.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« I will engage with you if you engage with me! » :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17351#306885
.

You added in your latest article, “Supplanting the supernatural with the ultra-natural” (end of first paragraph) :

« Belief cannot be equated with faith. » :

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17412&page=0
.

Please let me assure you that not only do I believe in you, Peter, but I also have confidence and faith and … I am very patient !

You will find my “engagement” on page 1 of this thread.

Now I am waiting quietly for you to engage with me, whenever you like, at your leisure. I know you are very busy. Please take your time …
.

I am quite happy listening to the gentle music while I wait for you, dear Peter …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGj39oddhNE

.

Language is such a trial, isn't it.

"His [David Tacey's] statement: "The spiritual is ultra-natural, not supernatural." rings true. Thus he concludes that descriptions of biblical miracles are means of conveying the ultra-natural."

Researching "ultra-natural" is instructive, as the term appears to have been trademarked by the Red Bull company to promote a competition where people ski down mountains.

http://www.redbullsignatureseries.com/ultra-natural

Who knew.

"Ultra-natural" is also applied to a number of different products - I rather like this one.

http://www.needs.com/product/LifeExtension_Ultra_Natural_Prostate_w_ApresFlex_and_Lignans_60/vsrgb_LifeExtension

But no indication of any religious context, that I could find.

So the question remains, what interpretation should we apply to Mr Sellick's use of the term? Sadly, the article itself provides no clue. Without such elucidation, the entire article is rendered meaningless.

So please Mr Sellick, what exactly - or even vaguely - are the attributes that differentiate supernatural and ultranatural, that might give some meaning to this piece?

Given the shifting sands upon which our language operates, perhaps this will help:

"Such distinctions are, therefore, culturally constructed and, as such, are in no way universal. Phenomena that we would classify as supernatural, or paranormal, are not necessarily conceived of in the same way in other cultural, and sub-cultural, systems. Indeed, the founding sociologist Émile Durkheim highlighted precisely this issue when he noted that the modern notion of the supernatural is a recent one in the history of human thought, coinciding with the rise of enlightenment science in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries."

http://realitysandwich.com/162119/supernatural_natural_anthropology_paranormal/

Surely, there are better ways to convey the take-away from this article, which appeared to me to be simply:

"...insistence on the historical accuracy of biblical texts is a barrier to faith".

A sentiment that makes much sense to me, even from my perspective as an atheist. However, I would appreciate some more cogent supporting arguments, such that I could employ with, say, the young-earth creationists who pop up here every so often.

Dear Pericles,

I obviously cannot speak for Peter, but as to why "...insistence on the historical accuracy of biblical texts is a barrier to faith", I can contribute my own 2 cents:

The literal text of the bible if read as an historical account, depicts God as scary, so one who believes in the accuracy of biblical texts is likely to conclude: "Since this is all true, sigh, I guess I have to worship God or else I'm in big trouble".

One ought to worship God out of love, not out of fear and being scared of God doesn't help anyone to love Him.
Who needs this kind of devotees anyway?

Belief is superficial, an intellect-deep dry idea that something is such, whereas faith is a whole state of being where trust and acceptance are infused throughout all mind and body as well: even the posture of someone who has faith is different, and the shine in their eyes - the faithful has no fear!

Why, thank you indeed for the contribution, Yuyutsu.

>>I obviously cannot speak for Peter, but as to why "...insistence on the historical accuracy of biblical texts is a barrier to faith", I can contribute my own 2 cents<<

But while your observation may very well be accurate, you also point out that:

>>...one who believes in the accuracy of biblical texts is likely to conclude: "Since this is all true, sigh, I guess I have to worship God or else I'm in big trouble"<<

With the best will in the world, that isn't a response to my request for information, is it:

"I would appreciate some more cogent supporting arguments, such that I could employ with, say, the young-earth creationists who pop up here every so often."

I hardly think this is an argument that would impress a young-earth creationist, would it? As you yourself point out:

>>...faith is a whole state of being where trust and acceptance are infused throughout all mind and body as well<<

Hardly the state of mind that would respond to a threat of "big trouble", eh?

Dear Pericles,

<<Hardly the state of mind that would respond to a threat of "big trouble", eh?>>

Well, you assume that those "young-earth creationists" are indeed faithful.

If they are, then they probably wouldn't be interested in arguing with anyone anyway, no matter what argument(s) you bring, because they are content, too busy in their worship and do not require reassurances.

But if they are not faithful, only believers, then they are not in that state of mind and may listen to a good argument, one that can direct them to more spiritual wealth.

Banjo,
I think you miss the point; Peter is not asking you or anyone to "engage" on the basis that you are willing to agree with him if he can meet certain "proof" criteria that you stipulate. He is hoping to find people who are willing to accept his stipulations as axioms in his arguments, whether they agree or otherwise and to try to look at the implications. Having had some interesting discussions with Peter on matters philosophic, I know that he is untroubled by a lack of personal religiosity in his interlocutors. He is not a "religious nut" like runner et al, but a thoughtful man who hopes to be able to talk with other thoughtful people and is rarely satisfied in that ambition because most people just want an argument (with apologies to John Cleese).

I think that's an entirely reasonable. I share his ambitions in that regard and I share his dislike of having to fight off people who think that "knowing" is equivalent to "understanding".

With respect, Banjo, you provide an excellent example in your first response. After Peter goes to some trouble in the article to point out that he discerns a difference between "faith" and "belief", you go to some trouble to tell him that he must be wrong, citing your researches in the dictionary (although since you don't cite your references, you rely on his "faith" in your veracity to do so). You go further and insult him by implying he has "blind faith", which my dictionary tells me is a pejorative expression implying the one impugned has not actually thought about the matter.

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, they are two sides of the same coin; strivings to understand the nature of the world of man and its workings.

Here are some interesting videos of Richard Feynmann discussing that difference between knowing and understanding. The first is especially relevant, but I urge everyone to watch the others, since spending time with Feynmann is never wasteful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkbuJNpxmqs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkbuJNpxmqs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOw&index=4&list=PL5o8CJmKGI4VLp7bqTpuG8y-s-m_DCE_g