Poor Sells - always trying to flog a very dead horse. A horse frozen in the stone of the now archaic relics of Europe.
These references give a unique Illuminated Understanding of the nature of Truth & (Quantum) Reality.
http://global.adidam.org/books/gift-of-truth-itself
http://www.dabase.org/aletheon.htm various essays including these two
http://www.dabase.org/illusion-weather.htm
http://www.dabase.org/dogmas_of_social_morality.htm

These two references describe how the usual dreadfully sane Christian doubt-mind is bereft of any kind of pyscho-physical or Spiritual sensitivity - which is precisely the case with the world-view promoted by Sells.
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/nirvanasara/chapter1.html
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/universal-scientism this essay was originally published as The Psychosis of Doubt

Plus these two references we the hidden/lost dimensions of esoteric Christianity
http://www.aboutadidam.org/articles/secret_identity/beyond_hidden.html
http://www.beezone.com/esoteric_christianity.htm

Proof perfect why the Church of England has an over abundance of empty pews.
This is pure theologian talk and Peter has learned it well. The Bible has gone from being hidden away from prying eyes to literally true and when that all got too embarrassing then it became a "message" to be taken in context.
Goal post shifting at it's finest.
The Bible of course contains some moral wisdom but nothing to indicate it was all institute by a god rather than a group of late Iron Age humans trying to figure out the complex world around them.
The Jesus story is interesting only in that is combines many aspects of religious beliefs at the time. A window into history.
Interesting to see from the census figures that many ex-Anglicans were smart enough to figure out what religious institutions are really all about.

Its no mystery that the Bible was heavily edited word-by-word by a self-interested band of old, male, Romans after the Romans conveniently had Christ killed. In that male-only editorial process sections-"books" were deleted on womens' equality and participation.

In the first centuries AD Rome's decline in military power was largely replaced by Rome's use of Christianity as a form of religious power projection throughout the Empire.

What a silly question, Mr Sellick.

"Is Christianity 'true'?"

Of course it is true.

In precisely the same way that to the citizenry of China during both the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, it remained perfectly true that Chairman Mao was the Great Leader. No matter that tens of millions of people had died as a result of that "Leadership", the truth remained, clearly - and frequently - articulated by the people. Similar examples exist elsewhere, in North Korea, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Adolf Hitler's Third Reich etc.

Essentially, "Truth" cannot be corralled into a simple set of absolutes. And any attempt to do so is almost certain to be the work of a tyrant.

In Mr Sellick's story, there is no tyrant. Just the same-old massive gap between belief and logic, undertaken my millions, every day. Just as it was in Mao's China.

A couple of paragraphs explain that "[m]uch of [the Bible] is certainly not true", and we are also invited to use novel-writing as an analogy, in that the Scriptures are "similar to the way that modern novels are completely made up stories that take us on a path of recognition".

However, we are then informed that "[i]t is proclaimed in Genesis that God made man in His own image."

If this is purely figurative, but at the same time the fundamental message of Christianity, this only serves to put the Bible on the same intellectual level as the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, Watership Down and the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Which should - but clearly isn't - a problem to Mr Sellick's promotion of Christianity as the definitive religion.

Exactly what Pericles said.

What I find confounding is the number of people who need take the bible literally and are leaving the 'older' Christian denominations in droves.

I have a re-issue of the original Tales of the Brothers Grimm. Chock-a-Block with moral lessons. They're more entertaining and nobody takes them literally. Prefer it to the mostly poorly written oft translated bible any day.

I agree Yvonne, it confounds me too that while the pews are emptying in Catholic, CE, Uniting, Mormons and other mainstream churches, we are getting more people singing in the aisles of mad congregations like Hillsong and other 'born again' bible believers!

The bible has not become any more believable over the centuries, but I guess there will always be people who need the comfort of belief in a historical book or a god or two, to try to make sense of this world.

Acknowledging that the Bible isn't reliable history still leaves the question: was it a Good Thing or a Bad Thing that Christianity dominated Europe for a millennium and still has enormous power in much of the world? Yes, it gave us schools, but closed Plato's Academy. Yes, it gave us much wonderful art but destroyed pagan statues and pagan literature.
The best essay I've seen on the pluses and minuses of Christian dominance is on imagining "A World without Monotheism" at http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2009/11/23/a-world-without-monotheism/
Christianity has been strong on hospitals, repressive of much sexuality. As the essay concludes: take your pick.

Its easy to see that any thinking person can see the absolute faith required for one to believe order from chaos and to deny a Designer where things are so clearly designed. Just happens that One told the truth and died for it while others tell lies and hand out degrees for it. Sells brand of 'Christianity' is defined by the apostle Paul as being the brand to be pitied above all. Either Christ is Creator, Judge, Saviour, Coming King or He is a liar. Its takes a lot of twisting and squirming and denial not to understand His clear words. You will always have the mockers and scoffers who think their petty little ideologies (such as feminism, socialism, capitalism, evolutionism) somehow are smarter than the words of Christ. It was no different than those who nailed Him to the tree. Anyone can see through these pathetic attempts to deny Him. It is no wonder that the 'churches' that deny Him are empyting at the rate of knots. Many of them have now got gw theology, social theology and useless pyschology replacing the Only One who can save them from their sin and stupidity.

Runner, please turn out the lights when you're ready, no one else is still there.

'Runner, please turn out the lights when you're ready, no one else is still there. '

ConservativeHippie

don't judge everyone by your own apathy or spiritual deadness ConservativeHippie. There are many thriving believers even in this nation.

runner

Before you kissed the Bishop's ring - He (never She of course) should have told you that life isn't an Either/Or proposition. Life is more complex and somewhere in between.

Jesus never said "you are for me or you're damned sinners."

One person's good may be another person's evil - when there are limited resources. Maybe limited land between monotheistic Christians, monotheistic Jews and monotheistic Muslims - take Jerusalem as an example. All the same God for all 3 faiths.

You listen to ConservativeHippie for he/she/it is chock full of wisdom.

Pete

I fully agree with earlier comments that “of course Christianity is true”. It, in my opinion, Christianity started in the first century as Greco-Judaic mystery cult, similar to the Dionysian and Isiac cults, but one which melded the Jewish tradition of a mythical Messiah with the Greek tradition of a Logos (i.e. the “Word”of God).
Christianity was first recorded in history by an individual (or individuals) who wrote, in Greek, under the name of “Paul”. This “Christian” cult had mixed fortunes until the fourth century when it was adopted by the emperor Constantine and later on given official state status by the emperor Theodosius. Constantine’s reasons for favouring Christianity are not known but it has been suggested that he may have done it to counter the Mithraism cult which had gained strong popularity among his legions.
There is ample evidence to suggest that Paul(s) epistles never referred to a living/breathing “Jesus Christ” but were referring to a mythical saviour along the lines of Dionysus. The very name “Jesus Christ” is a mixture of Greek & Hebrew meaning “Anointed Saviour”. The mythical Jesus was only fleshed out as an historical person by the biblical writer(s) known as Mathew, Mark, Luke and John during the second century.
Once Christianity was adopted as the state religion it, of course, took off big time. A whole bureaucracy of priest & bishops had to be created to run the religion. Councils, e.g. the Nicene, had to be held to formalise what Christians should believe (e.g.) about how the now humanised Jesus Christ related to God Almighty, etc. The entrepreneurial types in the empire also found they could make good business taking over Mithraic temples and property.
This symbiotic relationship between the Christian religion and the State has survived for nearly two millennium but it now looks like it is being supplanted by the more militant Islam whose adherents see it as a way of breaking loose from a now decadent Christian suzerainty

Christianity is true in that it reflects humanity's obstinate capacity for and experience of the numinous--as well as for despair. Religion is not merely a means of subjection, but a rationale for our absurd predicament.
If consciousness, and the qualities it affords, is the work of blind evolutionary forces, it's yet another illustration of the cruelty of nature.

'Jesus never said "you are for me or you're damned sinners." '

plantagenet,

u demonstrate that you know little of what Jesus said. I suggest you read and find out.

.

Dear Peter Sellick,

.

You wrote :

« There is no such thing as pure atheism, we always trust in something … »
.

Trusting in something (or somebody) is not theism. It is simply having confidence in something (or somebody). Nor is not trusting in something (or somebody) atheism. It is simply not having confidence in something (or somebody).

The notion of “trust” is not restricted to religious belief. It has a much broader application.

Trusting a friend to repay his debt to you has nothing to do with theism. Nor does placing your trust in a parachute to open when you jump out the plane.

By the same token, not trusting a politician to keep his electoral promises has nothing to do with atheism. Nor does not trusting a paedophile with your lovely little ten year old grand-daughter for the weekend.

The same principle applies regarding my lack of trust in your ability to reply impartially to the interrogation of your article: “Is Christianity 'true'?”.

Given the 139 articles you have posted on OLO to date (if I have counted correctly ), as an Anglican deacon, I find it difficult to believe that you are not biased.

That lack of trust is not atheism. It’s just good common sense.

.

Well said Banjo Paterson.

Runner, how do you really know what a bloke called Jesus, if there ever was such a bloke, actually said thousands of years ago?

Why do you believe what the Bible's authors wrote?
Where is the proof they wrote the truth, and not just some vaguely interesting fiction?
There is no proof, only faith....

Here's the executive summary:

1. Christianity is all lies.
2. But they're COMFORTING lies, and
3. The world is shite.
4. So we should believe in them unless you have something better.
5. Atheism is NOT better.
6. No, really, it's not.
7. It isn't, honestly.

'Where is the proof they wrote the truth, and not just some vaguely interesting fiction? '

you Susie and every other doubter/denier is clear proof. Read what Jesus said about you Susie and see how he describes you very accuratley.

Peter,

Thanks for an interesting article, although its point would be missed by many, also because of its apologetic tone, as most of the comments here attest to. You might remember that I did not understand quite a few of your other articles, this one I think I did.

Still no proof then Runner?
Apparently it says somewhere in the book "Love thy neighbour as you would yourself".
You don't seem to agree with that one at all.

Faith based belief is just that, whether one is locked in to evolutionist or intelligent interventionism, atheism or communism, or any other ism imperative.
Take for example the story of a completely healthy tribesperson, who having had the bone pointed at him or her, lapses into a torpor and dies in just three days!
No power of the witch doctor/wooden god caused this death; just stone age superstition coupled the power of suggestion and dehydration!
We may well be able to live without food for forty days, but cannot live much beyond two, without water!
Was JC the literal son of God?
Well yes, inasmuch as we all are the sons and daughters of the universe!
Which is all just transformed energy; as indeed, we are!
Can the universe think or make rational decisions?
Well you and I are and can, and are in every sense, an integral part of it! And indeed, recipients of the literally millions of carefully timed steps, that resulted in carbon life forms or us!
Finally, given energy can neither be destroyed or created, it had to exist in some form before the so-called or still highly theoretical big bang!
And if we need something to believe in, to fill a faith based belief "void" in our lives, we could do a lot worse than believing in evidence based, irrefutable truth, (what the mind of man can conceive and believe, the mind of man can achieve) (i.e.,fire walking, spontaneous cures or recovery, and apparently possible for each and every one of us, if invested with the, power of belief; our inherent real magic)coupled to the notion of natural justice and a fair go!
Just that much will enable each and everyone of us to thoroughly reject the witch doctor, even the most modern versions, and simply get on doing the best we can with what we have, and indeed, helping those with less, when and if we can, along the way!
Given one day, anyone of us could be stood in those very same shoes, and would want no less, from anybody else!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, atheism is not a belief.

See the definition from Wikipedia : a lack of belief in God or Gods.
One doesn't need faith to not believe in non-existent deities.

Thank you George. I do not take the comments here seriously. They seem to be generated out of a mass of prejudice and misunderstanding. The worrying thing is that they are so predictable. Same old line, same old tired arguments. I really wonder if they read me at all! I think as soon as they seem my name something engages in their mind and out comes the usual irrational drivel.
Best wishes.
Pete

.

« Sells who is void of wisdom despiseth his readers: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace.»

.

Proverbs, chapter 11, verse 12 (adapted)

.

Peter, if the responses to your articles are predictable, that's because the articles always say exactly the same things. Provide some supporting evidence, and we can have fun refuting it. But if all you're going to do is make the same dreary unsupported assertions over and over and over and over again, what can you expect but the same responses? As a great man said: 'What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'.

