"I claim the Koran 'culture' (early 7th century AD Arabian peninsula) the Christian(Jew) 'culture' (first centuries AD Roman Empire Palestine) and the Jewish 'culture' (1500 - 300BC Egyptian/Judaic/Persian/Greek eastern mediterranean coast) were all vastly differing cultures and had only their rough source of evolution, and not even language, in' common'." -- BrainDrain

BD,

From the late six century, into the seventh century, Arab tribes (a)were disunified and (b) felt pressure from the encroachment of Persia and Christianity. The Jews and the Christians had received prophetic revelation, but the Arabs had not. Very simplied, the creation of Islam was Muhammad's response. Worked well; worked quickly.

TJ,

Sells' article, I feel, asked an excellentquestion; "How does God exist?". The answer can lead us to the architecture or religionism and in someways, I suggest, is more answerable than the questions, "Does God exist?". Herein, we can look foresinically at the HOW bit. Best evidence, I put, is, that religion is a fundamental and prolific cultural construct. Bottom-line we are are animals, whom achieved city-state status only 6,000 years ago. It is unremarkable that which we call ancient, is not really so long ago in the history of our species. With greater insights, maybe one day, we can put away our training wheels, and, live life humanly and openly, without frabications and superstitions. Hope, Humankind doesn't have to wait another 6000 years, though.

The Gods have failed. We Humans can do better.

'Very simplied, the creation of Islam was Muhammad's response. Worked well; worked quickly.'

Actually, we don't know for sure that Islam was Muhammad's response to the politics of Mecca. It is more likely that the religion of Islam grew slowly over a two-three hundred year period as the Arab empire expanded.

Western 'Orientalists' such as John Wansborough, Pat Crone and Michael Cook have created a reasonable case that the Koran has multiple authors and evolved according to the political needs of the early Islamic oligarchies.

These 'Orientalists' are able to challenge Muslim Orthodoxy because the historical foundation of the religion is so woefully shaky and composed hundreds of years after the fact. For exmaple, Imam Shafi didn't commission Bukhari to create his collection of Hadith till the latter half of the 9th century! Even Muhammad's chief biographer Ibn Ishaq didn't publish his work till a full 120 years after The Prophet's death. What's more Ibn Ishaq's transcript has never been found but is cited second hand in another later work by the author Ibn Hisham.

Therefore, what we have is a history of Muhammad's life formulated and contructed by biased writers from the Islamic empire circa 9th century, or perhaps even later.

Oliver,
The basis of your dialectic seems to waver between a distinct humanism and something a little more esoteric. I’m reminded of Einstien’s famous, “..science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” He also said, “In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labours they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself.”

TR,
I agree, the growth of Islam, as with all religion, evolves over time and invariably changes and adapts to its surrounding culture. Over riding all religion, however, is “The Way” (Tao). Globalisation is bringing to the forefront an ‘Orientalist’ challenge to Western held orthodoxy. The challenge is subtle because it awakens what westerners should know, “He who obtains has little. He who scatters has much” – TaoTe Ching

BD,
Abrahamic religon (or the OT Bible) presents a culture surrounding a patriarchal monotheism. An ‘authority’, bound to a violent retributive aspect, permeated this culture – women were merely the property of men. This unified belief alone, however, did little to alleviate violence or the plight of women, who could only ‘bruise the heel’ of man. ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ was tempered into a crude justice –vengeance was always a close ally. In ‘loving our enemies’ and giving full respect to women we broke the ancient cultural taboos – ‘peace on earth’ is given a chance.

Pluralism and tolerance were once a part of Islam (Peace). Traditionally, Islamic epistemology tolerated and even celebrated divergent opinions and schools of thought. The Islamic civilization has crumbled, the traditional institutions that once sustained and propagated Islamic orthodoxy and marginalized Islamic extremism have been dismantled. Unfortunately, and to be resolved, is the state of virtual anarchy in modern Islam: no clear ‘authority’ exists, which speaks on religious issues.

