"This is why scientists, those very intelligent people, can be so narrow, so uncultured in their outlook on life. They may be masters of their particular field but are often very dumb when taken out of it. Richard Dawkins is the typical modern man."

Ahem, given Dawkin's reasoning abilities, IMHO he frankly makes
some of the religious look like complete idiots! If culture
means believing in imaginary friends, well go right ahead, I don't
want any part of it and Dawkins is smart enough to not believe
in them either.

Yabby,

Any thinking athiest would appreciate the intellect of a Abelard, a Luther or an Augustine. Likewise, a Gell-Mann, a Heisenberg or a Polanyi, deserve our respect. It is "truly" narrow to believe otherwise.

Also, what is narrow is to adopt an "a priori" position and stay super-glued to that one position. Alternative explanations are not explored. Orthodoc religionism is a good example. But that is not to say, there is no religious scholarship. Herein, religionists can be pandantically precise (say a tense in Koine Greek). Catch is, they can at the same time be inaccurate ( the text is a fiction). Centripedal forces (social, narrow mindedness, conviction) keep the religionist arrested.

West,

Interesting post about Pilate. Are you saying that (Prefect) Pilate's contemporary court records for the Jesus period are known to and do exist today? Citation?

Sells, I can agree with you on the Modernist Programme. Its been a material triumph, but a philosophical calamity. However, it is important not to underestimate the human misery obviated by clean drinking water, flush toilets, hot water and refrigeration (note that I don't include the motor car or the television in this list). But the benefits of technological civilization are not universally shared in the first world, let alone elsewhere.

If there is a modern secular religion, I think its probably the worship of material goods and the market. It has become painfully obvious that consumerism is not an ongoing fount of human happiness. Many are glutted, but most still seem unsatisfied. Clearly human beings need more than an accumulation of "stuff" to live a satisfying life.

My wife (a deeply religious person) admires the "clarity" of Dawkins' thinking. You invoke him as a "dumb modern man" outside his field of expertise at your peril. By way of contrast I'll give you a couple of anecdotes related to two Christian friends of mine. One invited me to his charismatic church, where there was preaching of "prosperity doctrine" speaking in tongues and laying on of hands. The other (a scientist and evangelical Anglican) pointed to the stars one night. I expected him to remark on the glory of God's creation. Despite being an agnostic, I would probably have agreed. Instead he said "isn't it amazing that the whole universe will be dismantled on Judgement Day". He expected Judgement Day to happen soon, perhaps even in his own lifetime.

Can you really say Peter that these views (not uncommon in some Christian churches) constitute part of Christianity's "claim to reasonableness". Or do they represent the same "retreat from reason" and irrationality you claim modern secular thought has fallen into? Give me a grumpy prosylitizing atheist like Dawkins any day.

Secular Relativism is an abomination.

It does not fit into either the modern or ancient secular humanist narrative. From the renaissance, the enlightenment, the age of reason through to the 20th century, - secular humanism has always balanced the demands between community and the individual.

Relativism is the elimination of community for the individual. Its logic returns civilisation full circle - to the stone age. It is worthy of an adolescents' fancy. Unfortunately, it has successfully seduced well educated but remote academics, who failed to spend the necessary minute to digest its logic.

When the liberal academic wonders how stupid Australians' have become and shakes his or her head at the re-election of Howard, they need to look at their own credulity with relativism. The excesses of relativism have given impetus to the the contemporary right wing and fundamental religious backlash.

I am a despondent secular humanist. I have despaired at the contemporary intellectuals' enchantment with relativism. With a flagrant sense of superiority academics and intellectuals have undervalued the Western narrative as paternalistic and embarassing.

What they failed to appreciate was the extraordinary arrogance in such a position. As if, you can separate yourself from the human condition and fashion it anew in accordance to your own refined tastes. This presumption is ironically as concieted as any religious fundamentalists'.

This is the seed of disaster. Our intellectuals have for generations now shown no respect towards our own history. As a result, much of our wisdom is now, if not lost, to be rediscovered. Again ironically, in the ancient pages and philosophies of our western narrative you will find relativism discussed. Only, Ancient philosophers and thinkers spent the necessary minute to reject it in favour of community.

But make no mistake, secular humanism which balances the demands between the individual and community has powered all of mans' progress during the last 500 years. Its reassertion will make religion as we know it redundant.

There are those in our society who masquerade as intellectuals and purveyors of social morality and ethics. Who promote social self-flagellation and cultural suicide. They insinuate everything we are is bad and we have been bad for years, we don't do anything good or decent, but victimize. They're constantly on the attack, picking away at our institutions, our culture, the entirety of our society. Any thing positive is attacked and corrupted until it is replaced by a non-thing, a grey, valueless entity that is touted as the better thing than anything definite and socially uniting. They gather those equally weak of character to them like flies to a rotting carcass. They are destroyers and have no intention of creating or assisting in creating a society. They're not interested in anything but picking at scabs and there are just enough idiots around hoping to smash something while hiding safely with in the mob. The nature of their art is fad, discontentment, dissatisfaction, distraction. They, with a hardy slap on the back fleece their own converts. They are sheeple herdsmen. Worse of all...they think themselves clever.

Boaz: "Our faith is not based on Myth, unless you call historical events 'myths'. On the contrary.. as Paul said regarding Christ's resurrection.

1 Cor 15:4 ...[bla bla bla]...

Hardly a 'myth'."

Sells: "...When the ascension is taken seriously we know that Jesus is no longer with us, his absence leaves us with baptism and Eucharist which are the work of the spirit. It is the work of the Spirit to form a bridge between the absent Jesus and his followers, thus the ambiguity of the church, the absence/presence of its Lord, or in Williams “the absence of a presence”. None of this talk is truly mythological, there are no dragons and elves..."

Sorry to burst your bubble, guys, but the resurrection and ascension nonsense is the central myth of Christianity. You can dress it up in as much convoluted discourse as you like, but your faith is utterly dependent upon treating such twaddle as reality.

While it suits your project to equate mythic activities with history on the basis that some deluded neolithic goat-herders told some stories about a guy who probably existed, to someone else who wrote them down, they have no more truth value than do the writings of Brigham Young, nor the voluminous ramblings of Roswell freaks etc.

Sells: "...As a working scientist I know about this, these people are my friends, but try having anything even approximating a theological conversation and all bets are off..."

There it is - the bleat!