Yes Suse and point taken.
However, to believe in one thing and use that to refuse to believe in evidence based belief, like say, climate change is real, and even now, if we act in a timely manner, we could actually do something about it!
And quite massively improve our economic performance whilst doing so.
Atheism seems also to go hand in hand with an absolute belief in (faith based absolutism) evolutionism.
If we believe this theory, then we have to also believe in magic, given there would be a greater chance of a whirlwind whipping through a junk yard, (pure chance) and resulting in a fully assembled flyable, 747!
And this evolution absolutism persists, in spite of the fact no nitrogenous coke deposits, that would prove we climbed out of some primordial slime, are yet to be discovered; or indeed, that some single cell organisms, have refused to get on board with this faith based belief system, and remain stubbornly (non-evolved) single cell organisms.
I prefer to remain an agnostic, given that just doesn't require me to announce an atheist's disbelief; perhaps and in my experience, with almost the same evangelistic fervor of other fundamentalists.
Perhaps I could have used the term fundamentalism, as opposed to atheism, to be more accurate?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

To take up another point; clearly this person known as JC, never actually penned anything runner!
And for all we know, was like later foundational, so called religious leaders or founders, entirely illiterate; as were his (stone tablet reading) peers!?
And such account as attributed to him or her is absolute hearsay of hearsay, of hearsay, and so on?
And allegedly, were written 50-100 years after the event, and by writers who patently plagiarized and routinely embellished the work of others!
None of which are eye witness accounts!
I'd imagine any modern day investigative reporter, would be given Jail time, for promulgating this, he said, that he said, that she said material, and purporting it to be both true and factual!
Little wonder it is often presented as the greatest story ever told!
And in any modern day interpretation, story is always a work of fiction at worst, and highly dramatized, if entirely unproven documentation at best!
Compare any compulsion related, (thou shall not) religion or absolutism, with the ring in a bull's nose!
The ring is placed there in order to control and lead the bull where the controlling entity would have him go!
Be it to the herd of cows for mating duties, the castration corral, the matador's sword or the abattoir.
The analogy is probably appropriate, given the theology includes, compulsory celibacy; and tolerates age related enforced retirement, if not outright elder abuse; and or, preaches the rightness of accumulating wealth; all of which invariably incorporates some exploitation of others, or slavery!
I mean, what else would you call wages lower than the actual cost of maintaining a kept slave; or for that matter, an entirely unpaid priest!
Rhrosty.

Yes Rhosty, I too have called myself agnostic rather than atheist, as no one has proved there isn't a God either!

As far as evolution goes, science has proved there has been some evolution of species, but not that we know how life on earth actually started.

Then again, no one has proved that any God gave us life on earth either.
I prefer to just sit on the fence until I can see proof!

I find this whole article depressing. Surely even the most devout believers must know that the stories in the New Testament were written 100 to 200 years after the death of Christ, and that He may not even have existed.

People sure are gullible! Years ago, when we were all ignorant, illiterate, superstitiously believing in witches and devils, perhaps one could be forgiven for following obvious charlatans like Joseph Smith, the Prophet Mohammad, or even Jesus; but today, surely one's brain must have some defect, most probably caused by deep indoctrination in one's formative years.

We can't disprove the existence of God, just as we can't disprove Bertrand Russell's flying teapot, Santa Clause, or the Flying Spaghetti monster. But we shouldn't have to. At least, belief in a God is an honest, if mistaken, position to have, but Agnosticism is a cowardly position to take. Does one really have to wait for science to prove that fairies don't exist?

Richard Dawkins once commented that he would not debate religion in a public forum, and aprt from this, neither will I.

Thank you George. I do not take Peter's articles here seriously. They seem to be generated out of a mass of prejudice and misunderstanding. The worrying thing is that they are so predictable. Same old line, same old tired arguments. I really wonder if he tries to engage with the reader at all! I think as soon as he sits down to write, something engages in his mind and out comes the usual irrational drivel.
Best wishes.
Pericles

Sells continues to write these boring epistles because he hopes that, one day, he will read something that he has written that he can believe is true.

Until that happens, he will never stop writing fiction or accusing we who know it is fiction of being stupids!

Dear Bob,

<<We can't disprove the existence of God>>

Yes we can and I've learned this in primary school:

As God is claimed to be omnipotent, could He create a stone so heavy that He couldn't lift it?

If He couldn't, then He's not omnipotent and if He could, then He couldn't lift it: either way He wouldn't be omnipotent.

Thus God does not exist!

- Which is a great relief, thus glory and thanks be to God: Had God existed, then people would only worship Him in order to obtain worldly results (heaven included), thus turning religion into a marketplace. But since He doesn't exist, we can love and worship God for the sake of God alone, without expectations, thus religion is refined and is able to take us away from the world.

---

Dear George,

<<Thanks for an interesting article, although its point would be missed by many, also because of its apologetic tone,>>

I wonder whether I possibly missed this article's point myself. Besides the apologetic tone, most points I have already read in Peter's previous articles and the new ones which I noticed, I did not agree with (such as praising the concept of the linearity of time and the natural sciences).

So would you kindly share with me if you found any unique new point(s) in this article?

---

Dear David,

<<Sells continues to write these boring epistles>>

Because he aims here to defeat Christian fundamentalism.
It is only natural that, not being a Christian, his articles seem boring to you. They bore me too when they're too focused on Christian specifics, but usually he also writes about universal aspects that are common to all religions - which I then enjoy reading.

Dear Yuyutsu,

>>most points I have already read in Peter's previous articles<<

Which only means that you understood those of his articles that I either did not, or completely missed.

>>such as praising the concept of the linearity of time and the natural sciences<<

What he apparently understands by linearity (in distinction to circularity) of time is something modern science is based on, and hardly original, praise or no praise. The same about natural science without which, for instance, you and I could not communicate this way.

>>So would you kindly share with me if you found any unique new point(s) in this article? <<

You yourself found this point, sort of - I did not claim it was unique or new - namely that Christianity can be understood beyond fundamentalism, or biblical literalism (“un-hermeneutic” adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense). This does not necessarily mean that I share his understanding only his belief that one can go beyond fundamentalism and still remain a Christian.

.

Dear Rhrosty,

.

You wrote :

« Atheism seems also to go hand in hand with an absolute belief in (faith based absolutism) evolutionism. »
.
I think you will find that some people do that whether they are atheists or not. But there are others who take a more reasonable - should I say “scientific” - approach to the question, i.e., evolution is the best explanation until we find a better one.

Even Pope John Paul II was a fervent proponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution:

“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favour of the theory.” (speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 22 October, 1996).

More recently, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 27 October 2014 indicating that "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation", warning against thinking of God's act of creation as "God being a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything."

As you say, there may still be a few absolutists around but they are not all atheists and most likely diminishing in number – except, perhaps among the Catholics.

.

Where atheism/rationalism does border on religion is in the faith it places in human reason--and indeed in the human senses. Reason is the middleman in all empirical endeavour. And reason has proved itself time and again to be a cultural/historical rationale on the 'data' that is subsequently superseded.
I am an agnostic, which is not 'cowardly' but sensible. I place my faith in human foibles.
But the most disturbing element of liberal rationalism/New Atheism--an ism which is tantamount to a faith--is its political naivity.
Finally, though it is now almost universally suppressed or self-censored, there remains a human faculty/appreciation for the numinous, as well as its direct experience--which isn't half so naive.

Squeers,

To say that rationalism places “faith” in human reason is misleading, because faith implies an unjustified belief. It would be more accurate to say that rationalism recognises that reason is the most reliable method (given what we currently know) to determine the truth-value of claims, and that rationalists are sceptical of other proposed ways of knowing.

Atheism and theism have nothing to say about reason, they simply address the question the belief in a god or gods; as opposed to gnosticism and agnosticism, which address what one thinks they can and can’t know. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

.

Dear Squeers & AJ Philips,

.

« Where atheism/rationalism does border on religion is in the faith it places in human reason--and indeed in the human senses … I am an agnostic … »

AJ’s comments on that appear to me to be pertinent. Also, I acquiesce, Squeers, that your agnosticism does (as you seem to suggest) at least, partly, explain your vision of atheism/rationalism as a “religion”.

Had you managed to clarify the situation, one way or the other – as it seems AJ and I have done - perhaps the distinction between atheism/rationalism/religion may become more evident. Though I must admit that a number of people on this forum who declare themselves to be firm believers in God appear, like you, to qualify as religion, our confidence (faith) in confronting life’s difficulties and improving the human condition without feeling the need to have recourse to some hypothetical supernatural entity for assistance.

I maintain, however, as I indicated in my post to Peter Sellick (on page 3 of this thread) regarding “trust” : having faith or confidence in something or somebody is not restricted to religious belief. It has a much broader application.

Also, what AJ refers to as “unjustified belief” is what I call “blind faith”, i.e., “belief where there is no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no credible eye witness” [“faith”, itself, being defined as : “belief where there is no material evidence, only circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness (or both)”].

I interpret the fact that you indicate that you place your faith in “human foibles” as an aid to the comprehension of your character – which I appreciate. I, personally, tend to look on the brighter side of life and see, not only the "foibles", but the “human qualities” as well. Where there's a "yin", there's a "yang".

.

AJ Philips,
I’d say our first problem is expecting language to be definitive or objective. Inference and interpretation are mediated by the vagaries of language, restrictions of jargon, limitations of knowledge, impositions of prejudice, and other conditioned/subjective corruptions. ‘Reason’ must cope with all this in analysing and presenting its subject matter. But wait, neither is the subject matter truly empirical, but comprised for the intellect of the very same linguistic chaos, which precedes and conditions analysis.
You are imposing restrictions on the word ‘faith’ which do not obtain. ‘Faith’ can also imply calculated belief, ‘such as this plane shouldn’t crash’, or ‘evolution is almost certainly correct’. In fact, it’s as slippery as any of the other words we put our faith in. In this instance I deliberately gave it a rhetorical edge. I took exception to Beaucoupbob’s arrogant and simplistic denunciation, itself entirely rhetorical and as we were meant to. These New Atheist types tend to police their ‘reason’ and slap down anything they think offends it, without even deigning to debate it, and as if their ‘reason’ possessed a fidelity that justified their faith in.
So my argument is that rationalism is not reasonable. It does fine work on the face of it, given our presumably limited perception and the cultural baggage it carries, but its trial and error accomplishments (btw why should reason and objectivity proceed by trial error if they are what they claim to be?) often have negative consequences because the feigned objectivity has no higher directive (which is not to invoke God), only an economic or political one, generally cynical.
“…rationalists are sceptical of other proposed ways of knowing”
Yes indeed, not merely sceptical, but hostile. Yet other modes of perception and ‘knowing’ (not a word I’d use) remain compelling, even inexplicable, and not just for simpletons. I for one refuse to be silenced. I am convinced, in spite of myself, of a much deeper reality than that arrived at by elimination and propounded by dogmatists.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

You wrote:

« ‘Faith’ can also imply calculated belief, ‘such as this plane shouldn’t crash’, or ‘evolution is almost certainly correct’. »
.

Yes, what you call “calculated belief” is what I call “circumstantial evidence”: crash statistics for a particular airline operator, type of plane etc. and scientific evidence as regards evolution.

.

You also wrote :

« I am convinced, in spite of myself, of a much deeper reality than that arrived at by elimination … »
.

I have witnessed some very eerie, inexplicable phenomena in my life, so exceptional that my mind is open to all sorts of weird and wonderful revelations. However, my anticipation - judging by previous scientific discoveries (circumstantial evidence) - is that they are due to aspects of nature which we have not yet identified, let alone fathomed and understood.

Until we do, unlike primeval man, I do not feel the need to invent some supernatural entity as a provisional explanation.

.

AJ Philips,
on your second paragraph I again have to differ:
"Atheism and theism have nothing to say about reason, they simply address the question the belief in a god or gods".

To strip these words of their contexts and treat them merely as signifiers is again to miss the point that words and their meanings are cultural constructs, and not direct or reliable signifiers. Theism of course comprises a vast antiquity and collection/conceptual framework of deities, and for much of human thought is decidedly associated with reason. Indeed reason was grounded in it, or in some other metaphysical construct which served as foundation. It's only in the modern era that reason has devoted itself to empiricism, but with still unresolved difficulties.
If I say I'm an agnostic, or you say you're an atheist, we are not making simple observations; we each choose a position which carries myriad implications, which are accorded kudos or condemnation according to the cultural sensibilities we're immured in.
We don't simply take a stand. As if we could! As if could arbitrate independently! As if our minds (which are what?) were truly at a remove from the action: objective.
Rather, we invest intellectually in a "conceptual spectrum", however conceited we may be about being 'purists'. There are no purists. All is vanity (once again, and from the individualist perspective).
My own position in agnosticism is a corruption of the original meaning, perfectly acceptable today; almost synonymous with scepticism (which was once a sin), I am agnostic in all things. Atheism is as much a world view as its opposite. It's a boast of intellectual purity, a mode of condescension, a withering denunciation, a barely repressed intolerance, an uncritical worship of scientific magic tricks, a faith in the capacity of science to keep us safe and comfortable, and ergo default support for the economic system which facilitates it.
Dawkins is as much a high priest as the Pope is; both ride on a tide of populism.