TJ,

I respect your superior knowledge in the area and regret if I have misled the Forum. My "basic" notion was the tribes were unified quite quickly and the factions occurred a few centuries later.

Your description of the development of the Koran seems in many ways to parallel the development of the OT and the NT, in-so-much-as, it was written much after the fact. I had erroreously believed sixth-seventh century records were more historical in nature than Bibical and early Christian recordings. Back to Mohammad 101 for me.

Relda,

I have enjoyed all your well researched and articulate contributions to the Forum.

I think the picture you paint of me to be accurate. As a student, I was once desrcibed as a meta-meta physicist. Also, I tend to be eclectic and a re-mixer of those separate sources. Despite, the many references to physics, I am not a positivist. Maths is okay, but I see it as the full stop. Measurement is good, but it is in oppostion to explanation (Polanyi).

Perhaps, I adhere to my own personalised and modified version of Lakatos, wherein, I see the positive heuristic the most plausable explanation at this time, to be tentatively held, and, held degraded heuristics, as lesser alternatives. Else put, accept the evidence for now, but don't throw the baby out with bathwater.

Humanism has my thumbs up. It too has its context, and, I suggest, needs to be viewed, as an organism, within dynamical ecologies. Holism and gestalts, I put, have been sent to the backbenches for too long. That said, management of; the whole-is-greater than parts and some solutions are not physical thinking, must need be managed carefully; else, we find ourselves backsliding into mysticism.

A challenge for new science might be to tease out some the structure of religionism and isolate the more basic constructs, without becoming infected primitivism. Herein, has Religion and Greek thinking)provided Science with metaphors for creation and design. More generally, how do view Religion's contribution to Science

Sells,

Above, I hope you see I am not "out to get" religion, rather my sights are on the processes adopted by religionists to reach in my view incurrent conclusions. That is why I love your title cum question?

Look at your title and article. Herein, I still suggest, you apply a priori convictions, even to the point of knowing God's sex ("Himself"). Can't you see it?

Histographies, theologies and many sciences, suggest you take three steps back and start again, and, again ask your own question, "How does God exist?"

This time, work through the alternatives and build null hythothesis to challenge your preconceptions. Work things through, thoroughly.
To do so, is not a sin, rather, new relevations would await you

Relda,
Your understanding of 'culture' seems about on par with that of stability.

Picking out one or two items you are able to draw paralllels between amongst varying human groups does not prove that three different religions (which are forced to refer to just one (same) God) all derived from the 'same' culture as you claimed. Certainly there are linkages but the cultures and indeed the periods at which all three religions holy scriptures were established are quite different in most respects.

One could just as easily argue that all humans have one culture since we naturally form tribal heirarchical groups, developed tools and possess language which allows us to communicate with one another.

Which cultures DO you actually consider 'different'?

Your research is adequate; the logic used to reach your conclusions needs work, in my opinion.

I do have quite a good understanding of all three religions and their origins in case you had any uncertainty. There are undeniably things I have yet to learn but you have not supplied me with any to date.

Oliver, I posit that Sellick has made the usual fundamental error in his article, in that he attempts to make God fit into human thought instead of appreciating that humans fit, instead, into God's Thought.

Merely because we cannot derive a testable hypothesis to prove the existance of God (which i believe exists independently of man's belief and permeates everything we see and experience including wour own bodies and within Nature (not 'apart' from it)) I find is no proof that God doesn't exist.

I find dificulty in ascribing a human personality to (my) God and don't objectify it with Human requirement of a sex. Neither do i require God to be only Good, but to be above such divisive concepts as Good/Evil. God is far 'above' such human perversions.

God has not failed humans - we did that through human imperfect understanding and continue to do so today.

Once we have reached consensus on how HUMANS exist (including our sprit) we might have a chance to determine how God exists.

Any thoughts?