Sells, the educated understand that God is a complete illusion in the minds of those who believe in him. (Small "h")
Man has made god in his own image to satisfy some inner deficiency in his/her psyche, no more, no less. End of story.

David

Dear Peter,

Materialism is the attitude of valuing the material world, considering it important.

Either you value and serve God, or you value and serve the material world - no one can serve two masters at once.

Unfortunately, even parts of the bible (especially in the old testament) are materialistic. You cannot avoid the conclusion that the bible is a patchwork by different authors.

YuYutsu,
I agree. The other meaning of materialism is the focus on the material world to the exclusion of (what word can I use without misunderstanding) spiritual. This is the dualism that Paul plays with, that between the spirit and the flesh. This is not mind/body or spirit/body dualism that we find inn Descartes, it is an orientation to the flesh rather than to God.

Everything in the entire knowable universe is energy in some transformed form.
Given energy can neither be created or destroyed, it had to always exist in some form, perhaps dark energy?
Not all that long ago we neither knew of or believed in dark energy!
To propose such a thing existed would have brought howls of derision down on your head!
Even so, a projection of dark matter into the known universe, and a transformation into the energy forms we can see or otherwise detect, became possible due to the possibility of energy transformation, dark to white energy, and light?
And given almost anything is possible, possible celestial ejaculation?
Certainly more rational than a big bang and something from nothing!
Can the universe think?
Well you and I can, and we along with all other thinkers, are an integral part of it!
Is there a spiritual afterlife?
Well if you've personally seen credible evidence, believe what you will.
Others remain free to think what they may, or what suits their particular conformation bias/belief system?
To those I merely say, seek ye first the kingdom of heaven within and learn to meditate!
As for what to believe?
It hard to go past the mighty irrefutable truth, and allow it to lead us where it may; perhaps one day to new homes among the stars?
Whatever you believe, it's important to keep an open mind, in the knowledge you and your unshakable belief could still be entirely wrong?
Or being lead down a completely false path!
An open mind is just as important as an open parachute, and a virtual lifesaver, in many respects, but particularly for those following a false prophet to an untimely death. [It's not the fall that hurts, just the sudden stop at the bottom!]
Importantly, there is some credible evidence for reincarnation and past lives. [Certainly more than a Messiah nailed to a cross?]
Which then makes perfect sense out of, so as you sow so also shall you reap!
So, attack poverty and disadvantage wherever you find it!
Rhrosty!

But what about Sat-Chit-Ananda (Being, Consciousness and Love-Bliss-Radiance) a topic which Sells referred to earlier this year when he mentioned the then new book by David Bentley Hart

And yes everything is quite literally a play of indestructible Primal Energy or Conscious Light.

These two references describe the situation:
Short version:
http://www.beezone.com/great_tradition_basket/epilogue.html
Longer extended version:
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/He_She_Me/Tat_Sundaram!_All_Of_This.html

Hardly any of the usual dreadfully sane Christian propaganda hacks ever talk or write about Consciousness with a Capital C (or even a lower case c). They never ever talk or write about Ananda or Love-Bliss-Radiance.

And yet Sat, Chit, and Ananda are the intrinsic always already indivisible tripartite nature of Who and What we Are in Truth & Reality.
This Ancient Understanding of Reality is discussed in detail in this book: http://global.adidam.org/books/ancient-teachings

Dear Daffy,

<<Hardly any of the usual dreadfully sane Christian propaganda hacks ever talk or write about Consciousness with a Capital C (or even a lower case c). They never ever talk or write about Ananda or Love-Bliss-Radiance.>>

Why don't they teach Einstein's theory of relativity in kindergartens?
Does it mean that kindergartens are superfluous?

Christianity practices unqualified dualism (http://www.satramana.org/html/unqualified-_qualified-_dualism-_nondualism.htm) because it best serves the Christian community. Guilt-ridden individuals are not ready to benefit even from qualified dualism, as it would make them conceive of the nature of God to be as sinful as theirs. Nothing else can help them unless they first reduce the heaviness of their sins to manageable dimensions.

.

Dear Peter Sellick,

.

You wrote :

« God remains a reality before which we must give way … »

This is an illustration of that well known (fallacious) argument that illusions are real (genuine) illusions and therefore part of reality and so should not be distinguished from reality.

It is an “argument from ignorance” (in which ignorance stands for “lack of evidence to the contrary”). Remember Russell’s teapot :

« Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time »

The issues you raise in your articles are often quite interesting but, unfortunately, your frequent recourse to such intellectually poor dialectic as “God remains a reality …” is puerile and, regrettably, disrespectful of your readers.

You alone know if it is pure provocation, frustration at not being able to prove that your beliefs correspond to reality, a genuine incapacity on your part to discern between faith and reality, or - and I hesitate to evoke the possibility – megalomania, bordering on intellectual dishonesty.

You're right: “One would hope for more from the educated!”

.

"The great strength of the bible is that it incorporated contradictory ideas."

This is called 'turning a bug into a feature', Peter. What could be more inclusive and all-embracing, after all, than 700 pages of randomly-chosen and arbitrary drivel? But why stop there? Can you not persuade your fellows to abandon the Bible in favour of Joyce's Finnegans Wake, which is even longer and less coherent?

The content is gradually leaching from your articles over time, as your attempts to defend the belief for which you get paid in the face of your obvious intelligence become more and more cursory.