Banjo Paterson,
hopefully my last answers yours too. I don't feel the need to invent deities either, but I object to this wholesale dismissal of those countless "primeval" generations you imply merely "invented" deities. Among these were countless wo/men of learning in all likelihood far more intelligent and perceptive than us. I'm afraid I lack both the breathtaking presumption to dismiss them en masse, and the faith in my own culture's necessarily narrow constructions on the phenomenal universe.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

Thank you for clarifying that. It seems our positions are fairly similar. Almost the same content but with a different label.

George tells me that I am a Christian because I was baptised as a baby, even though I never believed in the existence of a god and eventually acquired the certainty that there is none when I made the effort of delving into the history of it and discovered how the myth arose.

Despite my previous scepticism, it came to me as a revelation. Quite an exhilarating experience. Nevertheless it seems I have been branded for life as a Christian in the eyes of society.

The only label I am willing to accept is that of “a very ordinary person”. I see no reason to qualify myself by reference to those who believe in something which does not exist. That makes no sense to me. It seems ridiculous.

I understand your definition of agnosticism and your reasons for adopting it as a label but, like atheism, it too evokes the notion of deity, the supernatural and religion as a point of reference which, again, makes no sense to me.

None of the 7.3 billion people on earth were born as theists or Gnostics but as “very ordinary people”. Theism and Gnosticism are human concepts which are usually spoon-fed to the offspring of successive generations by society. They derive from nurture, not nature.

If we were to reverse the labelling process and take “very ordinary people” as the point of reference, then those who espouse deity, the supernatural, Gnosticism and religion could be labelled theists, supernaturalists, Gnostics or religious people.

As regards your comment : « I object to this wholesale dismissal of those countless "primeval" generations you imply merely "invented" deities » - logically, only one generation did that, as an explanation of natural phenomena (animist religion).

Successive generations simply adapted and updated the concept. That’s the way the myth was invented and perpetuated to this day. There is ample evidence of that.

I do not dismiss anybody.

.

Dear Banjo,

>>George tells me that I am a Christian because I was baptised as a baby<<

Where did I tell you that? Besides, (assuming you were born in Australia) you are an Australian by birth, although you never chose to be born there, and if you even grew up in Australia, it will show, whether you like it or not. That is one way of defining what it means to be an Australian. Another way is by citizenship. Although you became automatically an Australian citizen by virtue of your birth, you can relinquish your citizenship, and there are many Australians, i.e. Australian citizens, who were not born there.

I am sure you can work out the analogy with different definitions of being a Christian, by baptism, by membership of a Church, by beliefs/convictions, by a life actively and consciously following what are considered Christian tenets and values. And by some hybrid of the above.

Squeers,

You seem to be appealing to an inability to reach absolute certainty in order to question the usefulness of reason, but absolute certainty is useless and a red herring.

I only spoke of what the use of the word ‘faith’ implies (I should have said “may imply”). But when people speak of a trust or belief disparagingly (attempting to make it sound religious or dogmatic), then they'll often use the term 'faith', otherwise there's little reason to not just say "trust" or "belief" instead. I never refer to my trust or confidence in something or someone as 'faith' for this reason.

Many rationalists may be hostile to other claimed ways of knowing, but that's because a lot of harm comes from irrational beliefs, not because rationalism necessitates it.

Dictionaries can handle context too; it's often added to the end of a definition in brackets, and atheism has no such context applied to it because you are making that part up. The day you are right, I will stop calling myself an atheist (as will virtually everyone else, I suspect) and will have to take the long way round of stating that I am a person who doesn't believe in any gods since I will have lost the convenience and brevity a word, until a new one is coined, at least; ready to be made useless again by those who feel attacked by it.

As for agnosticism, I would think it's developing more of a meaning that describes middle-ground (according to popular use), which still doesn't contradict atheism, as theism and atheism (in the broadest sense of the word) are binary (i.e. Law of the excluded middle). But I'm happy with 'sceptic' too, if that's what you prefer, because it doesn't contradict atheism. Indeed, I am a sceptic first and an atheist second. My atheism is a result of my scepticism.

Continued...

...continued

Atheism only has the context you apply to it for those who feel attacked by it (or in your case, feel attacked by "New Atheists" and therefore mistakenly equate atheism with rationalism). Words may be cultural constructs, but that doesn't mean the cultural influence needs to be anything more than the fact that some in our culture believe in gods (and an atheist isn't one of them).

Atheism is not a worldview no matter how much you want to make it one, and it is this type of reluctance to use the term (or worse, skew it) from those who fit the description that feeds prejudice towards disbelief. Worldviews can be atheistic, but atheism itself is not a worldview.

.

Dear George,

.

Nice to hear from you. In responding to Squeers, I indicated :

« George tells me that I am a Christian because I was baptised as a baby »
.

Which prompted you to ask :

« Where did I tell you that? »
.

I am afraid I do not keep a note of such things and it was a long time ago. However, I sifted through some of Peter Sellick’s 139 articles on OLO and finally came across the one he published on 14/3/2014 entitled “The awful funeral” where I made a comment under the heading : “What does it take to be a Christian ?” :

« As regards my current status, my guess is that I am still labelled as a Christian but I should welcome the considered opinion of anyone who wishes to express one. Personally, if I have any choice in the matter, I should prefer to avoid being labelled an “atheist” - simply because I find it a bit silly for anyone to define himself in relation to something (a god) which does not exist. »
.

And you kindly replied :

« Dear Banjo,

I agree that nobody should be labeled “atheist” if he/she does not like it. The same with Christian, except that there is a formal definition of a Christian as a baptised person, which does not say anything about that person’s worldview. »

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16112#279996
.

Please let me know if I have misinterpreted your reply.

Many thanks,

.

Dear Banjo,

>> there is a formal definition of a Christian as a baptised person, which does not say anything about that person’s worldview. »

Please let me know if I have misinterpreted your reply. <<

No, it agrees with what I wrote in the post above (about different possible definitions of being an Australian or being a Christian), without telling you what you ought to call yourself.

I've just thought, Squeers; regarding the postmodernist nonsense you've used to obscure the definition of atheism, all I really need to do to address your points about cultural constructs and context is to remind you of the Sokal affair.

As a postmodernist, I'm sure you're all too familiar with it.

Well that's disappointing, AJ Philips, I've always respected you as an intelligent and even indulgent poster, yet you've clearly failed to understand my position, or haven't bothered to think about it. And now you dismiss it as post-modern nonsense. A nice easy out for you and all those who dismiss anything that doesn't gel with their favoured orientation.
But I'll spare myself further effort.
I don't consider myself a postmodernist btw--almost as bad as being a theist it seems!--I'm agnostic, remember.

Squeers,

>>to miss the point that words and their meanings are cultural constructs, and not direct or reliable signifiers.<<

I would have formulated this more carefully, by inserting “always” between “not” and “direct”.

Anyhow, this brings me to a question about what do you hold about constructivism, “radical” or not, in particular about “www.second order science” (c.f. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/special/second-order/ or http://www.gwu.edu/~uscs/docs/1112/wmsci_sos3.ppt) a concept that I have just recently discovered.

I think one of the differences between us two is that when I hear “science” I first think of natural science, whereas you seem to be more at home with (philosophy of) social sciences; this I respect and found often very insightful. Hence my question.

There are two characterisations of second order science which in my eyes make its epistemological approach different - and for me a more acceptable perspective - from the radical constructivism of “science studies” exposed by Sokal and leading to science wars:

(i) it “operates on the product of normal or first order science” (rather than against it, that outraged “normal” scientists during science wars)

(ii) it admits that the “idea of second order science is more relevant for the social sciences than for the physical sciences”, which explains why e.g. physicists found the claims following from its methodology not very insightful, to say the least.

Squeers,

I actually thought deeper about your response than I’ve thought about others’ in a long time, which is why I took uncharacteristically long to respond. I think I understood your position quite well; if not, by all means correct me. My main concern was that you attached meaning to atheism that simply isn’t there:

"It's a boast of intellectual purity, a mode of condescension, a withering denunciation, a barely repressed intolerance, an uncritical worship of scientific magic tricks, a faith in the capacity of science to keep us safe and comfortable, and ergo default support for the economic system which facilitates it." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16853#296413)

These claims, for which there is nothing within atheism to support, were seemingly justified by what had been said earlier:

"To strip these words of their contexts and treat them merely as signifiers is again to miss the point that words and their meanings are cultural constructs, and not direct or reliable signifiers." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16853#296388)

It is the exaggerating of what context and cultural constructs will limit that lead to the mockery of the Sokal affair. While what constitutes postmodernism can be hard to pin down precisely (to the postmodernist’s delight) Dan Dennett’s criticism of postmodernism (co-incidentally) appears to be addressing what I find wrong with what you’ve said directly above (among other comments):

"Postmodernism, the school of 'thought' that proclaimed 'There are no truths, only interpretations' has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for 'conversations' in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster."

Theism and atheism simply address belief in god(s). The fact that the word may be a cultural construct does not necessitate or excuse attaching the attributes to it that you have, and the “myriad of implications” drawn by others from the label are irrelevant unless we’re neurotic or want to blur simple concepts with postmodernist obfuscation.

Incidentally, agnosticism and postmodernism are not mutually exclusive either.

Hello George and thanks for the link. Reading the journal's 'aims and scope', my own position could be accommodated. I don't consider social constructivism to be a mode of idealism--all is construct--however I do think the vast majority have relinquished what 'independence' of thought they might possess.
I have a lot on today so unfortunately can't respond further as yet, but shall as soon as time permits.

AJ Philips,
my 'claims ... which there is nothing within atheism to support, were seemingly justified by what had been said earlier'.

They were justified by what I said immediately preceding, though yes I have been consistent.
I certainly have not exaggerated anything, it is you who is placing exaggerated constructions/interpretations, and innuendos, on what I'm saying.
Dennett btw is not a deity of mine, and is just as easily dismissed in this instance as that which he easily dismisses. I respect Dennett's learning, but What is so objectionable about these new atheists is the way they think they have the right to condemn challenges and alternative approaches to their orthodoxies.
But as I say above, further response shall have to wait till this evening at the earliest.
Dennett

Squeers,

Obviously what you'd said immediately before my quote of yours was the reasoning behind it, but without the context of your claim regarding cultural constructs/context, what preceded would be irrelevant to your claims regarding atheism. So I cut to the chase and saved us both time by addressing your more a priori assumption.

This is why I mistook you for a postmodernist: what does it matter what everyone thinks? Atheism isn’t just a cultural construct. The concept of not believing in a god, or the absence of a god belief, can exist on its own no matter what implications individuals may attach to it. The "myriad of implications" to which you refer does not then mean that not believing in any gods magically makes one all those other things too. Like postmodernists, you don't seem to understand that there is actually such a thing as reality that isn't just a cultural artefact and doesn't care what we think of it. Gravity is a part of that reality (cf. the Sokal affair); so is the concept of the absence of a belief in god(s), and that's what atheism describes.

You’re seemingly appealing to some sort of almost mystical collective consciousness that molds and shapes every aspect of reality, by claiming that there are no objective truths but only interpretations. Either that or you think that we're so inextricably bound by our interpretations that objectivity is impossible. But the latter wouldn’t explain why atheism must necessarily entail all the attributes you attach to it.

Again, however, there are some things in reality that are objective and don’t dependent on what we think about them. The concept of a collective conscience (if that’s what you’re appealing to) is useful in examining cultures and societies, but by applying it to the concept of ‘not believing in a god’, you are exceeding its limitations; either that, or you’re just trying to lump atheism within the bounds of what is formed by collective consciousness in order to make whatever assumptions you like about it because you don’t like, or feel threatened by, these “New Atheists”?

George,
You’re still implying an objective stance for the observer in that he may ‘sometimes’ utilise language from a qualitative remove—that the mind (which is what?) may ‘use’ words ‘remotely’ as tools. The implication being that mind/brain is ‘independent’, rather than epiphenomenal, or programed/constructed by the host culture’s conceptual universe.
My own conviction is that ‘potentially’ the mind ‘is’ at least somewhat free to discriminate, but in that case we must account for it, and that’s the problem. As a Christian this is assumedly not a problem for you as you believe in an essential entity—a soul?
This means I am not a ‘radical constructivist’, though I cannot deny that apart from genetic disposition, logic dictates that we are programmed from birth.
Ironically it’s you, AJ, who must account for the objective stance/use of language you believe you possess. The constructivism I’m talking about is banal materialism, which even your hero Dennett concedes:
“our symbolic universe is a pandemonium of competing forces (words, phrases, syntactic figures … )”. Dennett dismisses qualitative consciousness by reductively dismissing the supposition of consciousness itself as symbolic fiction, since all physical registration of data is mere discordant matter—Hume’s bundles—to be made sense of via cultural resources, and not merely ‘words’ (which are what?).
As for a/theism, I insist that the terms are meaningless outside their contexts, and I stand by my comments above, “for which [you claim] there is nothing within atheism to support”.
A stance of atheism in any era is ‘first’ political! And never some ‘disinterested’ vocable!
To be an atheist in the West today is inevitably to be associated with Dawkins and co, whether you like it or not. It is not an objective or individual posture!
And this is a fair roundup: ‘a boast of intellectual purity, a mode of condescension, a withering denunciation, a barely repressed intolerance, an uncritical worship of scientific magic tricks, a faith in the capacity of science to keep us safe and comfortable, and ergo default support for the economic system which facilitates it.’

