I read Tacey’s “Re-Enchantment” as part of a study course some years ago, and was deeply unimpressed. I found his style vey off-putting – highly opinionated, built on unsubstantiated assertions, using overblown rhetoric and abusive misrepresentation of the many people and ideas he disapproves of, and with the creepy fascination with authority that sometimes infects theologians strongly influence by Jung.

Sounds like he hasn’t improved.

Banjo,
Off the top of my head, I don't remember Sells ever responding directly to one of my comments.

As for you saying that I share the same basic beliefs as Peter, I would like to clarify: Peter claims to believe in the traditional creeds, and so would I. The Apostles Creed, as a succinct summary of biblical teaching, includes the resurrection of Christ.

"The third day he rose again from the dead;"

Yet I've often wondered and am not sure if Peter believes Jesus rose from the dead. He mentions in this article the appearance of Jesus on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24 in the context of needing to be interpreted poetically or metaphorically.

I would be happy for Peter to explain himself further. However, if Peter doesn't actually believe in the miracle of Jesus rising from the dead, as seems quite central and integral to the creeds, then I would count this as a pretty significant difference between what we believe.

.

Dear Criag,

.

You wrote:

« I don't share Peter's religious beliefs, Banjo, but I am sympathetic to the view that there are human drives and experiences that may lead to religious explanations. Personally, I am atheist. »
.

Thank you for that precision, Craig. I appreciate it.

George tells me that I am Christian, because I was baptised.

Here is some more on that if you are interested :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17195#306204

Having finally arrived at the conclusion that there is no god, I nevertheless reject the label of “atheist”. It makes no sense to me to define myself by reference to something that I consider does not exist.

I prefer the appellation “just a very ordinary person”.

I agree , as you remark, “that there are human drives and experiences that may lead to religious explanations.” I understand that it was this particular phenomenon that engendered the concept of god and the supernatural in the first place. It was primeval man’s explanation of the awesome beauty and dreaded hostility of nature he had to deal with in his environment. Through submission, worship and sacrifice, he sought to show his appreciation to the gods and appease their wrath.

Religion has always been a self-serving trade-off with the forces of the unknown in order to obtain some desired advantage (though the pious would never admit it). That was why it was invented and remains its essential “raison d’être”.

Perhaps I should add that one of my best friends, still today, gave me religious instruction lessons in primary school. He is now a retired bishop.

As you have resolved to leave OLO, I take this opportunity to wish you “bon vent” and offer the following as a friendly souvenir :

To quote Brahms : « Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini » :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOlc2PAiWUU

And by the man who popularised Rachmaninoff’s Concerto N°3, playing it for the last time, at the age of 75 in New York in 1978. Not the best version but a very moving performance – a sentimental occasion, at the end of a long career :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5mxU_7BTRA

.

.

Dear Dan,

.

Nice to see you back.

You wrote :

« I don't remember Sells ever responding directly to one of my comments »
.

Welcome to the club, Dan. I guess the list of people to whom he responds is even smaller than I thought. I really don’t know what the criteria is to be included among the happy few and be graced - on some rare occasion - by his enlightenment.
.

You also wrote :

« … if Peter doesn't actually believe in the miracle of Jesus rising from the dead, as seems quite central and integral to the creeds, then I would count this as a pretty significant difference between what we believe. »
.

Quite frankly, Dan, I don’t think anybody really knows what Peter believes. In his latest article, “On resisting mythological consciousness”, he refers to “entirely invented narratives such as the Annunciation” which poses the question of his belief in the “virgin birth” of Jesus.

You mention that “The Apostles' Creed, as a succinct summary of biblical teaching, includes the resurrection of Christ.”

Allow me to also point out that the opening paragraph of The Apostles Creed in the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England clearly states :

« I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary, »

Peter seems to have a problem, not only with the death of Christ, but with his birth too. Just where that leads him I really don’t know.

As he has never responded to any of your comments or mine in the past, I doubt that this will inspire him either, so I’m afraid we’ll never know, Dan.

Never mind, it’s been nice chatting with you.

.

.

Dear Dan,

.

Following our recent conversation, I just came up with what would seem to me to be an excellent “sobriquet” (nickname) for Peter :
« L’insaisissable Sellick » (the elusive Sellick).
.

I should explain that, having lived in France for many years, I now think in “Franglais” (a mixture of French and English). I am not always aware of what language an idea occurs to me first.

The nickname for Peter actually came to me in French, though I was ruminating our recent conversation in my mind in English.

“Insiasissable” means impossible to seize, grasp or understand. In other words, “elusive”.

It sounds better in French because the combination of the two words pronounced together rhymes nicely. It is onomatopoeic and has a poetic effect.

In English, “the unseizable Sellick” might be better.

Yes. I think I’ll go for that.

What do you think ?

.

Insiasissable > Insaisissable

Que pense-je? Je pense que celui qui s'approche de Dieu doit croire qu'il existe et qu'il récompense ceux qui le cherchent. Alors, pendant que la foi de Peter Sellick est difficile à comprendre, il y a aussi ceci que je trouve fascinant ou surprenant : Il y a ceux qui se proclament non-croyants (Banjo et Craig) qui souhaitent discuter avec des croyants. Pourquoi prendre la peine? Qu'est-ce qu'ils cherchent par cet engagement?

Ils reconnaissent le fait que «there are human drives and experiences that may lead to religious explanations,» à la fois en essayant de l'incorporer dans leur logique irréligieux. Ça me rappelle le grand-prêtre d'athéisme, Richard Dawkins, qui reconnaît «l'apparence du dessein» dans la nature pendant qu'il se consacre d'expliquer comment c'est seulement illusion - dessein sans dessinateur. Quelques fois on risque de manquer voir ce qui est évident.