Pogi wrote: “Credibility is not enhanced by advising us that during the middle ages great minds gave allegiance to the christian god.”

True, but I’d make two points. Firstly Newton rejected the Christian (Church sanctioned interpretation) God, and secondly he undertook an extensive rational enquiry to understand the true person of Jesus. This is inconsistent with the notion that Newton was among the “highly suggestive and superstitious” and so his example should not be dismissed so flippantly.

As a Muslim, the irony of Don Battan, CEO of Creation Ministries International (Australia), offering Newton as an example is that it was through rational enquiry that Newton came to reject the Christian God and see Jesus the way we see Jesus. Keep up the good work Don :-)

Yuyutsu,
Thankyou for the information. I did my own research and found this article “Saudi scholars discredit UK's claim of 'oldest Quran' “: “...at least three Saudi scholars claim the text must have been written after the Prophet’s death for several reasons” The 3 points are: researchers should have examined the ink not the hide; the copy is “organised in [an] order which was not so during the time of the Prophet (pbuh),”; and “radiocarbon examination of a manuscript could only indicate the century in which it was made and not the year”. http://m.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-scholars-discredit-uk-s-claim-of-oldest-quran--600640.html

I was curious about the source you used: Robert Spencer. Chase Robertson, President and Distinguished Professor of History The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, refers to Spencer’s “The Truth about Muhammad” as one of the “ugly and ignorant diatribes that have appeared over the last few years” p209 (reference below). Since you describe the Prophet a man of peace, how can you even contemplate using Spencer as an "authority"?

The Ideological Uses of Early Islam Author(s): Chase F. Robinson Review by: Chase F. Robinson Source: Past & Present, No. 203 (May, 2009), pp. 205-228

Yuyutsu states: “I appreciate that neither yourself nor Sheikh Nuh Keller or the Sufi tradition supports violence, but the Quran as we know it today calls for violence, hence cannot befit or be the work of the blessed Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.”

I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to explore some of the sources I have offered, but isn’t this statement of yours somewhat paradoxical? You say “neither yourself nor Sheikh Nuh Keller or the Sufi tradition supports violence” but then say “the Quran as we know it today calls for violence”. Yet a core tenet of Sufi teachings is that one’s drawing near to Allah is through following His rulings, the Shariah.

In effect you are rejecting the interpretation of Quran (tafsir) of followers of traditional Islam, while accepting the interpretation of the likes of Al Qaeda and ISIS who have set themselves apart from this tradition.

Are you prepared to be a bit more precise about what you mean by “the Quran as we know it today calls for violence” and offer evidence in the form of tafsir?

Why tafsir? For your claim to have any credence it would need to be supported by the interpretation of traditional Islamic scholars. Muslims don't follow the tafsir of Spencer or yourself.

David,
I don't really want to go into a long debate about Galileo, as it goes a little outside the scope of this article. But my understanding is that it was not only some of the clergy of the day, but more so the greater part of the scientific establishment, whose thinking was rooted to Ptolemy, who opposed Galileo and his Copernican ideas on scientific grounds. His incarceration was more to do with Galileo's personality and a personal spat with a leading cardinal. The church in general was quite open to considering Copernican ideas.

When mentioning the beliefs of some "Catholic theologians", my point was simply to say that there are varying viewpoints among them. I'd agree with you that many theologians don't understand science. And maybe scientists don't understand theology. It would be valuable if we had more cross disciplinary persons of knowledge in general.

Rhian,
Thanks for your input.

I don't believe Don is falling into any theological error by viewing Genesis as an historical account. You say we shouldn't be taking the stories literally. Yet there are solid linguistic grounds for thinking that that was the way the author intended them to be taken. The writing comes across mainly as narrative. You say we should take Genesis 1-3 symbolically rather than literally. So it is possible to find a break between Genesis 3 and the rest of Genesis so as to indicate a change of genre? I doubt it. There is continuity within Genesis that is hard to break. And it is also strange how nearly all interpreters of the bible (including the leading scientists we mentioned before) leading up to the 19th Century didn't see any problem with reading all of Genesis as historical, or any need to read it only with symbolic meaning. So I think it is rough to say that Don is torturing a theological text by reading it in a straight forward, as well as traditionally accepted manner.

David f stated (way back at the beginning) "The Bible is also a creation of the human mind."

This act of creating cults, or art, cultures, where does it come from? Why do we need all this if we are mere animals following our particular evolutionary path. Of what use is it to our material well-being?

"Batten is a research horticulturist. That reminds me of the saying: You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."

And this notion of "culture". I can understand how "civilisation" can be viewed as a product of an evolutionary process (humans becoming more productive and establishing institutions to serve community and protect individuals/minorities), but "culture"?

How do we explain art for example? It doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose for our material well-being to have people engaging in plays and sculpture, yet we need it.

If scientists were to invent humanoid robots that could adapt and evolve with their environment and program them with an 'instinct' to survive and reproduce would they have any use for culture?

I guess what I'm saying is that culture is evidence of a spirit that is distinct from its temporary abode in the form of our material bodily forms.

Have you any other explanation for culture?

Dear Rhian,

You wrote: "Your statement “I don't think one can be greatly above average intelligence and believe in the biblical god” seems rather arrogant, and flies in the face of evidence of religious beliefs of some of the West’s greatest thinkers."

I wrote: “I don't think one can be greatly above average intelligence and believe in the biblical god.”

Great thinkers have had deep religious beliefs. Spinoza was described as ‘god-intoxicated’. However, he rejected what he called narrative religion, Judaism and Christianity, along with the biblical god. My statement concerned the biblical god rather than religious beliefs.

Argument should not employ:

1. Name-calling
2. Assertion without evidence
3. Putting words in people’s mouths

Subsequently you wrote: “I’ll admit my use of “arrogant” was an insult, but so was your claim that it’s not possible to be a Christian and intelligent.”
My arrogance? More name calling. My claim that it’s not possible to be a Christian and intelligent? I made no such claim. I didn’t mention and wasn’t even thinking of Christians. Intelligent is not the same as ‘greatly above average intelligence’. I was thinking of people like Einstein and Newton not merely an intelligent person. I mentioned belief in the biblical god. The biblical god is not Christian. Most of the Bible is not Christian. 39 books of the Bible come from the Jewish Bible which has nothing to do with Christianity. The biblical god is mostly non-Christian. Many of the 27 books in the New Testament were also written by Jews. Unlike the biblical God who is in one piece and indivisible most Christians believe in a Trinity. That is not the biblical God. Since you persist in putting words in my mouth I don’t want to continue this discussion. It’s too wearing.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

For science don’t consult theologians. For religion don’t consult Richard Dawkins.

Dear Grateful,

Humans are big brained animals. Culture is a bonding mechanism for big brained animals. Like God and the tooth fairy spirit is an imaginary entity.