Sorry Banjo. will get back.

by a 'fair roundup' I mean that at least the first few clauses can be attributed to the New Atheists, who today dominate atheistic discourse. The second few clauses are for the wowsers and their groupies, Robyn Williams for one.

Squeers,

I think you need to clarify what type of atheism you’re talking about here before we go any further. Until you do, we’re just talking past each other. Clearly you’re not talking about implicit atheism. So are you referring to explicit atheism; or specifically strong atheism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions

I don’t think you’ve even thought about this. As I mentioned earlier, I was talking about atheism in the broadest and most inclusive sense, but I don't think your narrative allows for that. Please get back to me once you have determined what it is that you're referring to, and we’ll take it from there.

I don’t know about your Dennett quote, though; I would want to see the complete quote and in context of what he was saying. It looks suspiciously brief to me.

<<Dennett dismisses qualitative consciousness by reductively dismissing the supposition of consciousness itself as symbolic fiction, since all physical registration of data is mere discordant matter—Hume’s bundles—to be made sense of via cultural resources, and not merely ‘words’ (which are what?).>>

Yes, but any number of de-sublimations concerning not narrative, but pre-narrative, may still be discovered. Take Foucault, for example; his critique of de-constructivist socialism suggests that pre-textual society, surprisingly, has objective value, but only if neo-cultural de-sublimation is invalid.

Squeers,

>>You’re still implying an objective stance for the observer in that he may ‘sometimes’ utilise language from a qualitative remove—that the mind (which is what?) may ‘use’ words ‘remotely’ as tools. <<

You are probably reacting to my suggestion that words are “not always” reliable signifiers. I presumed you had in mind what in philosophy of science they call adequate representations (“of reality” if you subscribe to scientific realism, i.e. explicit belief in reality independent of the observer, or just "empirically adequate" without reference to such reality, if you subscribe to van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism). Well, whichever your take, I just wanted to stress that not all representations are adequate (“not all theories are true” in the “naive”, i.e. pre-scientific and pre-philosophical, language).

Your question what is mind?, brings to my mind Augustine’s reaction to the question what is time: If you don’t ask me I know, if you ask me I don’t know. Besides, German does not, have a word for “mind” (Russian does) so it might not be such a universally used term.

>>The implication being that mind/brain is ‘independent’, rather than epiphenomenal, or programed/constructed by the host culture’s conceptual universe. <<

Well, rather than implication, this is the co-assumption of science - normal science or first order science - namely that the observer is independent of the observed. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is what I liked in their second order science: rather than being in OPPOSITION to first order by claiming that the observer always constructs parts of what he/she observes, it offers an EXTENSION of that first order situation (by adding insights coming from treating the observer as a priori involved with the observed, i.e. assuming that mind is epiphenomenal in your words) without dismissing insights obtained by “first order” science or philosophy.

If I may sidetrack, it is like I do not see my worldview as being in opposition to atheist (unless anti-theist) approaches to philosophy but rather as an extension (by assuming a dimension of reality they find superfluous).

(ctd)

(ctd)

>> My own conviction is that ‘potentially&#146; the mind ‘is’ at least somewhat free to discriminate, but in that case we must account for it, and that’s the problem. <<

Well, I presume this is the reason why they thought of a “second order” without dismissing the classical “first order”, perhaps not to solve this problem but to gain new insights. Like in physics Einstein could explain everything that Newton could, and in addition also phenomena that Newton could not.

>> As a Christian this is assumedly not a problem for you as you believe in an essential entity—a soul? <<

Soul is a word coming from religion, mind is something philosophers ponder over, and consciousness is something that is an enigma to scientists, but essentially all three concepts describe a quality that distinguishes us humans from other living organisms/beings. The philosophical problem that you touched upon is the same for Christian, atheist or other philosophers, and is non-existent for philosophically unsophisticated Christians or atheists or what you have. However, you are right that assuming a dimension of reality that natural science has no access to (and not only Christians have this belief) is related to this problem.

Besides, soul as an entity, able to exist independently from the “host”, is a rather naive understanding; software running the hardware/host is perhaps a better metaphor, but still just a metaphor.

>> This means I am not a ‘radical constructivist’, though I cannot deny that apart from genetic disposition, logic dictates that we are programmed from birth.<<

I don’t know about logic here, but I understand. From this perspective it is then amazing that “first order” (natural) science”, where the observer is assumed as not being part of what is being observed, has been so successful. The same for classical (first order?) epistemology where the subject is seen as strictly separate from the object of knowledge.

I am not sure you had the patience (and time) to read this through, but anyhow, thanks for the motivation that made me think over and formulate my own understandings.

George, AJ and Banjo, shall have to respond again when able.

AJ, the quote is from Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" but don't have page number handy.

Squeers,

Those words words you’ve attributed to Dennett don’t appear to be his at all. A Google search of your quote finds a book called ‘Cogito and the Unconscious: Sic 2’, that contains a chapter that appears to be contrasting the title of a chapter in Dennett's book, with the title of a chapter in a book written by some Austin character; to whom the quote is actually attributed (though it's not clear if this Austin is being quoted either):

"The title of chapter 8 of consciousness explained ("How Words Do Things with Us") makes the point clear by means of a reversal of Austin's How to Do Things with Words: our symbolic universe is a pandemonium of competing forces (words, phrases, syntactic figures …)..." (http://tinyurl.com/mj7rj6m)

I double-checked this by downloading a PDF of Dennett’s book (https://keychests.com/item.php?v=gwerpunzuex), and a CTRL+F search reveals nothing; not even if I search for small snippets of that quote. I got Adobe Acrobat to check for "suspect" words in case an inaccurate OCR job was preventing the quoted line from appearing in a CTRL+F search, but there were no words that Acrobat was unsure of. The quoted line simply isn't there.

Dennett’s alleged concession appears to have just been some sloppy Googling on your behalf, unfortunately.

Upon reading the above I regret my previous dismissal of the comments that my articles provoke. This is all rather interesting. I find myself firmly in the middle of the realist/idealist argument. As a scientist I would affirm the existence of a reality apart from us, that we may know in fair detail given that we navigate through it and manipulate it in increasingly complex ways. As a theologian I tend towards the idealist though with feet firmly planted in the realist. Christian theology can never be disengaged from the world to float freely in the ideal scheme or the socially constructed. The creation stories affirm the existence of the world as does the incarnation the centrality of the body.

As for the word "soul" I agree with George. As I tried to say in the article, it is no longer possible to believe in the way Augustine, for example, believed. We live in a different time in which "nature" has, through natural science, become a dominant mode of thinking about the world. This has largely displaced the theological mode, much, I would argue, to our impoverishment.

Dear Peter,

<<We live in a different time in which "nature" has, through natural science, become a dominant mode of thinking about the world. This has largely displaced the theological mode, much, I would argue, to our impoverishment.>>

Very true indeed.

Then why would you want to give this sad mode of thinking even more power? Just tell it: "Get behind me, Satan" and keep your gaze away.

<<it is no longer possible to believe in the way Augustine, for example, believed.>>

Why not? Why such defeatism? If there is a will, then there is a way!

.

Dear Sells,

.

You confessed :

« Upon reading the above I regret my previous dismissal of the comments that my articles provoke »

.

Redemption is near, Sells. A few lashes on the back should do it …

.

AJ Philips,
Thanks for reminding me where I got the quote, I have the book in front of me and it’s also available as a preview online: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=HgyCdsO3paoC&pg=PA248&dq=always+already+presupposed+in+all+our+acts&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7fNuVMWYEsG3mAX4pYDICw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=always%20already%20presupposed%20in%20all%20our%20acts&f=false
so you can check out the section yourself, page 248 on. Apologies for the wrong attribution; sloppy note taking, not sloppy googling. However, according to ZIzek, Dennett’s position is far more radical. It’s a difficult passage but according to my reading, Dennett allows the subject far less autonomy, assigning to words a primary function whereby they suggest themselves in concert with the brains ‘software’ to write new ‘adaptations’, a la evolution. According to Zizek’s paraphrase, “The human mind is thus a pandemonium of competing forces: words impose themselves, want to be spoken, so that we often say something without knowing in advance what we wanted to say. The function of language is thus ultimately ‘parasitic’…” (254).
This “allows no place for the Cartesian ‘cogito’, or transcendental self-consciousness” (254).
I hope you’ll read the section and get back to me with your response to my challengs:
“Ironically it’s you, AJ, who must account for the objective stance/use of language you believe you possess”?

Am interested in your stuff, George and shall get to it as soon as I may.

Yuyutsu,
You talk about belief as if it is something we screw up our nerve and do rather than be convinced of the truth. I have been reading Augustine lately and it is obvious that we must move on from where he was. It is not true that the closer to the source a writer is the purer the stream. Augustine was working under all sorts of limitations that we cannot own in our time.

George:
while I think scientific realists overestimate its 'adequacy', It's not that I dispute that there is a legitimate third person stance, and more that I think that underestimate discursive 'interference'. Though in any case we still need an explanation for our a priori insight that goes beyond Kant. I might as well stress here that I am not an idealist, and certainly accept the reality of the phenomenal universe. And it's not that we have no direct access to it, a la Kant, but that our minds are ideologically diverted (not constructed).
The more important upshot of this (for me) is the politico-economic 'heading' that scientific innovation takes. Hence my comments above: "...its trial and error accomplishments ... often have negative consequences because the feigned objectivity has no higher directive (which is not to invoke God), only an economic or political one, generally cynical".

So it's not science--I've read a great deal of the accessable stuff and love it--or reason I'm objecting to, but it's default support ('objectivity') for an indefensible (on so many levels) social order.

The difference between 'soul' and the others is 'immortality' is it not?

I did indeed read you through, and looked at links, but yes time was pressing : (

.

Dear Squeers,

.

You wrote :

« Atheism is as much a world view as its opposite. It's a boast of intellectual purity, a mode of condescension, a withering denunciation, a barely repressed intolerance, an uncritical worship of scientific magic tricks, a faith in the capacity of science to keep us safe and comfortable, and ergo default support for the economic system which facilitates it. Dawkins is as much a high priest as the Pope is; both ride on a tide of populism »

.

I, too, find militancy offensive whatever the domain (religion, politics, advertising, etc.) and whoever indulges in it (“high priests”, professionals or simple activists). Happily, though, apart from, perhaps, the world of advertising, whatever the domain, militants invariably constitute a tiny minority of the populations concerned.

Apart from the last sentence in the quotation above, it seems you have given vent to your emotions which has caused you to make sweeping statements which, on reflection, I hope you will agree, has surpassed your reason.

I doubt that any of those who do not feel concerned by religion or its opposite hold the sort of world view you describe.

.

You also wrote :

« The implication being that mind/brain is ‘independent’, rather than epiphenomenal, or programed/constructed by the host culture’s conceptual universe … though I cannot deny that apart from genetic disposition, logic dictates that we are programmed from birth »

.

If I understand you correctly, the question you raise is: “ Is the mind independent or programmed?” – and you indicate: “My own conviction is that ‘potentially’ the mind ‘is’ at least somewhat free to discriminate”, and you suggest this is not a problem for George who, “as a Christian, believes in a soul”.

You seem to be talking about free will. Though I do not see the connection between a soul and free will, nor your allusion to “genetic disposition”, I, too, consider that we are “somewhat free to discriminate”, that our “programmes” are evolutive and that we dispose of an ever greater degree of autonomy as we continue to develop.

.

Squeers,

I’ll have a proper read of what you’ve referred me to and respond in more detail when I have more time (I’ll probably be too busy this weekend to reply) but I still need an answer to my question before I can provide a focused response that doesn’t take up my whole posting allowance for the day in one hit, attempting to address every possibility.

So are you referring to implicit atheism; explicit atheism; strong atheism; some of the above; or all?

At first I assumed that you couldn't possibly be talking about implicit atheism, but after giving it some thought, I'm not so sure now. Some postmodernists and social constructivists place so much faith in the power of words and social constructs to alter reality (usually due to a fear of determinism and the fact that free will may very well just be an illusion) that they'll claim that everything is dependent upon them. The Sokal hoax is a good example of the willingness of some to blindly follow this line of thought.

Just out of interest, here is the article in which Sokal apparently successfully argued that gravity was a social construct; simply by piecing together random text often employed by postmodernists: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/transgress_v2_noafterword.pdf

It's called, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermaneutics of Quantum Gravity".

