Hope Sells' NY resolution is to write less and proselytize less, and be less aloof, when it comes to answering questions. That he engages in arguments and presents his case and/or answers alternative views. Debates. None of us know it all, but, TOGETHER, we can learn.

We all need to till our beliefs constantly. Not live in box, under a bed in locked room, inside a cave.

The questions I ask are valid, methinks:

- Christianity having the same theocrasia as mythologies, which even
Sells recognises. Why is Christianity and the Hebrew god
undifferentiated in pattern than other gods of the period still seen
to be the only "real" god. How does Mithras exist?

- The pantheon of El(the Grandfather)and the Trinity in the OT vis-a-vis the NT. Also matters of Logos (thank you West).

- How does anyone KNOW supernatural contact would be with God and not
a deceptive entity? Bull in the bullrushes?

Sells,

Be an Abelard or Luther not a closeted Vatican astronomer. Else, why do what you do?

This is a forum not a congregation.

As primates we see the world in confusing colour. If we were bats or dogs of submerged platypus we would see the world differently. If we were a rock formed of a of pluralistic amalgam of metals we would pick up static from the stars above and be completely unaware of them.

The complexity of the brain does not create god. There is no argument, no fact, no evidence, not a sniff in the universe to support the theory of god. All claims of god are based on wild and irrational supposition. Because it is irrational the believer attempts to justify said beliefs with sentimentality. Sentimentalities are based on personal preferences. What the believer wants to believe. This is why god is always a political belief.

Thank you Sells for such a controversial article that is of interest to so many people. You may be aware of me as a Christian who is normally willing to partake in these discussions. However properly entering a discussion that has 140 posts is not something I have time for. I don't currently intend to read either the article or the 140 posts but it is great however to see how interested people are in God. That has to be a good thing.

"The complexity of the brain does not create god." - West

True, not a real god, but, virtual gods and beliefs are created/learnt about in/by the brain and reinforced by the environment. The development/appreciation of such an advanced concept would require I suspect many proficient synapses.

In creating a virtual god neural networking would be involved. If the belief is strong presumably the network would be affixed and relatively permanent - the network in the religionist brain?

Rigid networking can also be observed in neurotic people, having obsessive thoughts, wherein, drugs can be used to break up the networks, SSRIs.

Maybe, if Sells popped a Prozac, we could coax him to discuss the Christian Jesus Christ vis~a~visa the history of theocrasia in anthropology. Surely, relevant to the "How does God exist" and religionism/secularism debates.

A more flexible brain would have a more, smaller networks, which are efficient and freer to question.

[ Yes, brains differ... Agree. Dolphins have a huge area of their brains dedicated to sonar. It is believed that they can hear in 3-D. So, yes, not all brains are created equal. Brains are the product of convergenet and divergent evolution. Also, like our bones, neural architecturies change thoughout our lives.]

The related dichonomy is the mind/brain divide. The extent to which our conscience thoughts can override more basic instincts. Freud came close with the Id (It), Superego and Ego, in days gone by.

I am certain that belief in God is not regarded delusional by psychologists, because so many people believe and that belief is reinforced by soceities. Some shinks can be religionist too. But, what concerns me is that if learning schedules in societally endorsed religionism, creates large highly affixed neural networks, the similar pattern of obsessive compulsive neurosis exists on a mass scale, in many brains. Hmm. I wonder

Whoa. What happened while I was away? Oliver, West guys c'mon. Do I have to take back what I said about the posts in here?

Oliver, could I posit that your "learning schedule" has created a "highly affixed neural network" that "mimicks the obsessive compulsive disorder" found in spaced out Trekkies! Sorry mate you asked for it.

You like psychological theories about belief I see,indulge me then:

Dedication to reality is more difficult in the short term if it challenges long nurtured world views. Hmm I wonder Oliver if in your neurosis (or inflexible neural architecturies) you're just not ready to be coaxed into truly facing the question. Who is Jesus?

You see how arguments like that work? They can be used in both directions. Much better to stick to the content of the person's claim.

Waxing on about esoteric topics might be gratifying but engaging with solid science will serve much better in the long run.Was not my link to the latest Biblical Criticism regarding the Resurrection not material to the debate?

Mind/brain links and all that are all well and good but solid peer reviewed academic research would ground your argument better.

To prevent people coming to the conclusion that you're using the 'Forum' as a platform for your fantastic ideas i.e to proselytise , could we deign to ask you to engage with the historical reliability of the Gospels? It would save you time by relativising your somewhat arcane theological questions; that is those answers will seem much less important. It would save you time also by, instead of begging the question as to the trustworthiness of the Bible, make you face the truly interesting question:

"Being one of the historic monotheistic religions it claims to be an historical religion, so it stands or falls on its historical claims. Therefore are these claims true?"

If you want to call Sells out about avoiding questions be warned: two can play at that game.

Peter's article as I read it simply perpetuates this ocean of frothing delusion where one increasingly sees more religious impediments to clear thinking.

I suppose we can say that programmed popes, pells and peters are clear evidence that the priest class is still in existence with ceaseless efforts denigrating anything secular. Now while a theologian like Peter may attempt to push a theological solution to some imagined and incomplete epistemology or the latest pope suggest that reason should be broadened to include the empirically unverifiable, we just get more of this faith-based religion promoting one of their grandest top shelf myths. i.e. that there is no secular basis for morality. In other words theft, killing of people and rape etc, can only really be wrong if there is a teddy (god) who says it is. Further it simply and clearly gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. LOL

The only self-evident fact of nature here is that this whole teddy milieu is a contrived and twisted unreason coupled with very powerful inducements on captive and vulnerable minds. It is a control system where the end product of this process is simply one of damaged goods rather than the true achievement of human potential. There is no thought of reason, humility, free inquiry, dignity, participatory democracy, in this systematic manipulation.

Popes, pells and peters with eyes and minds shut into their narrow dogma, will attack and seek to poison secular reason, for theirs is the world of the unreasonable.

ps
Personally, we "haven't seen any society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."