Peter wrote "He is a God of the gaps, a being we posit to fill a lack in our understanding." Exactly - this is true of all religions and all gods - man creates god, rather than the reverse.

Later, "If we want our children to learn about God let them be taught from the Bible ..." No, let us teach ourselves and our children to know ourselves and our world through direct experience; this is the only way we can know the divine, not through intermediaries or the written or spoken word.

Peter, I was once a great admirer of Bertrand Russell. But then I discovered that it was possible and necessary to go beyond the reason and intellect if we were to develop true understanding and purify ourselves. Can you go beyond your intellect?

Peter, I've just seen your reply to my post on your previous column, in which you thank me "for putting the opposite case so well" and recognise the importance of overcoming attachment. You then say, incorrectly, that seeking non-attachment "inevitably leads to a dualism between the good that the self aspires to and the evil of the world," and that the consequence of this "is that the world is neglected and this accounts for the state of disarray of Buddhist countries." This dualism is an intellectual concept; non-attachment is found by the non-intellectual practice of direct, non-judgmental, detached observation of reality as it manifests from moment to moment.

As for your comment on "Buddhist" countries, Buddhism is an organised religion whose adherents are often ignorant of, and do not adhere to, the core teachings of the Buddha. Even so, I find that in Burma there is among the people a level of harmony and unselfishness which is rare elsewhere, even though there is an oppressive military regime which keeps a tight rein on the monks.

I have been fortunate to meet several saintly people (as well as Bertrand Russell!). One of their distinguishing characteristics (along with love, compassion, non-attachment) is a great pragmatism. In seeking to help others to develop saintly, or if you like Christ-like, qualities, these saints are acutely aware of the merits and demerits of the people and situations they deal with, and how best they can help people. They put their efforts to best use in helping suffering humanity at the deepest level.

You then queried my comment that ”reality has to be the basis for any spiritual development,” responding that "The question is, what is the reality that is that basis, the “reality” of wishful thinking and ideology or the actual experienced reality of the world." Reality is reality; here and now, something that can be directly experienced; it can't be found in ideology or wishful thinking. If you don't know how to have such direct experience, please let me know and I will advise. (And I am male.)

So, does a "robust design" vary between different faiths and religions?

And if it did, why is so many variety existing?

To Faustino,

Faustino, your attitude to social science could mean that you ultimately only believe in a kind of divine faith as purported in both Old and New Testaments. But you must admit that while much of it could be part of what is termed a Divine Plan, much of it is twisted to suit the ego of some much more earthly and ordinary personality, like our present US President.

It could be suggested also that when we are close to death we become very personal about things, the loss of being in touch with our loved ones, but possibly above all that personal one, is there truly another life up or out there somewhere?. Certainly the Bible has taught us how to be in touch with the Divine in such a crisis. But it is the social scientists, or the philosophers such as Bertrand Russell et al. who can look at the Divine Inspirations of our leaders, and wonder sometimes what they are up to?.

You must agree that the powers that be, on both sides need a good dose of what social scientists call moral philosophy, not with a Bible or the Koran in one hand, and cutlass or a scimitar in the other. And, in fact, many social scientists say both sides are wrong, and in fact, with our greed for hegemon and contraband and so much lie-telling about it, we so-called true Christians could be more on the so-called evil side than the other.

The problem with both the Bible and the Koran they both can be interpreted to justify the Promised Land syndrome, which to be sure, the Lord Jesus never gave agreement to, not on earth, anyway, only the promise of heaven.

That is what good social scientists say about Holy Books, they seem to be a mixture of the presence of some sort of Holiness, but like the Revelations of St John the Divine, somewhat fictional, and very very dangerous if taken as Gospel, as is proven with some of our cousins in America. Becoming more like stormtroopers than true followers of Christ.

FAUSTINO

I'm going to be a bit cheeky here.. would you please provide a short list (could not be more than 2 or 3) of the famous dignitaries you have NOT met ? :)

As for Bertrand Russell, he did the world (and wanna be philosophers or forum contributors) a great favor by summarizing the views of the major thinkers of Western Philosophy and putting them into a book. (which is one of my cherished possessions)

May I recommend that the best way to overcome 'dukkha' is to be transformed in mind, heart and will, by not a 'list' of things to do or not do, but by the indwelling risen Christ who renews one from the soul up. Much 'dukkha' is caused by sin, so repentance is the medicine. Much dukkha is caused by guilt, and forgiveness is the solution. Instead of trying to stop craving, it is better to redirect the carnal craving towards a worthy object, that way it is not supressed/repressed. God, through Christ is the noblest of focus.

Cheers

Pericles
"one thing that Anthony Flew did not do was to suggest that there is any evidence for intelligent design"

Err, It seems he said there was evidence in the very quote you listed. That the vast complexity of dna WAS evidence of intelligent design. He clearly felt there was evidence and your attempt to spin what he said is transparent. (Note, he didn't attribute the intelligence to any particular God)

Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

Evidence again. Flew keeps using that word.

<On scripture>
"Well, that's all right then.
When will it occur to you scripture folk that it speaks only that which you want to hear? Boaz will read ... only in the terms of what he, as an individual, wants to get from it."

Deconstruction is irrational, denying the possibility of communication. I could apply the same comment to your own writing and make it 'speak only to what I want to hear' to decide you agree completely with everything I say.

The absurdity of this concept is evident, UNLESS you admit that the authors intent and meaning can be known to some extent by a reader, in which case your point becomes irrelevant.

"... but to rely on "the scriptures tell us" as a form of proof statement, intrinsically proven and entire of itself, is utter self-delusional nonsense. "

You inability to see outside of your own presuppositions is disappointing. The comment was made in the context to someone who was using scripture as a guide and so was talking to someone with vastly different presuppositions to you. If you take the time to think outside your worldview you might have seen the point of the comment. As it stands, it's clear that you don't want to.

Sells
"I say this because I find that much of my thinking comes out of the thing I am reading at the moment."

Which is troubling in and of itself. Your thinking must not have much of a foundation to be led so easily.