I'm providing a link to this because I suspect it will become pertinent to the discussion, at some point.

Squeers,

You apparently are not a retiree like I am, so I appreciate the time you take to reply, although sometimes too tersely. Nevertheless, your posts are almost always an incentive for me to think over more deeply my own position on these, rather abstract, matters.

>>I think scientific realists overestimate its 'adequacy’<<

You misunderstood my use of “adequacy”, and it is my fault: it was NOT to refer to philosophy of science basic views - scientific realism vs van Fraasen’s constructive empiricism - but to representations (e.g. physical theories, mathematical models) that claim to explain and predict phenomena.

Van Fraassen describes his approach as taking “empirical sciences as a paradigm of rational enquiry, and resisting the demands for further explanation that lead to metaphysical extensions of the sciences” and he uses the term “empirical adequacy” to describe acceptance or usefulness of a representation. I happened to have used exactly the same term, “adequacy” in a paper (not in English) based on scientific realism I wrote some 45 years ago (“On the epistemic meaning of mathematical models”), so that is one reason why van Fraassen’s approach called my attention, but at the same time I should have realised that it is not a commonly used term to describe the “truthfulness” of theories, etc.

Also, I should have noted that in this context “science” is implicitly “natural science”, whereas the creators of “second order science” apparently have in mind the broader meaning of “science”, like the German Wissenschaft including also e.g philosophy or theology.

(ctd)

(ctd)

>>I am not an idealist, and certainly accept the reality of the phenomenal universe.<<

I think the difference between scientific realists and constructive empiricists is not about accepting reality of the phenomenal (physical) universe (i.e. not being a solipsist?) but about the (epistemic) approach to it. I think the same holds about “first and second order” science.

>>our minds are ideologically diverted (not constructed).<<

I agree, although I would prefer “culturally influenced” of which ideological diversion is just a special case; the former is mostly given and one can do very little about that, not so the latter: you cannot change the culture you were born into and educated in, but you can strive to free yourself of the influence of harmful, in whatever sense, ideologies.

>>The difference between 'soul' and the others is 'immortality' is it not?<<

Again, immortality comes from religion (with a pre-scientific and non-philosophical understanting of time) so it is usually not applied to mind or consciousness. I am not a Bible specialist (perhaps Peter could clarify us on this) but afterlife sometimes means that your beloved deceased ones live in Heaven and pray for you, and sometimes, they are asleep awaiting resurrection, both interpretations based on a naive (“Kantian”) understanding of time as well as space, categories that do not make sense outside the phenomenal. Some people need these interpretations of their belief. I prefer not to seek interpretations that cannot enhance my world view and/or faith.

(ctd)

George,
As you observed "soul" belongs to religion and not to nature. It is a social construction that has a history. Early Israel had no concept of the soul or its survival after death. The idea of resurrection was late and formed during a time of persecution for obvious reasons. Platonic idealism gave the soul a big boost with the idea of an essence that returns to the One. Christianity chose what it wanted from Platonism and formed it into Neo-Platonism rejecting on the way the idea of reincarnation.

While the continuation of consciousness after death is obviously absurd, the idea that the soul is safeguarded in death is a legitimate theological concept that needs to be teased out. It may simply mean that death is not the last word for us, that even in death the reality of God is not extinguished.

George,
always a pleasure communicating with you and just a shame can't go into it all more deeply. I'm always conscious of the disparity between your efforts and my own, but unlike you I've yet to get a sure foothold in academia.
I have read some philosophy of science and enjoyed it. I don't remember the name of one text in particular, but an interesting character in the field is Roy Bhaskar, who theorised what he called dialiectical realism, striving for an empirical base. Curiously though, he then abandoned the rigour of this world in favour of Eastern mysticism, which now informs his theorising (though his writing is often impenetrable).
An excellent new book on the history of social constructionist thought is "Social Constructionism: Sources and Stirrings in Theory and Practice" (goes right back to Vico!). It's quite compelling.
As always, my own thinking has a practical base and I am first and foremost a critic of capitalist culture (though not a Marxist).
Am happy to note that the Catholic church under Francis is also.
For me, ideology need not be of any political persuasion, rather we are rarely outside ideology in a totalising linguistic sense. The real world, nature, is almost alien to us and our 'reality' is almost totally social construct--and not a happy place.
This is not to lament engagement with nature in any utopian sense, but to rue our neglect of what we essentially are, and equally, to lament our loss of any genuine psychological/spiritual autonomy.
My take on 'pre-scientific' thought is that it is often remarkably astute in accounting for the human condition. It also has the advantage (however problematic) of incorporating ethical guidelines which make far more 'corporeal sense' than our social libertarianism does.
Also, we must not forget that which science dismisses; religion and mysticism also stem from mystical/psychological 'experience'.

Dear Peter,

<<You talk about belief as if it is something we screw up our nerve and do rather than be convinced of the truth.>>

So how else, other than by the grace of God, do you propose one can become convinced of the truth?

One can of course learn of facts, but facts are just that, they have nothing to do with truth: knowledge of facts is necessary for feeding our bodies and otherwise keeping them alive, gaining comforts and pleasures through them (including emotional and intellectual pleasures such as satisfying one's curiosity) as well as trying to avoid their pain, that's all, they have no other use.

Believing that facts are true is just a bad habit, a modern ailment, most likely a habit we learned at an early age from our parents. Bad habits can be corrected: using the combination of will-power and prayer, we can hope that by the grace of God we shall overcome this habit and realise beyond any doubt that there is no truth but God.

.

Squeers :

« The difference between 'soul' and the others is 'immortality' is it not? »

George :

« I am not a Bible specialist (perhaps Peter could clarify us on this) but afterlife sometimes means that your beloved deceased ones live in Heaven and pray for you, and sometimes, they are asleep awaiting resurrection, both interpretations based on a naive (“Kantian”) understanding of time as well as space, categories that do not make sense outside the phenomenal. Some people need these interpretations of their belief. I prefer not to seek interpretations that cannot enhance my world view and/or faith. »

Sells :

« George,
As you observed "soul" belongs to religion and not to nature. It is a social construction that has a history. Early Israel had no concept of the soul or its survival after death. The idea of resurrection was late and formed during a time of persecution for obvious reasons. Platonic idealism gave the soul a big boost with the idea of an essence that returns to the One. Christianity chose what it wanted from Platonism and formed it into Neo-Platonism rejecting on the way the idea of reincarnation.

While the continuation of consciousness after death is obviously absurd, the idea that the soul is safeguarded in death is a legitimate theological concept that needs to be teased out. It may simply mean that death is not the last word for us, that even in death the reality of God is not extinguished. »

.

Thank you, gentlemen. For me, that is the scoop of a lifetime! Until this moment, I have been wallowing in an ocean of ignorance. Like Squeers, I had been lead to believe that the “soul” was immortal. Now I learn that George, an eminent mathematician and devout Catholic, invalidates the idea on scientific grounds and Sells, an Anglican deacon, points to its Neo-Platonic origins and hypothesises on its meaning.

So much for the big sales pitch of the Abrahamic religions of the promise of life after death! Better not tell anybody the truth. They might be disappointed.

.

>>George ... invalidates the idea on scientific grounds<<

I am certainly not aware of ever having “invalidated” any RELIGIOUS idea on SCIENTIFIC grounds.

Yuyutsu,
I agree to some extent. One has to begin with belief. "I believe in order to know." I agree that one is not convicted by evidence, by facts. How does one test the proposition that "Lamb of God you take away the sin of the world" Factually an absurdity but nonetheless something I cling to with hope. To believe as Augustine believed would invalidate our present understanding of biblical texts. He was very much a literalist and far too influenced by Platonism. It would simply be unwise to attempt to replicate some of how he believed. However, he was correct about so much!

The Passion of Christ:

Michael Jackson's "Earth Song":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAi3VTSdTxU

Check out the images.

.
 
Dear George,
 
.
 
You protested :

« I am certainly not aware of ever having “invalidated” any RELIGIOUS idea on SCIENTIFIC grounds. »
.

It seems I have misinterpreted your reason for qualifying as “naïve” Kant’s understanding of time and space on which, you indicate, the concept of “afterlife” is based:

« … afterlife sometimes means that your beloved deceased ones live in Heaven and pray for you, and sometimes, they are asleep awaiting resurrection, both interpretations based on a naive (“Kantian”)  understanding of time as well as space, categories that do not make sense outside the phenomenal … I prefer not to seek interpretations that cannot enhance my world view and/or faith. »

Perhaps you would be kind enough to elaborate a little further as, unfortunately, I (apparently, mistakenly) attributed what you called Kant’s “naivety” to what I presumed to be his ignorance of the (chronologically posterior) scientific insights of physicists such as Albert Einstein whose theory of relativity was published a century after Kant’s death and Sean Carroll who was only born ten years after the death of Einstein.

I see, for example, that Carroll considers that the idea of a soul is in opposition to quantum field theory (QFT). He wrote in the “Scientific American” of 23 May, 2011 :
 
« Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can’t be a new collection of "spirit particles" and "spirit forces" that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments.»

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/

I must confess that I am completely out of my depth here and should be grateful for any explanations and clarifications you may be able to provide.

.
 

Dear Banjo,

OK, I should not have referred to the Newtonian understanding of absolute space and time (as independent of the observer) as “naive”, and should not have assigned it to Kant, whose ideas of space and time are more complex philosophical concepts, although for the purposes of science they were identical with Newton’s.

Also, I have no good understanding of QFT but am almost sure that anything related to the concepts of “spirit” or “soul”, as understood by religions, is not part of it.

If you believe in the possibility of you somehow existing after you died, then you can try to find a scientific interpretation of your belief that does not violate known physical laws. However, I find it pointless - others don’t - to speculate, especially with the use of science, on this “somehow”.

This does not work the other way around: you cannot find in science, be it QFT or what, “evidence” for your “belief in afterlife” since this belief by its definition refers to a dimension of reality that is outside the reach of science.

Another possibility, of course, is to interpret this belief by referring to e.g. the Bible, and this is what Christians usually do when talking about heaven, afterlife, immortality etc.

I don't know how useful it is to get too cerebral about these things...every time I attempt to reason my way into it, I'm more likely to back off in disbelief and irritation.

I have a friend, an elderly church-attending Catholic lady. She's been a practicing catholic all her life, a teacher, a mother - she's reasonably intelligent, sharp and active in her community.

I'm often impressed by her simple faith - she doesn't bang on about it, doesn't bring it in to her daily conversations, she just lives it.

We were discussing the horror and the sudden nature of the demise of those on board MH17 - and she said to me:

"Really, it would just be like going to sleep - and then you'd wake up in heaven."

To her there was no doubt. She's lived and breathed that belief all her life - something instilled long ago in childhood. And she is totally grounded in it, a sort of solidity and assured contentment in her nature...something most of us would envy.

To me, her notion had a childlike simplicity - and was something I could never manage on that subject.

Is that the kind of faith most ordinary folk have? The kind of unquestioning acceptance that makes living a little easier, gives it a point - and eases one off their mortal coil?

Don't seem to be able to manage it myself regarding Christianity or other mainstream religions - yet there's something.....

Poirot,

"The more I know, the more nearly is my faith that of the Breton peasant. Could I but know all I would have the faith of a Breton peasant woman." (Louis Pasteur)

George,

Perfect!

Pascal says something about true wisdom being reached when one embraces a childlike state. (will look it up as I now have a superb Folio copy of Pensées)

The Tao says exactly the same thing.

Nice story, Poirot, and quote, George, that makes me want to say 'all is vanity' again.
But I think the time of simple faith is long gone and we've created our own earthly responsibilities, which we culpably neglect.
Where I stand, with my 'faith in human foibles', is with the conviction that there is much we don't know, possibly cannot know, about the nature of reality. Atheism (which confidently asserts there is no God and no great mystery), places too much implicit faith in the breadth of human perception, apropos the universal spectrum, which might well include dimensions and realities that don't even register. At least not empirically.
Not that I think we should be overly concerned about these (to the detriment of the natural world).
The problem with the New Atheists, much of the scientific establishment, and our religious institutions by and large, is they're part of our self-created problems and not a solution.

Peter Sellick does not really understand what the teachings attributed to Jesus Christ and set out in the New Testament of the Holy Bible really are. They are a blueprint for representative democracy and when the English in 1297 adopted the New Testament as their Constitution in the Magna Carta the Pope was very upset. He continued to extract gold from sinners in England until Henry VIII ended his gallop by appointing Notaries Public.

Jesus Christ was the most brilliant Social Engineer the world has ever seen, and his teachings have underpinned the one successful democracy in the modern World, the United States of America. All others whether Islamic Caliphates or Republics have ended in misery and the desperation of absolute poverty.

