'I would say we have each taken a leap of faith – I to God, and you to empiricism.'

What a load of hogwash goodthief! The WHOLEPOINT of empiricism is that a leap of faith is NOT required.

That is, empiricism is a REALITY based excerise only. And one doesn't need faith to come to terms with physical and tangible evidence that is there right in front of you.

What's more, if an empiricist has to make comments on experimental data when the answers are not clear then the empiricist is honest enought to admit obvious deficiencies. Hence, many scientific papers contain 'error bars' and possible areas for improvement.

The other fallacy that monotheists propagate is that empiricists and rationalists do not want to believe Biblical and Koranic claims and are generally incapable of doing so.

This is nonsense. I would dearly love to believe in the bodily resurrection of a crucified Jesus, or the angelic origins of Mohammad's Koranic visions! However, I can't because the evidence is not compelling. And as I said before, in order to believe in the miraculous/impossible I require good and reliable evidence. The monotheistic texts in no way provide this evidence satisfactorily and therefore I cannot delude myself into dishonesty. I have to be honest with myself.

Empircism is about stark honesty - monotheism is about suspended honesty which is then called faith.

At this point I'd like to point out the inherent dishonesty of monotheism by looking at Islam's most fundamental tenet - the Shahada, or profession of faith;

"La ilaha illa Allah wa-Muhammad rasul Allah."

"There is no god but God and Muhammad is the prophet of God."

This is enough to make a rational empiricist cringe.

Here we have an unqualified and absolute statement of fact. Yet, the accompanying evidence found in Islamic literature does not meet the standard set by this statement. Islamic literature is deficient when backing up absolutist claims.

Therefore, there is inherent dishonesty in the Shahada. An honest version of the Shahada would go something like this ;

"There is perhaps God, and it is possible that Muhammad could be a Prophet of God should he exist."

A rationalist would find this revised Shahada more appropriate and keeping in line with the historical evidence.

And dare I say it; the revised Shahada is superior to the actual Shahada because its honesty makes it less dogmatic and therefore less horribly devisive.

TR,
"There is perhaps God, and it is possible that Muhammad could be a Prophet of God should he exist."

If a student wrote in his exam paper “there exists perhaps a solution to this equation, and it is possible that it could be a real number should it exist”, I would conclude that he treats the exam as a joke. I would mark it worse than if he tried hard and made a genuine mistake. Well, in mathematics it is principally easy to establish whether a solution exists or not, whereas in philosophy questions of existence can never be answered so straightforwardly. However, in both cases this is at best a joke, and at worst a disrespect for the intended recipient of the information, irrespective of his/her understanding of the concepts involved and agreement or disagreement with the statement this sentence is a “castrated” version of.

Boaz,
Martin Luther rallied against the sale of indulgences in 16th century Germany. In 21st century Germany, where I live now, psychological “indulgences” or assurances, a guilt-free conscience or “salvation” (of course, not in the after-world) are being offered by an army of counsellors (psychotherapists), and their counsel is certainly not for free. The fees are mostly covered by the Krankenkasse (Medicare) which is probably the reason nobody has thought of nailing 95 theses to a door in Wittenberg or elsewhere. (:-)

The point is, if you wish to criticise Catholicism, and there are many reasons to do so - legitimate or false - you should keep to 21st century. For instance, Crusades and the Inquisition are things the Catholic Church cannot be proud of. However, in the 21st century it was not the pope who launched an invasion, and called it “crusade”; neither had he anything to do with Abu Grail and Guantanamo.

TR, you say –

“The WHOLE POINT of empiricism is that a leap of faith is NOT required.”

Yes, it is. It’s required before you become an empiricist. I realise that, once you adopt empiricism, you proceed "rationally" (on evidence) – and perhaps also honestly and humbly as you suggest – from that point on. I’m talking about a step earlier. Perhaps an unconscious step.

This is my definition of empiricism:

“A thing exists or a phenomenon occurs, or a statement is true, IF AND ONLY IF the existence of the thing, or the occurrence of the phenomenon or the truth of the statement is proved empirically. And they might exist or occur or be true if they are provable empirically.”

