Sells I am completely mystified by what your agenda is by posting here. OLO is indeed a pluralist forum, yet when you are disagreed with you react with insinuations that OLO posters are incapable of intelligent debate with you. When you overtly insult the intelligence of others on this forum, don't fake surprise when aspersions are cast in your direction. I can only surmise from your most recent post that 'debate' for you means everyone in agreement with your article. Again I ask, why do you bother submitting articles here?

In your link you stated that the human brain does not have a 'god' spot. I agree. However, you do have a blind spot to secular rationalism. After all it is the very application of scientific inquiry which led Darwin to his Origin of the Species theory which you claim to believe. I found your link a convoluted mix of fact and the supernatural (religion) - hardly convincing to the lay person.

Try connecting with OLO posters on an equal playing field instead of claiming the intellectual and moral high ground. WHY? Because you currently present as arrogant and it is this which "gets up people's noses".

Yes, Sells, it has been another interesting journey, hasn't it? But before you disappear to think up some more religio-trivia questions for us, I'd appreciate just one further piece of clarification.

You conclude the first stanza of your article with the observation "[t]heological relativism has subverted all theological discussion", suggesting that this leads to deeper and darker forms of relativism, like competing religions and the rise of Pol Pot.

To this, you offer the antidote of "theological rationalism". Sounds good, as always. But you limit our ability to relate to this concept by describing it as "theological formulations [that] do not float in midair, unconnected to the reality that exists around us, but ... describe that reality in deeper and more accurate ways than we can experience".

Tying it to realities that we cannot experience gives you a great deal of license to say “that's not it!”, but is ultimately unhelpful to the rest of us.

Fortunately, later on we are in more familiar territory. "It seems that our society will have to learn even harder lessons before it will learn that it has been duped by what has been called 'secular rationalism'"

But hold your horses there, mister. Where do “theological rationalism” and “secular rationalism” differ, except in the eye of the beholder?

Secular rationalism, you imply, already has a thick overlay of relativism, with all the evils that relativism brings.

But how come you do not apply the same rules to theological rationalism? After all, you earlier made a convincing case for the appearance of theological relativism in the guise of organized religion.

Surely, if it is possible to have theological rationalism that is a good thing (i.e. untainted with relativism) it is possible to have secular rationalism, equally untainted with relativism? What rules are different when putting these concepts next to each other for examination?

I suspect you are actually getting very bored with writing articles for this audience, and boredom inevitably gives rise to glaring logical inconsistencies like this.

Maybe it is time to call it a day, eh?

Pericles.
On the contrary, I am not bored with writing these article, I am just bored with the responses on this page. I will persist for some time, I am, after all, an official correspondent for OLO.

But to give an honest answer to your query on the varieties of epistemology. As a scientist I use secular rationality all the time. I would say that my list of publications in prominent scientific journals is a good track record. This kind of rationality is what we use in dealing with the objective world, the world of nature.

However, when dealing with questions of the orientation of human life this kind of rationality leads to a reduced understanding of the human. Can Dawkins and Dennett and the others provide an explanation of culture? Theology is part of culture, it does not pretend, or should not, try to provide an explanation of the mechanisms of nature. That was the great mistake the church made against Galileo.

The orientation of the human is contained in story, the Christian story being only one of many. Even secular rationalists who think that their epistemology embraces all of life subscribe to a story that includes the power of the intellect, progress etc. What I am saying is that the Christian story has deep roots in the experience of men and as such contains deeper truth than the simple assertion that we can work it all out on our own.

As Clement of Alexandria said: The Christian can do anything the Romans could do, only better, because we are rooted in truer doctrine. Replace the Romans with those who restrict their thinking to secular rationalism and you get my point.

So, what do we get from you? More sneering, or a genuine engagement in the argument?

Pericles, although I agree with most of your arguments the suggestion that Peter should give up posting articles fills me with horror. Peter provides me with insight into the mind of the educated believer. I don't agree with most of his ideas but the make me think and that is more than I can say for most other believers. Peter, keep it coming, challenge us, abuse us, test us......we love it. As for Peter's article - I am having trouble with the title "Duped by Secular Rationalism" which is suggesting that secular and rationalaism have any more relationship that say... eggs and bacon. Sure they are served up on the same plate but are completely unrelated things. Secularity as "the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education"... is simply a way of running systems without considering different religious points of view, a situation brought about by centuries of sectarian conflict. Secularism is not atheism and is the natural consequence of theocracy. e.g the middle east will have no peace until secular goverments develop and predominate.
Rationalism is a method of argument. Secular systems are not always rational and vica versa. Religion is irrational making rational thought a real bother to the believer..... please don't blame secular systems for this.

>>So, what do we get from you? More sneering, or a genuine engagement in the argument? <<

If you were to trouble to answer the questions I put to you, we might have a chance of "engagement", as you put it.

As it stands, I queried your logic, and you simply avoided the question with the politician's trick of reiterating our own point, but from a different angle. If you don't think the question is valid, say so, and give your reasons. If you think the question has merit, address it directly and courageously.

I'll try again, unsneeringly.

Where do “theological rationalism” and “secular rationalism” differ?

I suggested that since both are capable of being tainted by relativism, surely, equally, both are capable of being unsullied by it?

If you disagree with this possibility, can you explain why?

You have tried to set up a completely one-sided argument. While you are able to admit that there can exist both theological rationalism and theological relativism, you deny the possibility that there can equally be secular rationalism and secular relativism.

Claiming that theology is part of culture without accepting that "a-theology" is also part of culture is to set up a preposterously loaded proposition.

I put it to you that theology is neither necessary nor sufficient for culture to exist, simply one possible component.

Peter says in his article ........ ".......... What is revealed in revelation is the grain of the universe and our place in it and we ignore this to our peril" and further "........ if we get our theology wrong we see only a distortion of reality, the consequences of which will blight our lives."

If we are to understand Peter's reason for "theology" then take particular note of his use of the word "revelation". Most people would understand that "revelation" anything is some uncovering or disclosure via communication from the divine that has been partially or wholly hidden or unknown. Perhaps and in Peter's case is he not concluding that "revelation" is some magic unveiling of a gratuitous nature that is given to humankind by a divine personality? Isn't this how the Jewish people have understood God's will throughout history where consciousness is a religious evolution with a theology? (I take it that consciousness and culture are interrelated where the first implies the second,)

As if this mindset isn't enough, we next get what he said today ........."As a scientist I use secular rationality all the time". In a further conflicting statement, he follows it up with "However, when dealing with questions of the orientation of human life this kind of rationality leads to a reduced understanding of the human." Exceptionalism at its best.

This is all the more confusing because, wearing his scientist cap, Peter in his "Evolutionary Psychology: A New Hermeneutic" starts out with a view that consciousness is a biological phenomenon realized in brain structures. e.g. "Such a suggestion has been blocked in the past by our insistence that culture exists in a realm that is separate from our biology." However from this point on he becomes enmeshed in teleological argument.

Just seems that Peter's philosophical issues conflict to the point where it is not possible to approach the scientific questions intelligently. e.g. He treats the mental and the physical as two distinct metaphysical realms ....... i.e. dualism with teddy magic in there somewhere.