Those who do not really understand have allowed lawyers, the lowest form of life in the eyes of Jesus Christ ( see Luke 11 verses 46 and 52 ) to dominate public life in Australia and we are seeing Revolving Door governments as will probably happen in Victoria this Saturday because long term stable government is dependant on the representative democracy espoused by Jesus Christ for which He was killed. Matthew 18 verses 15-20 was the inspiration for representative democracy adopted in the Magna Carta by English Roman Catholics who were sure they were reading the Scriptures correctly.

I believe Jacqui Lambie, Ricky Muir, Bob Day, David Leyonjhelm, Nick Xenophon, John Madigan, and Dio Wang and Glen Lazarus, if well advised have the ability to restore representative democracy, by showing how the Commonwealth has departed from its Christian roots and gone the way of Karl Marx and Mao Zedung and Lee Kwan Yew. If we want stable long term governments, making laws for the peace order and good government of the Commonwealth these Senators, by raising these issues in the Parliament of the Commonwealth and making its work relevant to every Australian no matter where he or she lives, whatever his or her race or colour, and whatever station in life, then we must get back to these Christian Roots no matter what minorities want.

AJ Philips,

Feel free to respond to my comments, or not, based on however you wish to interpret my critique of atheism. My posts above speak for them selves and I don't feel like elaborating further, unless there's a serious challenge.
I'm also frankly tired of having the Sokal affair trotted out as though I was somehow implicated.
I have Sokal's book and as I've pointed out to George before, Sokal spends a great deal of it qualifying his position, so that he ends up, in my book, as somewhat sympathetic.
The affair shall no doubt go down as an infamous embarrassment like the Ern Malley business, but it hardly invalidates the field.
Postmodern theory is too often dismissed as nonsense by those who don't understand it.
I'm happy to accept that some people simply don't believe in God and it's not an issue. That's me in fact. But 'atheism' is a discursive fashion with little or nothing to recommend it politically. Terry Eagleton calls it liberal rationalism and I think that's spot on.

Poirot,

You are so right.

>>Pascal says something about true wisdom being reached when one embraces a childlike state<<

I don’t know about Pascal, but this is what I copied many years ago from a wall on the Evans (Mathematics) building at the UC Berkeley campus:

"If you would know TRUTH be not therefore a solver of riddles. Rather look about you and you will see HIM playing with your children." (Khalil Gibran).

Squeers,

>>the time of simple faith is long gone and we've created our own earthly responsibilities<<

I think these quotes are not about the TIME but STATE of simple faith. If anything, it does not precede but coexists with an awareness of one's earthly responsibilities. When Pasteur wrote that confession he was not abandoning his responsibilities as a pioneering microbiologist.

Similar insights are in the Bible, in Lao-tzu’s Tao Te Ching, the Buddhist wisdom as in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16112#279921, and elsewhere.

My favourite metaphor is the NT’s Nativity Narrative where the news about that “special baby” was delivered to simple shepherds “directly” (by angels) but the learned magi had to “read the stars” - i.e. do philosophy (and science) - to get the news and find their way to Him.

The Bible is silent about those who fall in-between - too “rational” to hear the “voice of the angels” directly, but also too this-worldly, materialistic, to bother about the meaning of (their) existence. They, of course, cannot return to the naive simplicity of the “shepherds”; they can only try to work their way through to an understanding and acceptance of the simple wisdom of Poirot’s Catholic lady or Pasteur’s Breton peasant on a higher level, i.e. stripped of culture-dependent (and mostly childish) interpretations. Paul Ricoeur calls this the second naiveté.

.
 
Dear George,
 
.
 
Thank you for your explanations and clarifications. I am pleased to see that we understand each other now.

However, in another vein, you observe :

«  …  you cannot find in science, be it QFT or what, “evidence” for your “belief in afterlife” since this belief by its definition refers to a dimension of reality that is outside the reach of science. »

.

Unfortunately, what you uphold here seems to me to be untenable. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that "belief in afterlife" refers to some "dimension of reality" as you state it does. I understand that "afterlife" is just a concept, a theoretical construct - and only one of many at that. Belief in it can only be a belief in that one particular theory. As far as I know, it has never been shown to have any connection with reality whatsoever.

Also, lack of evidence of "afterlife" does not necessarily signify that it is "outside the reach of science". It only signifies that it is just a theory until proven otherwise.

Given the excellent track record of science to date I see no reason why we should exclude the possibility of science finding some evidence of "afterlife" if it is a reality - and by "reality", I mean "something that exists independently of ideas concerning it". For the moment, all we have are ideas concerning "it". Nothing else.

It appears that the oldest human skeleton found to date is that of the Australopithecus fossil called "Little Foot" discovered in the Sterkfontein Grotto cave in South Africa in 1997. According to the latest estimate it is thought to be 3 million years old.

Perhaps scientists could start working on this poor chap's soul. I suggest this for the simple reason that it should not upset any of his relatives.

It could be an interesting challenge.

.

 
 

Dear Banjo,

>>there is no evidence that "belief in afterlife" refers to some "dimension of reality" as you state it does.<<

“Belief in afterlife” : note that I used quotation marks to indicate that it is a state of mind (that you obviously don’t share) and not something there can be a (scientific) evidence for, or a (scientific) theory that can be “objectively” scrutinised. Also, we have long established that you do not accept that reality could have a dimension that is out of reach of (natural) science by its very definition, so obviously afterlife does not make sense to you, evidence or not.

Regarding the statement "the time of simple faith is long gone and we've created our own earthly responsibilities, which we culpably neglect." - this is not forever!

While the article claims: "We have inherited the Judeo/Christian concept of time being linear", this is nothing but a concept: time itself is not linear, as beautifully portrayed by Ecclesiastes (chapter 1:3-11):

{
What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
}

Simple faith is currently hindered because contemporary generations are toying with natural science, but this has already been the case before, for example in the Hindu Nyaya-Vaisheshika philosophies, now barely remembered, and the burden of this current scientific fashion, too shall pass.

Dear Peter,

As you cling with hope to the phrase "Lamb of God you take away the sin of the world", I wonder whether you can be similarly inspired by this great statement: "Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen"

Squeers,

I would agree that what you’ve said has been pretty clear and speaks for itself. It was these factors that helped lead me to believe that you wouldn’t narrow down what it was that you were referring to, and thus part of my motivation for requesting that you do was to see if I was right. You could have stated in less words what you were referring to (explicit, implicit, or strong atheism), than what it took tell me that your posts speak for themselves. I suspect that your ideas require the notion of atheism to remain as vague as possible, or be a caricature of what it actually is. In a sense, I think you are actually just attacking a label.

<<I'm happy to accept that some people simply don't believe in God and it's not an issue. That's me in fact.>>

Okay, great, so you’re happy to acknowledge that you’re an atheist (but would prefer not to use the word); an explicit atheist at that, now that you’ve gone to the extent of stating that you don’t believe in a god. This (and implicit atheism) is what I have been referring to all along.

<<But 'atheism' is a discursive fashion with little or nothing to recommend it politically.>>

It is what these quotation marks suggest that I need to get to the bottom of.

So is it just the act of stating that one is an atheist that ties all those attributes you mentioned to them? It sounds as though you have trapped yourself in a position in which you cannot use certain labels to describe yourself, even if they’re accurate. I don’t think this is conducive to productive and honest discussion.

Incidentally, how is applying the label to oneself any different to stating that you don’t believe in a god? Surely there are a myriad of implications with that too. Millions of theists, for example, would interpret that as you expressing a hatred for God. Does that suddenly mean this becomes true; or does the fact that you haven’t used a label protect against that?

Dear Squeers,

<<I'm happy to accept that some people simply don't believe in God and it's not an issue. That's me in fact.>>

Technically me too, as I also don't believe that God exists (but it's not an issue for me as it doesn't stop me from trying my best to love Him with all my heart, with all my soul and with all my capabilities).

<<But 'atheism' is a discursive fashion with little or nothing to recommend it politically. Terry Eagleton calls it liberal rationalism and I think that's spot on.>>

Yes, apparently that's how language operates: Just as the word 'religion' was upturned by modern society to mean something derogatory and so different than its original use, so much that people are now shy of calling themselves 'religious' ("No, I'm only spiritual"...), why should the fate of the word 'atheism' be different?

Unlike its original precise definition, in common contemporary language, 'atheism' came to imply the hate of religion and the religious and might even include in common speech those who do believe in God's existence, but hate Him nevertheless. I can well identify with your wish to not be identified as such.

Yuyutsu,

If you have something to say to me, then it’s polite to just say it to me; the other thread is still open if you have something more to add.

Squeers hasn’t suggested for a moment that that’s why he doesn’t use the word “atheist”. That was me pointing out that Squeers stating that he does not believe in any gods carries with it the implication, from perspective of millions of theists, that he does in fact believe in their god and hates it/him/her.

No definition of atheism hints that this is what it means - indeed it is a contradiction of the actual definition - this is just the petulant foot-stamping and dishonesty of certain theists.

Ironically, if those who fit the description refuse to use the word, then they feed the prejudice against disbelief by allowing others to pin all sorts of absurd and irrelevant connotations to it. After all, many theists are happy to use the term ‘atheist’ interchangeably (switching back and forth between mere disbelief and whatever caricature suits them at the time), so merely refusing to use the term doesn’t necessarily protect the disbeliever refusing to use it from such offensive suggestions, it just makes the job of those who have an interest in creating a stigma around disbelief even easier.

Peter Vexatious,

Spot on. It is making more and more sense now. Thank you for relaying the Magna Carta history. I had no idea.

Life is getting tougher and many people are unhappy.

I would rather live under a Catholic State than the current Nanny State we are in. We are all more and more under chronic stress, particularly in the work place. I had an awakening one day, after I had been suffering from extreme stress which I had relayed all my issues. He said “you do realise that most the people in the department are Atheists?”. Then, the penny dropped. The same applies to most people on this forum. And that is why it is so difficult getting the message across.
In the current Post Christian world we live in,Christians only get pilloried by Elitists. Along being the most persecuted which is hardly emphasised in mainstream media.

Are you aware of Rerum Novarum - Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical which supported the average worker for better dignity. Rerum Novaram had been since used in a few countries as a very democratic model for the workforce.

Those politicians you mention are representing the average Joe, and they are sorely needed.

Cont....

...Cont.

There is a terrific book called “How to be Free” by Tom Hodgkinson. He believes that life was more humane in the Middle Ages. He says peasants actually had a pretty good life, and only worked a few months of the year and paid very small rent and sometimes no rent. They also usually had two different type of work, for eg. working in the field and being an artisan (they always did something creative which is very important). And of course under a Catholic theocracy, plenty of parties that could go on for days, such as celebrating a holy day (holiday). And some type of work could be deemed sinful. Wages were spread out evenly and so prevented greedy competition, especially when it did not contribute to the community. Poor people, vagrants were looked after usually by the local monastary. And not much crime in those days.

People also had the fear of God in them so people had a propensity to be more passionate. And live was more enriching for it.

I agree with just about everything he says in the book.

The Protestant work ethic has turned us all into SLAVES. Slave to work and to mortgages. They encourage us to be in debt.

Its revolution time methinks.

AJ Philips,
you seem to be sniffing evasion on my part, but I'm afraid it isn't so. I'm just bored. The whole tedious business of definition is rendered moot by the position I'm taking. Words are inherently slippery and a/theism is no different. However I put "atheism" in brackets above in order to highlight the "ism", which makes it a cult/ural phenomenon.
I don't believe in God and it's not an issue for me, but I don't say there isn't a God. And as an agnostic I'm persuaded one can't know. So my atheism is a passive stance; I acquiesce to my ignorance and put no great faith in my power to reason the matter out, given that the reasoning tradition I've inherited is deeply flawed and/because politically enslaved.
According to his Apology Socrates claimed to "know" at the last, based on dreams and oracles and myriad other communications from "the God", yet even so he asserted it the most blameworthy ignorance to claim to know what one doesn't know. This of course was long before Christ and Socrates was the primary influence behind the Western tradition.
Yuyutsu, When atheism does manifest as hatred for theism, I suspect this is due to the conservative position theists tend to take on a raft of issues. This spontaneously offends me too--theists forget Christ was a radical--but them I'm also wary of the social libertarianism that would banish all mores and mimic capitalism culturally. This is how I think of liberal rationalism: blindly rationalising "free thought" and "free choice" (as if they existed) as universal virtues; dressing up a degenerate culture in the finery of these airy raiment. What I see is naked and ugly.

.

Dear George,

.

« “Belief in afterlife” : note that I used quotation marks to indicate that it is a state of mind (that you obviously don’t share) and not something there can be a (scientific) evidence for, or a (scientific) theory that can be “objectively” scrutinised. »
.

