1 to 3, possibly 4, in a few words.>>

Any or all of them would be good. I’d be particularly interested in how you came to your decision on 1.

Continued...

...Continued

You’ve said once before that religious belief need not be irrational (presumably you’d include your own in the ‘not irrational’ category), yet you are unable to summarise how you arrived at 1, 2 or 3. As I touched on before, one of the processes of critical thought requires that we be able to summarise what it is that we’re apply our reasoning to.

So how did you determine that your religious beliefs were not irrational without even being able to apply one of the most basic techniques of critical analysis?

<<I am not that important...>>

Either way, if you are going to scoff at, or brush-off arguments from atheists as naive or unsophisticated, then you need to be able to explain how this sophistication renders their points irrelevant, if you want to be taken seriously. It’s not good enough to say that it’s all too sophisticated to explain because your inability to summarise these sophisticated explanations brings into question whether or not you even have one at all.

Perhaps your answers become so complex because you are not asking (or you're avoiding) the right questions..?

<<...there are a legion of books trying to explain why this or that philosopher, scientist etc is a Christian or just believes in God.>>

I’ve read some of the opinions of prominent theistic thinks and watched debates with them (including the ones rational-debate found so convincing) and I am yet to see an argument stands up to any scrutiny or brings into question my broad definition of faith. I was hoping you had something new.

<<To understand the [physical reality] you need mathematics and perhaps to understand [spiritual reality] you need spiritual or mystical insights (don’t ask me to “define” them!).>>

No, I wouldn’t expect that you could define them either. The spiritual and mystical are what people fall back on when they have no rational reason to believe what they are proposing.

Hence my definition of faith.

AJ Philips,

>>if you are going to scoff at, or brush-off arguments from atheists as naive or unsophisticated<<

When I spoke of “naive or unsophisticated” (re philosophy of science or religion) I made it explicit that I meant atheists AS WELL AS theists.

>>I’ve read some of the opinions of prominent theistic thinks … and I am yet to see an argument stands up to any scrutiny <<

Exactly, this is what I gathered from your posts, and this is why I do not see any point in continuing with your interrogation since it is most unlikely that my “arguments” would suddenly stand up to your scrutiny.

>>I’d be particularly interested in how you came to your decision on 1.<<

I already wrote explicitly, that I saw no way to decide ‘logically’ in favour of the Sagan or the other alternative. There are only arguments and predilections that can support one’s preconceived preference but these cannot be explained - or at least are hard to explain - to somebody whose predilections and life experiences have led him/her to the opposite decision. So you are right that I should not have mentioned “spiritual or mystical insights” that I do not have myself (but accept and respect them in others).

“The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing” (Blaise Pascal’s). Maybe reason needs also the “heart” (particluar personal life experiences) ingredient to opt for the non-materialist alternative.

Since I cannot communicate any convincing to you reasons for my preference, let me finish this exchange (and apparently the whole thread now that also others gave up) with two quotes I already posted here some years ago:

“Do not go afar: seek within thyself. Truth resides inside of man.” (Augustine of Hippo)

“Truth descends only on him who tries for it, who yearns for it, who carries within himself, pre-formed, a mental space where the Truth may eventually lodge.” (Ortega y Gasset).