Oliver,
I think writing about what one believes in without being derogative about what other people believe in is more informative, than simply attacking views and positions that one does not share, even does not understand.

In this sense Richard Dawkins is more interesting and credible when he writes about what he believes in as a personal evaluation of the facts he describes in "The Blind Watchmaker", than when he writes a book on “Delusion” just to attack the Christian world view that he obviously does not understand.

I think this should apply also to OLO discussions: facts supplemented by info about one's own priorities and beliefs are more valuable than unsympathetic presentations of other priorities and beliefs, especially if they contradict known facts (For instance, there was never any official position of the Catholic Church on the Turin shroud; it was actually the Church who authorised the carbon dating).

As I wrote in another post already, I do not want to dispute most of the facts, you present, like I would not mind if you stated that 96% of my DNA is identical with that of a chimp. I would only mind if you concluded there was not much difference between my thoughts and those of a chimpanzee. The same when making statements about the "DNA" of Christianity or the Catholic Church, and drawing your unflattering conclusions.

As the now 100 Muslim signatories of the "Open letter" to the pope wrote, "the object of interreligious dialogue is to strive to listen to and consider the actual voices of those we are dialoguing with, and not merely those of our own persuasion". I think this applies also in case where one of the participants considers himself "areligious" or perhaps "multireligious".

George,

Thanks for your post. I agree with most of all first two paragraphs.

When I was at School I recall being visited by the Brothers, who ran a slide show on the miracle of The Shroud. My example, was draw for a life experience. Another is "Defender of the Faith" as applied to the British Monach. Henry VIII received the title for a religious thesis, and, I think I am correct in saying he died a Roman Catholic. My point is that churches will knowing allow a broad public to beleive an untruth, to support their institution, when the truth is known to them. I would need to check, but I thought The Shroud was in private hands?

Dawkins I feel is writing "to" an audience in the style that audience would like to hear. I'm sure he is a brilliant geneticist, but, for me, not a Renaissance Man.

The closeness between Human [apes] and Chimps is sometimes exaggerated because some of the matched gene are inactive and/or redunant, and, our neocortex is more highly developed. As you you would know, our brians have layers, with reptilian functions low-down and mammalian functions more recent developments. We are "paragon of the animals' [quote], but an animal none the less.

Regarding religioisity, it has been posited brain layers interact and interaction are not independent [Greenfield?]. Belief in the afterlife and religion, being related to interactions between surival instinct and higher brain centres. Anthropoligical observations on how rapidly cargo cults emerge, suggest we are primed for religiosity. But, I personally don't see this outcome as stand alone, ecological factors [Triandis] and reinforcement [Skinner] would be required.

My views not in opposition to believing in the existence of God, if the process of knowledge discovery is methodologically honest and open to change, and, not creed and closed. Herein, one can have different opinions on the same evidence, like, Troy VI and Troy VII. Churches don't do this, and, parishoners are incouraged to "indwell" [Polanyi, again :-) ] in a performace elsewhere directed. For me, Sells, presents this Follow the Church, approach.

... Relatedly, Church and Religion are separate constructs. Perhaps, the Universe was intelligently created outside the History of Man, with its multitudes of religions. Was it Edison who said that he found 2,000 ways to not invent the bulb? To understand the existence/non-exitsence of God, one needs present all religions to outside objectivities, as evaluative agents. [The religions don't like being examined!]

Cheers,

O.