Thank you for that explanation, George. No, I did not note that the quotation marks around “belief in afterlife” indicated that it was just “a state of mind” which, according to my Oxford English Dictionary, means “way of thinking and feeling” – which, I agree, has nothing to do with objective reality.

I’m afraid you’re asking too much of me there, George. I could not possibly have guessed that. There’s quite a lot I can read into words. I’m even not too bad at reading between the lines, but, unfortunately, I’m absolutely hopeless on quotation marks. Better to spell it out to me, George.

Having said that, I imagine you are expressing, here, your own personal view of “belief in afterlife” and the “soul”. Unless I am mistaken, it does not correspond to the religious dogma (prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true) of the Abrahamic denominations.

I understand, for example, that the Catholic church used to sell one way tickets to heaven (called “indulgences”) in the Middle Ages to its faithful in order to finance the crusades and raise funds for the construction of many of the magnificent cathedrals we have today.

I doubt that there was anything written on those tickets, even in the fine print on the back, about it being just “a state of mind” and not a firm reservation in the V.I.P. lodge next to God :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1k8B-qw040

.

.

Oops! I forgot to take the "s" off that link. Let's try this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1k8B-qw040

.

.

Not to mention, also, all those poor souls who continue to join the ranks of Isis or Daich (the so-called Islamic State) and blow themselves up for the good cause in the promise of “afterlife … them and others around the world.

My goodness, George, I don’t think a pair of quotation marks is good enough explanation !

.

Is Christianity true? No doubt, there are people interested in discussing that question.

My experience is that they readily divide into three groups.

First, there are those who say no. The Bible isn't true and hasn't got much to offer us. But they still have opinions on the matter and might read and comment on the article. For example, Pericles might fall into this category.

Second, there are those who say yes, the Christian faith is true in a certain manner, but perhaps not the traditional interpretation. The Bible contains truth, but there's a kind of disconnect between their faith and the real world. God is not capable of miracles or interaction with the rationally minded. I put Sells in this category. I find some of his comments vague and meandering.

Third, there are those who say that the Bible is true. It contains a clear message of God's character and his interaction with people through history. They state with conviction the traditional creeds: 'Maker of heaven and earth', 'born of the virgin Mary', 'crucified, dead, and buried', 'raised again to life', etc.

I believe the third group more properly represents the Christian mainstream, and are part of the growth sector within the Australian church. Current surveys say that Pentecostals (with their traditional, fundamental beliefs) now make up the largest number of all Protestants who are actually attending weekend services, second only to Catholics.

The problem I have is that Graham Young has now stated that he is not allowing submissions from this third group on the main OLO page. He has effectively censored input from this significant sector of the Australian community, claiming that those who believe God has acted in specific miraculous ways within history are irrational (i.e. not worthy of his website).

So for whichever of the three groups that you may belong, who may want to discuss what mainstream Christians say or believe, please know that the stuff you read on OLO, supposedly one of the more open and freer of all Internet forums, is editorially skewed and biased towards certain positions.

Blessings,

Squeers,

Explicit atheism is a cultural phenomenon, yes. So is agnosticism, for that matter.

<<I don't believe in God and it's not an issue for me, but I don't say there isn't a God. And as an agnostic I'm persuaded one can't know.>>

Okay, so you’re an agnostic atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism). So am I (depending on how one defines ‘knowledge’). I don’t usually bother with attaching the ‘agnostic’ bit, though, for two reasons: first, the same could be said about Russell’s teapot and leprechauns, but I don't bother making a point about my agnosticism there; and second, by making a point about my agnosticism, I perpetuate the idea that the question of a god's existence requires more certainty than any other claim. Technically, we can’t know a lot of things; according to some, we can’t know anything. However, if there is a god up there, then it’s obviously not very interested in communicating with me, so I’m not going to bother wasting energy on entertaining the possibility of its existence.

That being said, your stance is far more similar to those you really have a problem with (e.g. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and the late Hitchins) than you actually realise. None of them claim(ed) to know either. The reason they often speak of may have its flaws, but to say that its “politically enslaved” is an over-simplification and, I think, and exaggeration. I would say that reason is “culturally influenced” but even then, that ignores the non-social environmental influences, and the biological influences (described by evolutionary psychology and behavioural genetics) that also contribute to our thoughts and behaviour - which may somewhat negate or exacerbate the effects of cultural influences.

To the mystics’ horror, the way we think, feel and behave is very much the result of a complex interplay between our biology and our environment. The nature/nurture debate is over. What is debated now is precisely how these two factors interact to create the behaviours that they do. There is the very real possibility that free will is merely an illusion.

Dear Squeers,

<<Yuyutsu, When atheism does manifest as hatred for theism, I suspect this is due to the conservative position theists tend to take on a raft of issues.>>

I tend to agree. It is not a happy state of affairs, besides, atheists can be at least as religious as theists.

<<but them I'm also wary of the social libertarianism that would banish all mores and mimic capitalism culturally. This is how I think of liberal rationalism: blindly rationalising "free thought" and "free choice" (as if they existed) as universal virtues; dressing up a degenerate culture in the finery of these airy raiment. What I see is naked and ugly.>>

I'm afraid you lost me there. Perhaps I lack some background information because I am unable to make sense of this knot: how is Christianity related to Libertarianism? And how do both relate to liberal rationalism? Then too, what makes you claim that we have no free choice? Please explain these in simple terms that I can understand.. Thanks.

Dear Banjo,

>>I don’t think a pair of quotation marks is good enough explanation<<

It was not meant as an explanation since I do not see what is there to explain if one does not believe in the spiritual/divine dimension of reality that cannot be subjected to scientific investigation. Why do you have to resort to sarcasm instead of simply accepting that you do not share this belief? As for the “My goodness”, relax, I don’t want to convert you, and you cannot “learn faith” like you can learn a foreign language, though even then you would have to start from scratch.

Those who believe in afterlife (ok, without quotation marks) believe in that extra dimension also of their own existence (independent of the physical, hence space and time) and interpret or try to interpret this belief differently, based on the bible or other scared text or cultural (e.g.Christian) tradition as Peter pointed out, and some, as I mentioned, seek also scientific interpretations. Like you cannot visualise a photon only as a tiny ball or a wave, which it is neither, so the believer cannot “visualise” this state, or dimension of his/her identity, only as something he/she will experience “after” he/she dies.

Whether we like it or not, there is no satisfactory ”explanation” of afterlife beyond these various interpretations, so one has to either believe or not, and settle in the ensuing world view orientation.

When Kevin Rudd realised the loss by the Australian Labor Party in 2004 was directly attributable to the proclamation by Mark Latham of his Atheist status, OLO published his article on that subject. Rudd then set out to court the Christian vote, realising that Kim Christian Beasley was very sensitive about his middle name. With the rise of Law Schools as seminaries of Atheism, and the substitution of “The Law” for teaching the principles of Christianity, a corresponding departure of respect for Judges and Magistrates has emerged.

These seminaries of Atheism, subscribe to the pre Christian Pagan concept of multifarious Gods, and their predominant philosophy is the Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy. Somehow they believe that the collective minds of a gaggle of Parliamentarians is better than the New Testament as a moral and philosophical guidance, for “peace order and good government”. Pierre Schlag in his articles 'Clerks in the Maze” and “Law as a continuation of God by other means” documents this compulsory adoption of Atheism and the substitution of a Judges opinion for common sense.

As a consequence I am declared a “bete noir” a danger to the compulsory atheism, a vexatious litigant in four jurisdictions in Australia. A symptom of the widespread dissatisfaction with the Status Quo was expressed in the 700,000 votes given to Palmer United Party in the last Federal Election. The catch cry of the now defunct Democrats was “Keep the bastards honest.” They committed suicide when they attempted to abolish “Prayers” in the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

Christian teaching in the New Testament is that there is One paramount Almighty God and that this entity is triune, Father Son and Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. The system adopted by the English that was anathema to Roman Catholic teaching was to have a Justice as representative of Almighty God through the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, and the Holy Spirit representing “the Comforter” would descend on the twelve people sworn on the Holy Bible to find the truth and true justice would be done.

Peter Vexatious,

You've nailed it. There are far too many lawyers in the world. And the judges/judiciary really live in a disconnected world of their own.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, also that USUARY was sinful in the Catholic Church. Now look at the corrupt banks and our enslavement to them.

“They Don’t Care About Us” – Michael Jackson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNJL6nfu__Q

Here is a comment of the video:
shakaama

“The original video of this song was banned, and removed from all media outlets. (now that's some power). What could they possibly fear from a video from Michael Jackson hmmmmmmm They feared it so much that they banned it. Remember Madonna was still grinding onstage, doing nearly a full on porn in public, but MJ video is banned?”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Don%27t_Care_About_Us

Michael Jackson was a messenger.

And so is Morrissey.

.

Dear George,

.

You concluded :

« Whether we like it or not, there is no satisfactory ”explanation” of afterlife beyond these various interpretations, so one has to either believe or not, and settle in the ensuing world view orientation. »

.

Thanks for clarifying that. Don’t worry, as I am sure you have understood, I was just expressing my concern for the terrible tragedy caused by religious fanatics programming psychologically fragile young minds with the false promise of “afterlife”.

Though I now understand and, naturally, respect your personal interpretation of the concept, that is obviously not the version that has been instilled into the minds of those gullible young candidates for suicide bomb attacks.

In my view, the religious authorities of the Abrahamic denominations which promote or, perhaps, simply condone such belief, now have a moral responsibility to speak up and tell the truth and be more explicit about their position on what Peter Sellick terms the Neo-Platonic doctrine of “afterlife”.

I should be interested to have your views on that – as well as Peter Sellick’s, if he cares to make a comment.

.

Banjo,
I'm not sure if Peter believes in an afterlife. It's not terribly clear which of the usual Christian doctrines he accepts.

.
 
Squeers wrote :

« This is how I think of liberal rationalism: blindly rationalising "free thought" and "free choice" (as if they existed) as universal virtues … »
.

AJ Philips observed :

«  … the way we think, feel and behave is very much the result of a complex interplay between our biology and our environment … What is debated now is precisely how these two factors interact to create the behaviours that they do. There is the very real possibility that free will is merely an illusion. »
.

And Yuyutsu enquired :

« … how is Christianity related to Libertarianism? And how do both relate to liberal rationalism? Then too, what makes you claim that we have no free choice? »
.

The cross-fertilisation of democracy and Christianity no doubt received a decisive boost from the Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries which, according to Bertrand Russell, was, itself, born out of the Protestant reaction against the Catholic counter-reformation. He argues that many of the philosophical views, such as affinity for democracy against monarchy originated among Protestants in the early 16th century to justify their desire to break away from the Pope and the Catholic Church. Though many of these philosophical ideals were picked up by Catholics, Russell argues, by the 18th century the Enlightenment was the principal manifestation of the schism that began with Martin Luther (1483-1546).

Democracy and the separation of church and state aspire to justice, freedom and tolerance. Those are ambitious objectives, extremely elusive, almost impossible to achieve. But hope and opportunity are part of the package. So it’s imperfect? It’s not a given. It’s to be earned. It’s up to us. That’s the motor.

What about free will? The way I see it, the more programmes we download to our brains the better. Beneficial mutations and experiences continue to accumulate over time, multiplying and diversifying choice patterns to an ever greater degree of complexity until we are no longer held to obey any particular predetermined course of behaviour, gaining in the autonomy we call free will. It's evolutive.
 
.
 

Sorry folks but dropping out of this thread. Problems with language is plain just from how often we're misread, or read into.
Yuyutsu, I didn't say Christianity was related to libertarianism.

.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

You remarked :

« I'm not sure if Peter believes in an afterlife. It's not terribly clear which of the usual Christian doctrines he accepts. »
.

As I have invited both Peter’s and George’s comments on my previous post to George, perhaps Peter will seize the opportunity to clarify his position for us.

Naturally, my interest goes beyond their personal belief or understanding, or (to adopt George’s vocabulary), “interpretation”. I am also interested to know what they think of the question I raised regarding the moral responsibility (in suicide bomb attacks) of the Abrahamic denominations which promote or condone belief in “afterlife”.

I note, for example, that the American Christian publication, “Ecumenical News”, reports in today’s edition (25 November 2014) :

« The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of the World Council of Churches have expressed shock and sadness at the killing of 85 people at a church in Pakistan by suicide bombers. »

The article concludes :

[ Bishop Peter said, "The attack on All Saint's Church is the total failure of the new government of KPK (Pakistan People's Party) and government has failed to provide security to the minorities in Khayber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar Pakistan." ]

There is no suggestion that the doctrine of “afterlife” which the Church shares with other Abrahamic denominations was instrumental in this tragic event and that, consequently, it should assume it’s part of the moral responsibility for it occurring.

Nor did the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the head of the World Council of Churches seize the opportunity to denounce those who make false promises of so-called “afterlife”.

Here is the link :

(http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/anglicans-pope-denounce-pakistan-suicide-bombing-christians-protest-22459)

.

