pericles, you are right after all. My formulation was the standard atheist one, whereas what you suggest is an agnostic’s position (with “I know” replacing “nobody knows”). I was probably mislead by the fact that agnostics are usually not aggressive about other people’s views.

Empiricism, as I understand it, is a theory of knowledge with many streams or flavours, where only the exclusivist extremes -- external, claiming that only experience through senses leads to knowledge, internal, claiming the same for mystic experience, and logical (B. Russell) -- are incompatible with a Christian outlook.

However, this thread was not about discussing various theories of knowledge but rather whether renouncing their faith in “Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful” or at least accepting their faith to be treated with condescension and ridicule, should be one of the conditions of Muslim integration in an Australian (or European) society.

george wrote "I was just wondering, what was your opinion on this. Is meditation towards spiritual awareness just a skill and NOTHING ELSE,.., or does it INCLUDE a contact with Something"

george you may not realize..but you have asked one of the most fundamental questions...that which all of us whom seek the same answer...if we develop the skill of spiritual awareness in our every day moments, then will 'something' eventually hold our hands ie god...as a scientist the only way to find out is embark on the journey taking observatory notes...as a religious follower whom seeks same thing hopes by faith it will guide them to the same place...as ordinary person seeking the answer is at a better place as they do not have to struggle with religious restrictions of faith/belief that seems to have infiltrated most of them with time effectively obstructing the process by acting to modify a followers behaviour ie control...

To islam and renaissance...muslims seek the same god as everyone else whom does...the only ultimate goal of all religion...renaissance is another way of saying whats been tried has not helped...so one has to look on improving that...hence they have to rethink the phrase 'infidel' or non-believer to include all souls whom seek the same god irrespective of their chosen path...and funny thing is its a change seeming to happen in all faiths...using religious texts as leaning posts until their spiritual knowledge and experience of god exceeds it...as in all process of learning if one preseveres there comes a point with experience when they have more knowledge than the books they learnt from...at individual level...spiritual awareness applies to all whom seek god...to use all the senses and knowledge anything else that can help...thats a true searcher of truth...

Sam
Ps~george many things that occur defy logical explanation...eg you mentioned transcendental meditation-its training leads to ability to levitate(more like bunny hops actually on pics)...ask those whom practice it...my mother used to do the technique with the canadian 'branch'...and as a child I remember her talking about it with others on the shared experience...

sam,
rest assured I fully realise I asked you a fundamental question. And I have also understanding for your equivocal answer. [David Hay, Something There, the Biology of the Human Spirit, Templeton Foundation 2006 is a recent book by a biologist trying to answer the same question.]

Where I do differ is your out of hand condemnation of “religious restrictions of faith/belief”. There is no ethical system, including the ones based on secular rules, without some kind of restrictions. However, faith, even when mediated by organised religion, is no restriction of anything; only its abuse by people in power enabling them to manipulate others, or the tendency of simple-minded followers to mistake all guidance (by a pastor, the pope or a guru) for outright prohibitions, can be restrictive and worse. Also, I do not see the problem in somebody’s “behaviour being modified” by a teacher, a pastor or a guru; the problem rests with HOW is it being modified. You see, my age taught me to avoid black-and-white representations of any alternatives grounded in history and culture.

As for spirituality as you describe it, I think I can see your point. Nevertheless, I have always tried to understand rather Buddhism and Hinduism than the vast variety of their “plastic replicas” that proliferate in the West. Apparently, Christian, thinkers misrepresented Buddhism in the past, but I do not think retaliatory misrepresentation of Christianity (e.g. by such an authentic writer as D.T. Suzuki) is the right way to go about it either. I think the same goes for Buddhism’s imitators, or other spiritually aware thinkers in the West: they should try to show how the deep insights and techniques of spiritual awareness can ENRICH traditional Christian thinking and practice, instead of attacking its preconceptions and institutions, thus endearing themselves to militant atheists, probably without having wanted to. I have learned a lot in this respect from an East Asian Catholic convert, an ex-Buddhist monk.

P.S.: I think by “logical explanation” you meant “rational explanation” by means available to science.

George, logical is used in meaning of in 'real world' principles(ie of what is currently known in science...and this increases/changes with more discovery...and mathematics typifies the extreme example of it...1+1=2 and not anything else)...ie'the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.'...so logic is the sequence starting from observation and deducing the most certain/obvious...that will conform to the understanding of your common person...

'reasoning' is to do with each persons understanding...the act or process of a person who reasons ie the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises...and a reasoning person can have more considerations and assumptions as factors than logic can...so usually logic is the 'ball coming into your hand' and reasoning is 'all possibles that can be done with it'...ie throw, bounce, spin...and reasoning is important at an individual level because spiritual development is a unique personal development

And george, you seem to make a clear difference between east/west...but when one looks closer, besides the cultural aspects, the knowledge to god is quite similar. eg almost all faiths pray...when get on our knees and go 'dear God please...etc' and dont seem to progress further with this method, while ever maturing method of prayer should bring one to the same place as meditating into spiritual(energy) focus or acting with god by your side(destiny) etc...there is so much in common in different religions that focusing on what is different makes less sense...but using all the knowledge available to move forward on the path of spirituality does make sense...

Sam

Sam, well, you have your understanding of logic, and we mathematicians (and logicians and computer scientists) have ours. There is no point in repeating what I said when Pericles tried to make sweeping statements based on the popular (or rather populist) understanding of logic. But still, just an example: the logical inference in “if every human being has exactly two hands then a one-handed being cannot be human” is valid, although it stands to reason (or observation or common sense) that also those who lost an arm are human beings.

I agree completely with your last paragraph, it is more or less the same what I said, except that I do not see how you came to the conclusion that I make a CLEAR difference between East and West. I actually said - when you chritised the Christian/institutionised approach to religion - that I am too old to see alternatives grounded in history and culture as black-or-white oppositions.

A sneaky attempt at a put-down, George, but I'll not let it pass.

>>There is no point in repeating what I said when Pericles tried to make sweeping statements based on the popular (or rather populist) understanding of logic<<

The insinuation here is that your position is neither "sweeping" nor "populist". Unfortunately, nor is is particularly elucidating.

When pressed, you explained yourself as follows:

>>you can’t “find religion” (you probably mean ‘be converted’) through logic like you can’t learn a foreign language, or fall in love, etc. merely through logic. Logic, as the “science of correct reasoning”, can only tell you how to reason, not what conclusion to arrive at<<

So, we know that logic is a process, not a conclusion in itself. But since no-one claimed otherwise, that's merely taken care of a straw man.

>>you cannot “automatically”, using just logic, arrive from nowhere at believing or not believing in a God. You have to choose your starting point, one way or another, and draw your conclusions<<

But George, nobody even remotely suggested that you can. In fact, I believe that was exactly the point I was making - logic will not lead you to faith. Only faith can do that.

The starting point for an empiricist is not "nothing", of course, but knowledge. Events. Experiences. Observations. Stories told around a campfire. Relatives being eaten by sabre-toothed tigers. That sort of thing.

Inferences, deduction, all take place following the acquisition of some form of knowledge. Logic cannot occur in a vacuum, as you propose, or an answer spring fully-formed from Zeus's brow.

Only faith can achieve those miracles.

And you should be more careful with your examples.

>>“if every human being has exactly two hands then a one-handed being cannot be human” is valid, although it stands to reason (or observation or common sense) that also those who lost an arm are human beings<<

But George, if every human being has exactly two hands, none of them can possibly have lost an arm.

Common sense will tell you that.