Please feel free to provide your own definition, or a better one, whatever.

The empiricist believes that the above statement is true. However, the above statement has not been proved, and is not by its nature provable, empirically. Look at it.

Put another way: You cannot observe that only observed things exist. You can only observe the observed things themselves. You can believe that unobserved things do not exist, but this is a belief not an observation. You don’t observe the principle.

This is why I say you simply assume empiricism. The fact that I call it a leap of faith is not important. This is not a trick, it doesn’t come with steak knives.

i) You believe the above statement (or your rendering of it) to be true.
ii) That statement has not been, and cannot be, proved empirically. So, empirically speaking, it cannot be true.

Logic, I can’t improve on Boaz’s core definition of Christianity (including Catholicism), so I won’t try. I would only add that it’s also a way of living. We are saved for all eternity – and we are relieved and grateful – but we are also shown by Jesus what a saved person looks like and how to live here on earth in the meantime, most important by caring for the weak and oppressed.

Pax,

Dear Logic
I also enjoy our debates.
Let me to what Jesus did, (and many Jews) answer a question with a question:)

"What is sinful"? did you not already provide this answer? (Hillel)

The main difference between on the one hand "Judaism/Islam/Roman Catholicism" and.. "Protestant Christianity" (on the most biblical sense, not the observable abherations we see on TV sometimes) is this.

Judaism emphasises 'The Law' (and the Traditions as you pointed out)
Islam emphasises 'obedience/submission' to Sharia law.
Catholicism emphasises "Obedience to the Church"

PROTESTANTISM lives on the basis of Romans 3:23

1/ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
2/ and are justified freely by his grace
3/ through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

When Jesus said to Nicodemus a teacher of the Law "Unless a man is born again, he will not see the kingdom of heaven." the above is what he was getting at.

REDEMPTION that came by CHRIST ?

It is the transaction of the exchanged life.

Galatians 2: 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Please note carefully the last sentence. "If".... then....

We believe that G-D is holy, that sin cannot exist in his presence, and that no matter how hard we try, we cannot eradicate sin from our hearts. But as the concluding phrase of Galatians suggests "Christ.... is the way"

To be Christian is a relationship, based on one who
-loved us.
-gave himself
-for us.
-all by Grace.

"Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling" goes the hymn.

Islam is based on law, Sharia. I cannot see how in an Islamic context their can ever by a 'rennaissance'.

My Dear BOAZ_David, Catholics do not place an emphasis on the Church greater than their underlying faith. The "Church" is represented in whole by the Pope and his statements to the faithful represent his mission and personal interpretation. The Churches obligation is to set a standard and to be a living example of Jesus's word in practice. Disagreeing with the Churches stance on any issue does not place one in a lesser moral position or increase the individuals measure of sinfulness. Those of us with a inclusive understanding and exercise of faith know the Pope and all Priest are human beings first and equally susceptible to sin. The Pope is not revered as an individual but, for Roman Catholics, as Gods representative on earth. Exceptional Pope's are revered as men and for their examples and work with in the Church. Some, the great, become nominated for Sainthood.
I found your pidgin holing of the various Christian sects disingenuous and I wonder if you aren't attempting to place your 'Christianity' above that of others. Each Protestant Church has a leader of their Church. They could have a Pope also if they were to return to the fold. It's a simple matter of being estranged by politics not by belief.
Christianity has it's Commandments and Judaism has it's Laws and Rabbinical Courts and Islam has Sharia Laws and Courts. Islam is not any more constrained or thwarted by Sharia in regards to a renaissance or reformation of Islam than would any other faith be considering their specific law. Islam is open to interpretation. God willing Muslims will come to demand a plurality of religious thought with in the community and reject the radical hateful voice some Clerics and Imams bring to their societies. Of course it is in the same breath incumbent upon the other faiths to encourage such plurality, not hinder it through dogmatic intransigents.