“Can You Feel It” by Michael Jackson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW1fXL3s7bk
Notice the intro and the 3 words stated:

Deceive
Inveigle
Obfuscate

??

Both Michael Jackson and Morrissey have been hounded by the press. But why do they both have many followers?

Morrissey is more obscure, and many people have never heard of him yet he has been voted by the British public as the second most favourite living icon after David Attenborough in Britain in a BBC survey.

“Return to Innocence” - Enigma
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk_sAHh9s08

“Sadeness” – Engima
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFLRHPUWBI8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F9DxYhqmKw

"Much of it is certainly not true if the model of truth is … what actually happened."

LOL - so it's not actually true in the sense of it being true. So in what sense *is* it true?

"We might also say that the whole of Scripture is a lie that tells the truth. This is similar to the way that modern novels are completely made up stories that take us on a path of recognition and exposes the truth of the human condition."

So it's a s true as what it is trying to say. But what *is* it trying to say?

"Similarly, the representation of Mary as the virgin mother of Jesus is obviously a made up tail … But it points away from itself as historical reality to another unseen reality that this Jesus is the Son of God and hence part of the triune nature of God."

Only if you already believe that. Plenty of people read that same passage without at all thinking "Ah ha! This clearly means that God is triune!" It took hundreds of years before the trinity was officially a thing. For an omniscient being, God sure does a poor job of explaining things.

"It is proclaimed in Genesis that God made man in His own image. This means that all people bear the image of God and are thus sacred."

Except for the people drowned in the flood, the Egyptian firstborn, the Canaanites - the list goes on. And on. And is still going on today.

"We could go on and mention the establishment of schools and universities and hospitals, all of which had their origin in the Church."

As we all know: no non-christian civilisation ever had a school or a hospital.

Pfft - why does anyone bother replying to this drivel?

.

Dear PaulMurrayCb,

.
You enquired :

« … why does anyone bother replying to this drivel? »
.

I think what the author is trying to say is that different readings of the bible are possible. Some take it literally. Others, with whom the author appears to identify himself, seek to fathom its quintessential signification. Still others, such as myself, read it as an interesting anthology of religious myths.
There is evidence that some myths have factual foundations. Others seem to have been simply invented. Some, fact based or invented, are imported from other eras and other civilisations than those to which they are purported to apply.

An Australian linguist, Robert M.W. Dixon, Professor of Linguistics at The Cairns Institute, James Cook University, studied Aboriginal myths in their original languages. He observed from the evidence available that Aboriginal myths regarding the origin of the Crater Lakes might be dated back to 10, 000 years ago. Subsequent scientific investigations by the Australian Heritage Commission led to the Crater Lakes myth being listed nationally on the Register of the National Estate and included within Australia's World Heritage nomination of the wet tropical forests, as an “unparalleled human record of events dating back to the Pleistocene era”.

To my knowledge, that is unique. Here is a list of world myths :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mythologies

Though I have not seen it listed among the Chinese myths, a book which I thoroughly enjoyed and recommend is “Journey to the West” also widely known as “Monkey” (the title of Arthur Waley's popular abridged translation), attributed to Wu Cheng'en in the 16th century. It is highly entertaining and enlightening.


Christianity, of course, is based on the myth of the sacrificial lamb elevated to its highest degree: that of human sacrifice. Primitive civilisations sacrificed highly valued individuals to appease the wrath of the gods and save the rest of the tribe from natural disasters.

Today's reading allows the faithful to live their lives as they please, with or without the constraints of morality, under the protection of their faith ( "Thy faith hath saved thee" - Luke 7:50).

.

Enigma - Age Of Loneliness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APW_QwzGg2o

God Only Knows - BBC Music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqLTe8h0-jo

.

« Nor did the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the head of the World Council of Churches seize the opportunity to denounce those who make false promises of so-called “afterlife”. » :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16853#296809

.

I should have liked to have had the benefit of your opinions, George and Peter, but I guess I have no alternative but to draw my own conclusions.

As I am persuaded that all three of these venerable religious authorities are full of noble intentions, I imagine that it is just another instance of the antagonistic effect of well-meant ideology producing an immoral result.

A classical example of this phenomenon is the campaign which was organised in Hanoi under French colonial rule, prior to the Second World War. The campaign was launched to eradicate rats whose numbers had reached plaque proportions. People were paid a bounty for each rat pelt handed in but instead of eradicating rats it prompted the Vietnamese to farm them.

And so I hear the following words of wisdom ringing in my ears :

« … forgive them; for they know not what they do …»

.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/age-of-loneliness-killing-us

Just happened to find this article after my previous post.

When the spirit dies, we die.

It's a dog eat dog world and the CEOs become the new Gods. What a joke.

 
Hi Constance,
 
.
 
I guess there’s just the two of us still on this thread. I’m not sure what common interests we might have that we could talk about but I imagine there must be some.

I played your music clips and can see why you like them. Please accept these in return :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNuQbJst4Lk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9P5VdY9ZBk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxLA1NX9gxY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxOOHblxh78
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl1CQItMxNQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sLwPziSznU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZliX5mP7ATA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh_XhovQB9M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2fyFumisiU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9SFtiTWawc
 
.
 

We do not know who reads OLO but today we may see a Ship of Fools hit the rocks in Victoria, and be replaced by another Ship of Fools. Christianity is real because it is a system of government that replaced the Roman Empire and became the guiding light of representative democracy, with which we have become so familiar so as to treat it with contempt.

The fundamentals of good government were established in the New Testament which replaced the Old Testament as the Law of Good Sense. The Ten Commandments were replaced by only two, the First was that a person shall worship only ONE God. The second was Do unto others as you will have them do unto you. One of the primary commandments for good Democratic Government was the prohibition on Judging. This was sent packing after Bob Menzies was unable to ban the Communist Party and he got the High Court to stop being the Federal Supreme Court of Almighty God and let it make a Unilateral Declaration of independence from allegiance to the Crown.

They did this by writing their own New Testament calling it Rules of Court, which follows the treachery perpetrated in the Authorised King James Version at King James behest in Matthew 18 Verse 17. He had the Scholars translating the word “ecclesia” from the Greek, where it means “gathering of the people” as “church” when it should have been, “ to my Royal Supreme Court”. Royal really means of Almighty God, and we still have the Royal Australian Navy. All Anglican Ministers actually study Greek. We do not have a Royal Australian Parliament even though they have passed an awful lot of good Christian laws that are completely ignored by Government yokels.

Let us pray that just as many strong women have led us back to the right path, that Jacqui Lambie can exert some influence and make the Parliament of the Commonwealth relevant to our everyday lives, as it starts each day with the Lord's Prayer, and establish the Rule of a Paramount Authority once again.

Hi Banjo,

Yes, it looks like it’s just the two of us here remaining. I think we just may have some things in common. The beauty in communication.

Amazing Grace is a beautiful song, and We Shall Rise!

The Carpenters – that’s a bit coincidental – in primary school, me and my girl friends had a band and The Carpenters were our inspiration (I was the drummer).

“El Paso” - I actually went to a square dance there once.

http://www.vevo.com/watch/jeffbuckley/Hallelujah/USSM20701508
(48,975,263 views!)

Jeff Buckley - Hallelujah - Live In Chicago 1995
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8c5Tk1RrYs
He tragically died too young.

You live in Parish, don’t you?

Banjo,

Mad World - Gary Jules (Tears for Fears sang the original)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3N1MlvVc4

Hope you’re into films. There is an excellent film called “Donnie Darko” which says it all about today’s world. It is highly innovative and raises some serious concepts. It has been on the HSC curriculum and has a large cult following.

Please see it. Also has some great songs in it. “Mad World” is the theme song. All set in the 80’s.

Peter Vexatious,

You make a lot of sense. Your knowledge of Western legal history is commendable. Life is a constant battle. The Marxist Academics in the West deny the positive significance of our Christian heritage in the Western World so now we have self loathing. It is unfashionable to be Christian these days. Oh the shallowness of it all.

McCarthyism in the USA occurred out of necessity. They still haven’t learnt the evilness of Communism. And all the Hollywood celebs denounced poor old Elia Kazan (one of the greatest of US directors - interestingly of Greek heritage and an ex Communist who saw the STEALTH) who had the courage to separate himself from the herd. A few years ago when he won an honorary life achievement award, trendy actors like Tim Robbins and Susan Saradon remained sitting in protest. Before this, the American Film Institute, had gone out of its way to ignore Mr. Kazan in its yearly awards.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/crucible/context.html
http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/kazan-award-flap.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/13/movies/kazan-snubbed-by-some-to-get-honorary-oscar.html
Arthur Miller's, "The Crucible"
“At the time of its first performance, in January of 1953, critics and cast alike perceived The Crucible as a direct attack on McCarthyism (the policy of sniffing out Communists). Its comparatively short run, compared with those of Miller’s other works, was blamed on anti-Communist fervor. When Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were accused of spying for the Soviets and executed, the cast and audience of Miller’s play observed a moment of silence. Still, there are difficulties with interpreting The Crucible as a strict allegorical treatment of 1950s McCarthyism. For one thing, there were, as far as one can tell, no actual witches or devil-worshipers in Salem. However, there were certainly Communists in 1950s America, and many of those who were lionized as victims of McCarthyism at the time, such as the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss (a former State Department official), were later found to have been in the pay of the Soviet Union. Miller’s Communist friends, then, were often less innocent than the victims of the Salem witch trials, like the stalwart Rebecca Nurse or the tragic John Proctor.”

Public Image Limited – Rise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq7JSic1DtM

John Lydon 'I'd like to kill Jimmy Savile' [1978]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjy8oLVOvi4

Public Image Limited - Bad Life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwD7_iQ5S6Q

Public Image Limited - Cruel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuFhqPN4qCc

Anyone who's skimmed the Bible loosely or studied it deeply will quickly know that Christianity's central focus is Jesus' death on a Roman cross and his bodily resurrection. It's on this premise that Christianity stands or falls.

Is Christianity true? It is if and only if Jesus rose from his tomb. There's much in the way of ethics, customs and theology that many wish to discuss, but if Jesus rose from the dead, then the essential question is resolved. As C.S. Lewis said, Christianity is either true or it's false, but can never be described as a little bit true.

Does Peter Sellick believe Jesus rose from the dead, the central kernel of the faith? I don't know. Though he theologises here perhaps once every month, I haven't worked how he might answer this straight forward question.

Yet to answer in the affirmative does require much faith. Obviously, the idea of someone rising from the dead after so many days is scientifically or biologically absurd in any normal sense of how we understand the world. But that might be the point.

Jesus' resurrection is other worldly. It requires a God fully capable of miracles, fully willing to enter into this world. That doesn't seem to me the God that's popular in academic or intellectual circles. But that happens to be the God talked about throughout the Scriptures.

.

Dear Constance,

.

Thanks for the PIL clips. I get the message - disappointment - but not so keen on the tunes and antics. Not the sort of thing I could sing under the shower. “Mad world” resonates better with me.

“Hallelujah” is familiar, but a French version.

Your enthusiasm for “Donnie Darko” intrigues me. I have never seen any sign of it here in Paris. I’ll watch out for it. My interest is mainly limited to intellectual and artistic films, usually in off the beaten track cinemas with few spectators.

I see you mention Elia Kazan. That takes my mind back to Ronald Reagan. As long as you’re not considered a traitor I guess you’re OK.

Thanks for opening up the doors of your cultural world to me, Constance. I really do appreciate it. It’s an inestimable treasure.

.

Hi Banjo,

Donnie Darko was made in 2001 so you would have to rent it out. It is a combination of sci-fi/mystery/suspense/romance/comedy. Don't worry, it is artistic and does make you think.

I like art house and golden oldies. Have attended quite a few film festivals in the past.

I didn't think PIL would be to your taste but you should enjoy the music in the film including Mad World.

Well its been nice sharing music with you. I could not live without it.

I understand that Paris has quite a few cinemas that still run a lot of old films. Wish it was the same here.

Bonsoir.

.

Dear Constance,

.

«Donnie Darko was made in 2001 so you would have to rent it out »
.
Thanks. I’ll see if I can find it.

Hope you had a good rest;

Until we meet again :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VET84iPVcuE

.

Hi Banjo,

Very nice. Thank you.

Enigma - The Eyes Of Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8ri14rw32c

George Harrison ~ Give Me Love
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wZIpRfqaco

George Harrison’s mother played a lot of Indian music from the radio when she was pregnant with him as she found it relaxing and she wanted him to be a happy child. Interesting that he became a Hindu.

I think the music we listen to tells a lot about us.

Dead Can Dance is an amazing band. They are avante guarde world music players. Lisa Gerard is Australian and has won an Oscar.

Anyway, take care.

I've had some nice experiences with Hinduism myself.

Interesting, Jesus spent time in India.