What say I, Jayb?

Well, Mr. HiFi, I say that you are mostly correct. The main point you have failed to mention is that Christians didn’t get to where they are now on their on their own, and for the most part, were dragged there kicking and screaming there by secularism.

Just as Christianity is yet to completely pull itself out of the Dark Ages (e.g. America’s Deep South, Africa), Islam has yet to experience their enlightenment. Although there are signs in many parts of the world that this has already started to happen, these parts are, funnily enough, the more modern and civilised parts of the world.

Yes, there are many factors that influence why adherents to religions behave the way they do. Nothing is ever mono-causal. But it can never be entirely attributed to one religious doctrine being about war and conquering, and the other being a strange and contradictory mix of peace, love, mung beans, bigotry and genocide.

(The invention of video footage, for example, helped Christians to understand how horrific the results of their antisemitism could be and thus, instead, become ardent supporters of Israel as an over-correction to their past behaviour. Overnight, Jews went from being “Christ-killers” back to “God’s chosen people”.)

It gets even more complex than that, though. Christians (and atheists like yourself who are happy to be apologists for Christianity) are quick to point that that many of the influential Enlightenment figures were themselves Christians. Hardly surprising given they lived in pre-Darwinian times where that was the default. Many back then were only nominally Christian, choosing instead to call themselves ‘Deists’ (because even a wrong answer that is made up makes us feel better than having no answer at all).

There seems to be this indefatigable attempt from Christians and its apologists to, not only attribute Christianity to the Enlightenment more than what is tenable, but to argue that it was actually an essential element for its dawning.

But I think I’ve waffled for long enough now.

Until next time, Mr. HiFi.

AJ: There seems to be this indefatigable attempt from Christians and its apologists to, not only attribute Christianity to the Enlightenment more than what is tenable, but to argue that it was actually an essential element for its dawning.

I do believe that Christianity was dragged into the Enlightenment kicking & screaming but eventually had to let go as science progressed & drowned out some of the Church's teachings.

<The main point you have failed to mention is that Christians didn’t get to where they are now on their on their own, and for the most part, were dragged there kicking and screaming there by secularism.>

Opps! Went back & reread. I agree.

Even as late as the 50's there was still dissent in the Christian World against Science. Wasn't it only 2 or 3 years ago that the Pope declared Officially that the World really was round & apologized to Galileo? Things like DNA & it's uses are still hotly debated in some Christian Sects. I remember back in the 50/60's Methodists, Presbyterians, 7DA's, etc., weren't allowed to listen to the music or go to dances. Still a long way to go but a long way from the Islamic World. Inter Christian violence is still around but usually disguised as something else.

The pendulum swings back and forth, and religions become less or more oppressive. The different sects of Christianity until secularism took hold regarded tolerance as a vice which indicated that one had a lack of devotion to one’s faith. One reason for the ease of the early Muslim conquests was that Muslim rule was less oppressive than rule by Christians over Christians of another sect. Many Christians welcomed the conquerors. Early Islam discouraged conversion as Muslims regarded Islam as a religion for Arabs who did not pay taxes in the conquered areas. Conversion shrank the tax base.

Sebastian Castellio who protested the execution of Servetus in Protestant Geneva for heresy spoke for tolerance in Christian Europe. Most Catholics and Protestants approved of the execution.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725 points to my essay on the matter.

Indian Hindus cling to the caste system. One way those of lower castes can leave the system is to convert to Islam or Christianity. This arouses Hindus of higher caste against Islam and Christianity which they see as threats to their status.

During the medieval era Islam was much more tolerant than Christianity. One example was that European universities were open only to Christian scholars while Islamic universities were open to scholars of any belief. However, as Europe emerged from the Dark Ages Islam entered theirs and became as intolerant as Christians were in the Dark Ages. Most of Islam is still mired in their Dark Ages.

With the growth of religious tolerance and the secular state Europe left the Dark Ages. The United States of America was the first country to separate religion and state. The US Constitution specifies that there be no religious test for public office.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10790 points to my essay on that subject.

At present the USA separation of church and state is under threat from sections of the US population which would eliminate it. That is of great concern to me as I regard the separation as essential for democracy.

.

Dear Rhian,

.

You wrote :

« Christian liturgy [ritual] does not commemorate an historical event, but celebrates and symbolises a present reality … Perhaps the most important thing is not that Jesus was resurrected, but that he is resurrected. That experience is at the heart of faith. Rational belief is perhaps what Anselm called "faith seeking understanding." »

Unfortunately, what you refer to as reality is not “reality” in the universally accepted sense of the term, i.e., “something that exists independently of ideas concerning it”.

Nor does Christian liturgy celebrate and symbolise “a present reality”. It celebrates and symbolises “a present religious doctrine”. An example that comes to mind is the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (the changing of the elements of the bread and wine, when they are consecrated in the Eucharist, into the body and blood of Christ).

Nor does your claim that “he [Jesus] is resurrected” correspond to reality in the universally accepted sense of the term either. It is simply a "belief", albeit “the most important” belief “at the heart of [the Christian] faith”.

Finally, you cite Anselm’s motto, “faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum) as an example of “rational belief” (belief based on reason or logic).

Though this 11th century Benedictine monk, Roman Catholic theologian and philosopher who was later enthroned archbishop of Canterbury and canonised as a saint following his death, proposed the first and best known ontological argument (to prove the existence of God by reason alone). He wrote:

« sin has so darkened our minds that we cannot hope to reach the truth unless God graciously leads us to it. He does so by offering us the truth through revelation and by inspiring us to accept that revelation in faith. Once we accept the truth on that basis, however, we can hope to reason out proofs for what we have already accepted through faith »

First state the conclusion (God exists) then describe how to reach it. That’s a method that can never fail !

It sounds very scientific, eminently rational. Right on target, every time !

http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/anselm.asp

.

AJ,
On Sunday, you spoke about "planting seeds of doubt in the minds of sceptics." But aren't sceptics supposed to have doubt planted in them? Sceptics are supposed to have doubt residing right there at their root. Doubt is what defines them. Or is their doubt selective, taken out and applied only on occasions of their choosing?

I think this is one of the main points of Don Batten's article. In this instance he is the sceptic. And he's asking us to be sceptical about five 'miracles' which atheists hold up claiming to have given a materialist explanation. Are we allowed to be sceptical?

AJ,
Creationists are more than willing for you or anyone to scrutinise or critique their ideas. For they believe that truth, supported by the weight of evidence, is on their side. So they are happy to engage in debate, such as (if you prefer things written) this written debate hosted by the website of the Sydney Morning Herald from 2005, between those from Creation Ministries and members of the Australian Sceptics. The topic of the debate was: 'Did the universe and life evolve, or was it specially created in 6 days?'
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/skeptics_vs_creationists.pdf

So, if Don Batten and those from Creation Ministries were not shying away from an open, public debate with leading scientists from the Australian Sceptics, then I doubt he would be afraid to handle questions posed by you. But I suspect they are wary to not necessarily enter into every internet discussion on the topic. For if you did, you'd have little time to do anything else. I would guess that they may not see the need to address questions to which they've already given answers on their website, for the sake of economy of effort.

But if you did pose an interesting question to Don, that he thought was original and not yet already answered on his website, that motivated him to come here and address, then I like the idea of you donating $50 to a worthy secular cause. And I think OLO itself could be such a cause. For OLO permitting a creationist article here shows that it is indeed free and open to all Australians regardless of their persuasion or affiliation, which shows a secular attitude in the truer sense. In contrast, we have others here such as Cobber and JBSH who would prefer censorship of ideas unpalatable to them. There are too many people around quick to apply the imposition of atheism in the name of 'secularism'.