I couldn't have put it better myself, Martin.

>>Events containing human beings have subjective components of course. Just because individuals dispute emphases or give different weight to different evidence<<

Except, apparently, when it comes to deciding which parts of the bible are true?

And I cannot possibly agree with this:

>>Relativism urges us to ditch the questions entirely and go and build a tree house or plant some corn.<<

My version of relativism - my frame of reference, if you will - is to continue to look for, and ask, questions. Often, long after some others have been satisfied with their answers.

Which means that I can in all consistency agree with your statement that...

>>its a lie to say life is better lived without asking ultimate questions<<

To return to an earlier theme:

>>Denying the existence of universal truth would mean you wouldn’t be able to criticise Christians who absolutised their relative interpretations of scripture.<<

The problem with this assertion is not the proposition of a universal truth; there may well be, for all I know. The problem is that you claim to have access to it, when there is not even the remotest possibility that you do.

Somewhere along the line you have convinced yourself that there is nothing more to know. Sorry, but that simply isn't the case.

Pericles if you were a true agnostic you wouldn't be able to say "when there is not the remotest possibility that you do".

"Long after others have been satisfied with their answers". Doubt is the crucible from which belief springs but you seem to believe that the crucible is the end when its the means.

"convinced myself there is nothing more to know"! I was pretty clear about the dignity of those who disagree with us, how they're needed. If only as a tool.

Read Chesterton carefully a few times. 'The intellectual folly of agnosticism'

"A world in which men know [agnosticism] that most of what they know is probably untrue cannot be dignified with the name of a sceptical world; it is simply an impotent and abject world, not attacking anything, but accepting everything while trusting nothing; accepting even its own incapacity to attack; accepting its own lack of authority to accept; doubting its very right to doubt. We are grateful for this public experiment and demonstration; it has taught us much. We did not believe that rationalists were so utterly mad until they made it quite clear to us. We did not ourselves think that the mere denial of our dogmas could end in such dehumanised and demented anarchy. It might have taken the world a long time to understand that what it had been taught to dismiss as mediaeval theology was often mere common sense; although the very term common sense, or communis sententia, was a mediaeval conception. But it took the world very little time to understand that the talk on the other side was most uncommon nonsense. It was nonsense that could not be made the basis of any common system, such as has been founded upon common sense."

Don't see the point you are making here, Martin.

>>if you were a true agnostic you wouldn't be able to say "when there is not the remotest possibility that you do"<<

In the strictest possible sense, since an agnostic holds the view that there can be no proof that God exists or doesn't exist, I can safely say that there isn't the faintest chance that you hold the key to absolute truth in the matter. What alternative position do believe I should hold?

>>Doubt is the crucible from which belief springs<<

Yes, but what is it once it has sprung? If it is belief, as you suggest, what happens to doubt? Does doubt still exist? Or has it, as I suggest in your case it has, disappeared?

Which is why for me the crucible remains the more useful concept. I would hate to have your inability to doubt. I value very highly my freedom to continue to consider and ponder the real issues, not just the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

And for every Chesterton there is a Bertrand Russell. And of the two, Russell has by far the less aggressive posture, and conducts his ruminations with a great deal more dignity than GK's bluster...

"We did not believe that rationalists were so utterly mad until they made it quite clear to us. We did not ourselves think that the mere denial of our dogmas could end in such dehumanised and demented anarchy."

Hmmmm. Methinks he doth protest too much.