Boaz I thank you for your contribution. It is clear to me that many contributors to this thread could have mutual enjoyable conversation and exchange ideas with out acrimony. Differing philosophies and perspectives add to the interest and intellectual stimulation.

In our professional and private lives we meet and come into contact with people of from diverse background and cultures with out problems. [Of course I ignore here matters covered by criminal law, and even so the events are rarely a response to religious or ethnic differences]. I do not quiz the assistant as to religious or political affiliation when entering a supermarket to buy my groceries.

The mixing of cultures has enriched our lives. I mention; restaurants; cinema; the universality of music, the international co-operation of art galleries and museums; international travel to conferences and so on. The instances of interaction between people are endless and always profitable.

Unfortunately, there are subsets within Islam (and other religions) that are determined not to adapt or come to turns with either secular society or other religions. I refer to both “intraIslamic” conflict (Sunni v Shia) and “extra Islamic” international conflict such as Israel v Hezbollah, inner city riots, NATO v Taliban, Al Qaeda v the World and so on.

An article in today’s Australian suggested that fundamental Islam will fail. This may be true in the long run. In the short term bloody conflict is more likely.

In earlier posts I spoke of eradicating religion. Of cause this is not going to be possible at least in my life time. However, in to day’s world the net direction of adaptation is from religious interpretations towards the secular. Prior to the enlightenment truth was considered to be theological and absolute. In the secular world truth is based on empirical observation and experimental verification. Our confidence in scientific theory is not an issue of faith. Our confidence is pragmatic and always tentative upon the next observation.

A very interesting article.

Aqvarivs, thank you for that link. A year ago or so, I read a fascinating discussion between a Catholic scholar and a Muslim scholar. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find it again.

I'll declare my beliefs. Catholic background, grew up and lived in developing countries, last 20 years find Buddhist philosophy more comprehensible, which is atheist in make-up. During my young years of search for answers did study Islam and the Koran and actually found it more 'logical' than the Christian bible.

The thing that all philosophies attempt to answer is how to live a good and moral life. Atheist philosophies too. But,it is a simple fact that some of our greatest thinkers have been theologians. So, to discard everything a religious person has to say is not rational.

Having a good debate on moral issues is great. It gives one a chance to reflect on personally held beliefs and find 'the holes' so to speak. But, I find some of the intractable statements re 'the non-existence or existenc of God and therefore whatever you have to say is irrelevant and stupid' very frustrating.

Wish most of you would forget that us Christians are as white as the driven snow while Islamic souls are as black as the mud beneath.

Most academic historians could write more than a full page about Christian atrocities, probably the worst instance being the slaughtering of Christians who attended the Great Library of Alexandria, calling them Pagan lovers, wrecking much of the Great Library as well, and also murdering Coptic Christians because they refused to believe in the Trinity which according to historians, only became truthful because the Emperor Constantine gave legality to it during the First Council of Nicea.

While on the job it might also be reminded how our Trinitarian believers have also failed to offer assistance to the one and a half million Iraqi Christians.

Also it is said that these so-called Christian believers, are really more faithful to the Nazarene Jesus, whom to many philosophers is the only true Loving and Compassionate One, as proven by His Sermon on the Mount.

Anti Green, I did a bit of a google on 'Empiricism' and Wiki is worth reading for a good summary.

The main issue between Empiricists and others seems to be the question of 'innate ideas' verses observable phenomena.

May I suggest that Empiricism is a philosophical force which emerged around the 5th century in the West, though the idea was prevalent in other places also.
Imagine a society where the innate idea of God, is so real and close to daily experience that to question His existence would be unthinkable. This is how it would have been from the time of Christ to the beginning of Emiricism. The Philippines and many Asian countries are like that even today. So, what I'm saying is that an 'empirical' view of life, is not the only valid one, and if we took it in isolation, it could even be a very incorrect one, leading us astray.
The major event which this relates to is the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. No amount of empirical study would validate this.

Brushy.. *frown* :) you are making sweeping statements there mate about 'Trinitarian' Christians not helping the Iraqi Christians. You need to google more mate or.. have more to do with interdenominational missions which may be doing quite a bit.

Keith said it all.. "unless there is also a reformation".. I agree with your intended meaning, but disagree with the liteeral one, but only because our Christian reformation brought us back to the fundamentals of "Salvation through faith" and delivered us from the power of 'The Roman Catholic Church'... If Islam goes more fundamental, it will become 'stronger' politically and hasher.
Please see this former muslims testimony in his profile.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=nerdzrule

Thanks, aqvarivs.

Yvonne, I want to thank you for the calming effect your post potentially has on the discussion.

As I am a Christian, I know that you and I would shortly disagree once we got a few layers down, but –
1) most of community life is lived on the surface, so deep disagreement is easily enough avoided;
2) disagreement, when it happens, doesn’t have to be rude or hurtful;
3) there are always those “nuggets” of unexpected agreement.

Many of us posting are very clear about being right – whether our faith is in God or in empiricism – but, even if we think the other person is “wrong”, we could consider allowing them to be wrong rather than strongarming them.

Surely, it is behaviour not beliefs we are really concerned about when discussing whether or not some group is a danger or an annoyance. I know the behaviour springs from the belief, but the believer usually has the ability to temper their behaviour for the good of others.

So, while I am a dogmatic Christian, I will live happily with Muslims who don’t kill me and Dawkinsians who don’t insult me at every opportunity. Of course, I also expect Christians not to venture beyond respect when evangelising.

This seems to me to be the value of a secular society: the freedom to differ in our beliefs with impunity. Then, if we’re not busy strongarming or playing defence, we can live positively and make things better for everyone.

Pax,