.

Dear Peter,

.

You refer to :

« … narrative devices that point beyond themselves to theological realities formulated in a prescientific culture … »

The term “theological realities” is an oxymoron.

The word “theological” relates to the study of "divinity" – which is a “concept”, a “belief”, or a “doctrine”, certainly not an established reality.

The word “realities”, on the contrary, relates to that which exists independently of ideas concerning it.

There are theological "studies", "concepts", "beliefs" and "doctrines" but there are no such things as "theological realities".

.

//It is notable that natural science could not and did not arise from pantheistic cultures.//

It is notable that Peter either believes that the Ancient Greeks weren't pantheists, or that they did not practice natural science. Neither of these beliefs is correct.

Nor are his beliefs that nihilism is a necessary outcome of atheism.

This article is sounds like one big fallacious appeal to consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences). I like the idea of this “radical scepticism”, though. I want to learn more. It sounds about as frightening as ‘ultra-rationalism’ or being ‘radically’ intelligent or sensible.

George,

In the context of religious belief, how does this ‘fiducia’ differ from credulity? As it stands, it appears to just be a fancy label used to disguise a belief’s lack of rational justification.

I do like the idea of rationalists having a “privatised fiducia”, though. It’s like a less-flattering way of saying ‘freethinker’.

It seems the purpose of this word, fiducia, is to falsely equate religious belief and rationalism by glossing over the negatives of the former, and depriving the latter of its virtues.

AJ Philips,

>>how does this ‘fiducia’ differ from credulity?<<

The same as apples from oranges (silly questions beget silly answers).

Anyhow, you can find out about “credulity” in any dictionary, whereas fiducia (besides its meaning in Roman law) is a technical term used in philosophy of religion. I used it in that rejected article written with the intention to clarify the confusion arising form mixing the rational and other - personal, cultural, psychological, “spiritual” etc - aspects of faith. Apparently without success as far as you are concerned although my post was in response to Sellick’s article who I assumed was familiar with the term and should understand the nuances.

Where John Hick has a distinction between fides and fiducia, Paul Tillich, the Lutheran philosopher of religion par excellence, distinguishes between assensus and fiducia, the Jewish thinker sees it as pistis versus Emunah, the Catholic philosopher Bernard Lonergan speaks of the irreducibility of faith to religious beliefs, etc.

None of them mentions credulity in this context, although http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18154#322473 applies also to those who cannot tolerate what they cannot understand in matters of religion, faith, spiritual dimension of reality, etc.

One can be rational without being a rationalist, social without being a socialist, fundamental without being a fundamentalist etc.

This is all I can say. Not being a specialist philosopher, I can only reproduce what I understood specialists say.

By “privatised fiducia” I meant that what gives somebody a satisfaction (even excitement, sometimes with an urge to convert, persuade outsiders) similar to what a believer gets from his faith, albeit without reference to an external spiritual source of this satisfaction. Like you can have “privatised sex”, i.e. without an external partner, but I did not want to use that word because some might find it offensive.

//Like you can have “privatised sex”, i.e. without an external partner, but I did not want to use that word because some might find it offensive.//

Yes, I do find that very offensive. It really upsets me when people use pointless and long-winded euphemisms to express simple concepts because they have somehow reached the erroneous conclusion that it is good manners to call a spade a 'wood and steel composite silicate re-positioning device' instead of just a spade.

Euphemisms are only acceptable when they're funny, e.g. 'shaking sticky white coconuts from the veiny love tree'.

Just say wannking, dude. That way everybody knows what you mean without you having to explain it in an 'i.e.'. There is nothing offensive about clarity or conciseness.

George,

I’m not sure why my question was silly. Up until that point there appeared to be no difference between fiducia, in the context of religious belief, and credulity. Sure, the article you submitted provided some superficial details that made fiducia a more complex notion. But fundamentally, the two appear no different to each other.

<<None of them mentions credulity in this context, although http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18154#322473 applies also to those who cannot tolerate what they cannot understand in matters of religion, faith, spiritual dimension of reality, etc.>>

That’s a pretty presumptuous sentiment you've expressed there. It presumes that those who reject certain beliefs must necessarily lack the ability to understand them. That’s a bit of a false dichotomy quite obviously set up to prevent an individual having to consider the possibility that there may be good reasons for the rejection of a belief that they hold.

The poem mentions mocking the “beautiful and good”. Though examples are few and far between, even I can see some good in religion. I think the most beautiful thing about religion is that it can bring hope to so many in a world torn apart by religion.