"This is true of theology which is best described as “faith seeking understanding”. But that does not let us off from a critical and enquiring attitude to all things."

The thing is, if you start with flawed assumptions, then all critical thinking about flawed assumptions, is usually flawed.
So its interesting navel gazing at its best, but has little to
do with science. I suspect that some within theology would like to link it to science, for it to gain some kind of credibility,
but so far they have failed, for lack of any substantiated evidence.
We can show that theology is as much linked to geography, as to anything else.

Hey I am sure that religion keeps lots of people happy, satisfies
some of their emotional needs etc, so does art or poetry. Its their claim to represent the literal truth, their brainwashing of children etc, that really pisses me off. If they are going to teach it in schools, at least be honest with the kids, tell them that its mere speculation and no more. Stop lying to them.

Recently the Queensland Humanists tried to introduce an alternate
curriculum for kids in schools, who did not attend religious studies for various reasons. It was shot down in flames by the Xtians, who clearly want to keep the philosophical patch for themselves. How can kids be taught about the many wonders of the world, about ethics and morality beyond being threatened by hellfire etc, with that kind of
narrowminded attitude? If Christianity wants to lay a claim to morality and deny others the right to teach it in schools, perhaps its time that they provided some evidence for their claims

Sells conveniently neglects to recognise his revealing mistake in thinking I am some kind of scientist. In his universe if U R a rationalist U must be a boring scientist who hates the humanities disciplines. Alas, bro, it ain't necessarily so.

Incidentally, I have always opposed relativist historiography: if there is nothing against to which test someone's "history" than any piece of garbage (eg, the scribblings of Nazi and some Marxist "historians") is on a par with the best and most carefully sourced research. Not likely.

I make no apols for using the word "peddle": if U start with faith as an assumption and then apply logic to the consequences, U R still peddling faith, which (however sincerely held, and by no means to be attacked thru the power of the state) is not a rationally testable proposition.

A bit more good humour wd be welcome: remember St. Augustine's wonderful response to someone who asked him what God was doing before creating the universe? A: preparing hell for people who asked such questions. For all that I wd have disagreed with him, Augustine was a very human human being & I think I wd have liked him.

Priscillian: Amen to yr last comment.

Peter

You conclude 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”. This movement will have to produce even more absurdity before we will see it for what it is."

What do your "God-is-dead" critics have to say? Probably that our problems are no different to anybody elses...who are we to say that things are a problem... there is only a lesson when there is a fact to be learnt... that it is all a consequence of irrational, uneducated people... and life began in a pond and will end up in a ball of dust... it is all we can expect... who are you to say that there is a purpose to it all...

Recent news contribute to your lessons:

Adventurers bypassing a dying person to complete a "goal", their individualistic purpose.

Young people leaving a dying friend with severe reaction to an ingested party drug... from fear of being in trouble...

A classic this morning from Naomi Wolfe... ( reported in the SMH)

" Most disturbing, perhaps, is her discovery that the greatest, and growing, health problem for young women at some college clinics is anal fissures.
These girls were getting drunk and having anal sex with strangers on Saturday night. Why? … Because that is the premium kind of sex that pornography is representing right now. Like when you're bored of vanilla sex you go to anal sex. With strangers. Which seems kind of extreme to someone of my generation."

So what has happened to the great secular cause of HIV/AIDS? What was never said in the huge public scare campaign of te 80's, was that the single most human act to cause the HIV transfer was receptive anal sex. It isn't designed for a thrusting penis....Is this a "lesson" for feminism, as a classical secular movement with a worthy purpose? Young lasses, or even exploited lovers / partners /wives, enlivening blokes' porno fed fantasies with such a dangerous act

Mhoram,
I have obviously misjudged you, but you gave little evidence of who you where, you just came over as a narrow rationalist scientist like so many I know.

The gulf between us was begun by Descartes, the father of the modern age. His project was to produce a philosophy of undisputable argument. When you talk about “rationally testable arguments” you reveal yourself as his heir. The problem is that we do not live our lives that way. The ideology of rationally testable arguments has been found to be an abstraction outside of natural science in which the object under investigation is just that, an object. The reason that psychology has been driven into neuroscience is that conscious beings are far more complex and it is difficult to understand what kind of rationality may be applied to them. Theology is relational and does not fit into the mold of natural science.

I am glad to hear that you are a historian. As I keep saying in these pages, the unique aspect of Israel among the nations is that it took history seriously. That was its window onto God, how things happen in the world of human beings. My despair in these pages is that there is so much prejudice against the church that it is impossible to get even the simplest concepts across. I have to deal with all kinds of straw men.

My despair with the church is that it keeps on with the same old stuff. Its crisis is theological. My point is that there are theologians who do make sense and are worth reading

Thanks Boxgum, reliable comment as ever.

Peter, for once I almost agree with everything you have said here. You are, however, a grossly unkind to our scientist friends and cannot agree with your attitude to them and wonder what has happened to you to make you have this opinion?. Was Jesus anti-science? Early wall paintings of him have him holding a wand (an early piece of scientific apparatus). After his birth he was visited by Magi (early Pagan scientific boffins). He would use the inversion of natural laws to perform miracles (fantasy science/theatre).

You cannot effectively use scientific method on the Gospels because.
1. They are rife with politics originating from various power bases.
2. They derive from disparate and unknown sources.
3. There is little or no primarily material with which to reference them.
4. There is little or no archaelogical evidence of the claims.
5. The claims and beliefs are rarely placed in an historical context. (I insist on an "an" here)
6. Most ordinary people are ignorant of and don't actually care about biblical scholarship hence the lack of objective academic rigour in bilical study.

Peter, from my perspective you bring despair upon yourself because (as one of my heros Siddhartha Gautama says) "you have misery born of desire". You have a heartfelt belief system that you wish to reveal to us heathens but you have tied yourself up in Post Modernist clap trap. Again I say... revealed religion can only be discussed via the vehicle of that revelation.... in your case the Gospels (and associated writings). If you don't do this you (as a Christian) are straying so far from your source material that you end up simply giving us Peter Sellick's view of the world. If this is what you want to do then post under a different sub heading..politics or something...not religion.
BTW a Salvo guy just appeared at the door and I actually gave him money.......because of you Peter..your doing something right!

Sells
Quote "the unique aspect of Israel among the nations is that it took history seriously." Are you joking?

History as we understand it is a Greek concept. The jews at the time when the pentauteuch was written down [7-6th century BCE] had not the slightest conception of history as we understand it.

To the people from the middle east from that era history was the explanation of God's hand through events & was common to the Babylonians, Assyrians, & Egyptians, among many others. If they had to alter their description of an event to more accurately highlight the work of God they wouldn't have hesitated. Not exactly our understanding of history is it?

So given that this legend/history composite was so common a view [a view shared by Israel] by what stretch of the imagination can you assert that Israel was unique in taking history seriously?