George, mate, as a liberal Christian as well as a political philosopher, do feel your actual desire to search shows that you actually do sense that a balance between faith and reason is justified.

Historical proof is shown by the way St Thomas Aquinas accepted Socratic Reasoning as the means to lift Christianity out of the Dark Ages.

Thus began the Rennaissance, the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment, onto our Democratic Age, and as democracy is a Greek term, meaning public leadership or representation.

More historical proof is found when the English philosopher John Locke was prominent in organising the 1688 Glorious Revolution which abolished Christian autocracy by placing Royalty under God, more lowly than the voice of the people.

John Locke's doctrine was also used to justify the American War of Independence.

However, to satisfy followers of Regality, as when William and Mary were brought over from Holland, the Royal family line was still allowed to exist to satisfy sections of the public.

To give further satisfaction, there arose a kind of pseudo prerogative copying the old right of the ruler, about having the right to declare war, etc.

The democratic code was first broken by George the Third of Britain which brought on the US War of Independence, and lately been broken by President Bush, who has well broken an original law that being only a prerogative, means a democratic public has the right to rise up to prevent it.

George, we have no quibble on the sense of "axiom" in mathematical usage.

>>Anyhow, I heard mathematics called many names (usually by those who could not follow an argument somehow related to math), never “a wookie”, that is a new experience for me<<

The reference here was of course to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense , simply to illustrate that squeezing the essence out of the word "axiom" was entirely tangential to the argument.

>>...“experience precedes knowledge”. You concede later that one can have a personal “experience of God”... so it would follow from your doctrine that this experience also precedes knowledge."

Absolutely. The knowledge involved in this sense is perfectly valid, although more precise that is necessary for the axiom. For your little old lady to "experience God", she would have to have already been aware of the concept. From school, from books, from parents, whatever. This also falls under the heading of experience; it may not be directly yours, but has been noted, codified and converted into words.

As aqvarivs pointed out earlier:

>>As best science can discover. A belief in God predates even effective tool making in the annals of human history on conceptual thought<<

Assuming this is accurate, the "experience" was codified relatively early in man's development. Perhaps as a result of wrestling with the concepts of weather, stars, childbirth or any other of life's miracles, the concept of a God was discussed, formulated and ultimately formalized. This experience created the knowledge that we have today.

You might have missed my point on "the empiricist's approach to religion is that because it cannot be experienced, or reproduced in a consistent manner it cannot fall into the category of knowledge."

It is "or", not "and".

There is no doubt that God is not experienced in a consistent manner, witness the number of variations across different religions. So it will always remain the property of religionists, and evade the understanding of empiricists.

Hitchens also points out that religion will not go away.

"Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable."

On July the 14th the 'moderate'...'mainstream'.... 'friendly'... 'level headed'.... 'articulate' ISLAMIC COUNCIL OF VICTORIA is holding a seminar called 'FAMZY'at Melbourne Uni.

One of the guest speakers is this man "Omar Mahdi Bray".

What kind if things has mr Bray been up to ?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2005/05/006028print.html

On December 22, 2000, MPAC's Mahdi Bray organized a rally in Lafayette Park outside the White House to celebrate a "Worldwide Day for Jerusalem."
In Arabic, the crowd responsively chanted with the emcee, "Khaybar, Khaybar oh Jews, the Army of Muhammad is coming for you!" Posters calling for "Death to Israel" and equating the Star of David with the Nazi swastika were openly displayed and anti-Semitic literature calling for the destruction of the Jews and Israel was distributed. Members of the crowd burned the Israeli flag while marching from the White House to the State Department.

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Terrorist Recruitment and Infiltration in the United States: Prisons and Military as an Operational Base.

Statement of J. Michael Waller
Annenberg Professor of International Communication
Institute of World Politics

Before the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

14 October 2003

Appendix 2: Key Organizations Involved in Muslim Prison Recruitment

National Islamic Prison Foundation (NIPF) – Contact: Mahdi Bray; 1212 New York Ave. NW, Suite 525, Washington, DC 20005. This is the same address as the American Muslim Council (AMC).

• “Specifically organized to convert American inmates to Wahhabism.

Yep.. the ICV is truly interested in a 'renaissance' of Islam......WAHABIST STYLE.

It seems to us Bushbred said it all.
Dr Ali started a wonderful sensible post.
Lets all stick to his leadership and wisdom

please!

David
Yes You have raised attention to the fact Australia doesnt need thirteen or or thirty three Islamic Councils.
Actually I think its thirty Two. Correct me if I am wrong. Its all gets a bit confusing for us Aussies and where there is ignorance we breed fear.
Its a receipe for conflict between themselves such as we see overseas. I guess they are not so unlike as us ah.
Compertion is good but clear leadership is a must.
Why the Australian Government allowed this to happen is just shear ignorance and neglect.
The AFIC Federation have been chosen by our Government to lead.
What they require is support from the Government in return.
I dont think they get that David.
I cant see that is reflected in dealings.
The fact is these people do have a different set of values to us in many areas.
Now I am not knocking that because from some of what I have seen they respect family far greater than us and thats a good thing.
I am just wondering David why The Government allow AQIS to issue these electronic accreditation certificates world wide instead of putting it through an Australia national accreditation system.
I mean didnt we see how it can back fire through the AWN enquiry.
Take away the fearce competion for Halal accreditations between all these Muslim leaders and you may just start to get someplace.

"Now I am not knocking that because from some of what I have seen they respect family far greater than us and that's a good thing."

I would like this comment to be elaborated on but it is highly tangential to the topic. How was the demonstrated respect measured and observed? Just what has this person seen? Incredibly juvenile concept!

Just one thing I have seen.

A twelve year old boy with bruises the size of dinner plates all over his body as a result of being punished by his Muslim father or the dozens of Muslim boys I have seen with shaved heads because they have been publicly outed as being disobedient. I think the writer has seen very little in their inner city life and listens to even less.

I know this is on line opinion, but when opinions are so completely vacuous, superficial, and bigoted they become, by default, non-opinions. Hopefully, the poster can take their repugnant self loathing elsewhere, like a PETA forum.

I really must object to the moderator. Why are we being subjected to this irrational racial slur and utter claptrap?