How do you know what any animal has a concept of? Does Peter or your God talk to them? Peter relies on the bible for his guidance and evidence. What is the teaching here?

As for animals inflicting pain without conscience....where have you been lately..do you have a TV?... Do you watch the news? Humans do this every day, in the theatre of war, as well as the home and the workplace. (even on this forum)

I never deplored the personal views of anyone. My last sentence, that you refer to, says- "Where exactly are these ruins Peter and what have you to say about the crumbling edifice of your superstition and theology?" The first part is a straight forward question about his claims about modernism the second part refers to his superstition and theology - I guess you take objection to the word "superstition" when refering to your religion.
Please explain why religious beliefs cannot be described this way in the context of magical spirits, miracles, resurrection, virgin birth etc..

Would the phrase "unsubstantiated, archaic, literalist beliefs" be less offensive?

I also use "crumbling edifice". This is not a denunciation of his personal views, just a plain fact about which I am happy to debate. Peter would not be posting articles if he did not feel that his theology was being challenged. "Crumbling" is most certainly taking place here and Peter is shoring up the cracks and doing a little underpinning. (although I wish he could use plain english so us uneducated peasants could understand a little easier).

Yes, I would eat my dog if I was starving but that was not my point. You would only do this in desperation but we happily munch into a chicken, cow, sheep etc., why hesitate about the pooch? Is it possible that a unique bond between humans and animals may sometimes exist? love even?

He would probably not serve up pig to a Jew or Muslim because of respect for their personal beliefs. A respect that seems to be missing in the attitude of many literalist believers to us secular/atheist/rationalist/unforgiven/sinning/bound-for-hell-Heathens.

So I guess there is no rational way to distinguish between human and animal since Peter Sellick did not respond to this (possibly) irrational and 'silly' question. Should it be obvious?

Bozzie says that animals have no conscience when they inflict pain and suffering on each other, but neither do some humans, so that isn't a adequate method.

Bozzie also says that humans understand life and death. But I certainly don't understand these things at all and I have seen dogs clearly indicate that they recognise death and mourn for the dead person.

The only things that I come up with that clearly differentiate humans from animals are opposable thumbs and face to face sex.

Peter Sellick says he is against the hegemony of the rationality that is a product of modernism. I agree. But I am also against the hegemony of the religious that he seems to want instead.

Also, as I understand it, Peter Singer does not advocate hegemony of the rational. He suggests that a rational approach is the most rational starting point when considering moral and ethical issues.

He freely admits that he cannot apply his rationality to his mother who suffers from Alzheimers

"Instrumental reason can lead to the death camps as well as to a well run medical service because it is value free. Similarly, the logic of PETA can lead in bizarre directions, veganism not being the worst"

I do not see the connection to instrumentalism, is it claimed that PETA is using "animal rights" as a facade? Or that the entire concept of human/other rights is instrumentalist?

PETA is a diverse group, and we do not know its reasoning. Certainly the concept of human rights does not stand on its own, and is arguably a linguistic construct or aggregation, but that does not mean that such rights are severed from proper moral precepts.

"Scripture is rational in its own way, if it were not, it could not have formed the robust Western culture that we see around us."
It is quite the overstatement to say that scripture formed western culture, and that would not logically imply the complete rationality of scripture. I can accept that rationality under different assumptions will provide varying results, but I do not know any reason to consider them seperate or equally valid.

"I know that I am always harping on about human rights, but they are just as much mythical as the creation stories but with less warrant since they are not based on a careful analysis of the metaphysical structure of the world but rather are a stop gap forced on us by the abandonment of theology."
I think many theists would have a problem with that last bit. And you would be unable to show that the stories in Genesis were based on "careful analysis of the metaphysical structure of the world".

"'theology' is not in my use a pejorative."
I do not use it that way either.

" http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9310/articles/jenson.html "
A bit confusing that, especially with the references to artistic modernism, instrumentalism and the "narratable world." Perhaps you should define your view of moderni and demonstrate the ruins yourself.

Mollydukes. There are lots of ways that we can distinguish animals from humans, absence of language, complexity of behavior, size of cortex, etc. I hope I did not give the impression that it is all in the bible! Natural science has become incredibly accurate in its descriptions. The place of theology is to provide, as Jenson says, a realistic narrative. That narrative must gel with our scientific knowledge of the world and there is the rub because it contains unscientific aspects. That is one of the reasons the Judeo/Christian story has been rejected because it is deemed supernatural. The trick is to read the story from the writers point of view, that is, a pre-scientific view. When read on its own terms it is a realistic narrative in that we can see ourselves in it.

Deuc. Human rights are not severed from moral concerns, that is their point. My problem with them is that they are severed from the “realistic narrative”, indeed they seem to stem from any good intention present in the councils of the United Nations. As such they are simply imposed and are not part of our self understanding. I get a little nervous when I see a fertilized human ovum in a dish and am told that its rights are being abused. That seems to me an abstraction, even if logical in a way that PETA is logical.

I think there is no doubt that scripture has been a major force in the formation of Western culture. Our reaction against it is recent and disastrous.

The modern experiment started with Descartes when he posited the thinking subject as the basis of epistemology, thus replacing God. As Jenson says, we arrived at a story without a story teller and this has meant the unraveling of the story and some forms of postmodernism. Rowan Williams “Lost Icons” is good on this.

Several writers have asked for evidence that the modern world is in ruins. I have avoided answering this because it requires the sort of doom and gloom argument that makes me look like a fundamentalist preacher and the evidence should be based on sociological research which I am too lazy to pursue. But consider the following:

1. The loss of a transcendent narrative has collapsed personal narratives into immediate goals like materialism, power, prestige and lifestyle. This even threatens the desire and ability to raise families.
2. The drug culture, surely not an insignificant aspect of our society, is a sign that there are many who just want out.
3. The suicide rate especially among the young.
4. The divorce rate that verges on 50% indicating that we do not know what a promises are and how to keep them.
5. The failure of the West to help third world countries because we can only give them money.

In the West there is just enough of the old morality left to hold us in and we are not in as bad a shape as the remnants of European communism who have born the full brunt of modernism carried to its logical conclusion. The question for us is how long can we hold out on the thin diet of liberal democracy and capitalism. Civilizations run on their core ideas and ours have evaporated.

I know that we could list ills in all ages, there are none that have none. I am not harking back to a golden age when all was right but I am looking for the restoration of our civilization’s seminal story.

PETA are very concerned for the welfare of animals and demand that we respect animal rights - so long as someone else bears the costs. But they see no problem executing animals when they, PETA, have to bear the costs since their priorities are activism not animal protection. Over the past few years one animal shelter run by PETA has 'put down' over 10000 creatures. I wonder if they respected their rights as they did so?
Read about it here..http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm