"A time before words"? Yes Hellen Keller did. It was when she discovered separateness when before, all was one

Medieval Christianity has been in decline in the West, thankfully, for the last 200 years. There is still, however, much that is Medieval in the culture of todays churches and much of the missionary activity outside the Western world is Medieval in flavour. So Richard Dawkins enterprise is still well and truly justified. Im really not sure why Sells is so worried about the existence of healthy debate and the expression of views counter to his own. The tone of this article, its defensiveness, suggests insecurity.
In his discussion of invisible causes Sells really misses the point. Sure, science is slowly eliminating invisible causes by enhancing our senses with all sorts of clever experiments and machines so that we can effectively 'see' the causes that were previously unknown to us. There is, however, one 'invisible' force which science might never be able to explain satisfactorily and that is what one might call the 'life-force'. There is something about life that is beyond the sum of the physical elements of creaturliness. How is it that a blob of organic matter can 'be aware' of the world around it and can have feelings of love, anger, awe, wonder, fear, jealousy, loneliness, anxiety and so on.
There will always be this 'invisible cause' that is beyond our comprehension. Until such time as we can answer the question "Why am I?" we will continue to explore that dimension of being which for now we call the spirit.
The problem with the Church, most clearly exemplified by the Medieval Church, is that its world view is material and has lost its spritual sensitivity. God is objectified, Heaven and Hell are 'places' to go and the 'spirit' is a 'thing' which moves on after our bodies die. The reason there is any tension at all between science and the Church is that the Church holds a 'materialist' world view that is inconsistent with the scientific findings on the nature of matter. The Church is just plain wrong on that one and, as a consequence, might be losing its role in mediating human spirituality.

waterboy, I agree that “much of the missionary activity outside the Western world is Medieval” except that in the Middle Ages it was the Catholic Church, whereas today it is the evangelicals who imitate the Church’s Medieval missionary methods aiming them at simple-minded people, often at the expense of the RC Church (South America). This is one of the missionary activities which RC Church has to face; the other is the post modern “missionary activity” directed against it coming from the likes of Richard Dawkins and his followers.

The Sells’ article is not about science, nevertheless, “science eliminating invisible causes by enhancing our senses with all sorts of clever experiments and machines” fits more the 19th than the 21st century. It is not just experiments and clever machines that give us an understanding of the cosmos, that goes beyond both the Medieval Christian and the nineteenth century materialistic models. For instance, gravitation as well as what you call ‘life-force’ (self-organisation, emergence) are invisible and science keeps on providing a better and better understanding of how they work, but that has nothing to do with Sells’ article.

“God is objectified, Heaven and Hell are 'places' to go and the 'spirit' is a 'thing' which moves on after our bodies die. “ Yes, this is more or less the only way to explain a rather sophisticated world view to persons with little philosophical sophistication. How many people do you think understand Einstein’s theory of gravitation, or even the mathematics behind the emergent quantum gravity theory? You cannot blame professional physicists for the fact that many people have simplified ideas about gravitation, the same as you cannot blame the Church for the fact that some, probably most, Christians need a simplified, even naive, explanation of what the Christian world view behind their faith is all about. And when RE education is completely removed from schools, which seems to be the trend, then the vast majority of people will have an understanding of the Christian religion - whether they embrace it or condemn it - as naive as that displayed e.g. by Richard Dawkins.

Man, George, you are hilarious! Comparing quantum physics with Christian belief, thats a good one. That say some peoples Christian belief (or worldview or whatever)is so complicated that it is difficult to explain to someone the likes of Richard Dawkins is worthy of the comedy channel. Sure, dumb it down for the masses, but if it is really so complicated that it is cannot be explained simply (and still retain the actual core of truth), then what it becomes is unexamined (and probably false).

And Dawkins has "followers" now? Man you guys just can't understand an idea that isn't based in cult language can you? Atheism has to be an "ism" and a "religion" in and of itself so that it can be categorised and generalised about. Which of course it can't, (because it actually isn't anything other than an absence of belief in a deity, kind of like calling "black" a colour) but that is something that you probably don't understand either.

Man, Bugsy, when at school the teacher was showing you three apples and three bunnies hoping you would get the idea of the number three, you probably found it also hilarious that she was comparing apples with bunnies. Besides, it was not quantum physics that I used as an example but gravity, because that is what most people have some idea of, including the "Medieval" one, that things fall to the ground if unsupported, and there is no need to speculate about such a simple fact. The same with the cognitive part of a Christian’s faith that can also be very naive, Medieval.

I never said that it was difficult to explain to Richard Dawkins the metaphysical model(s) of an educated Christian’s faith (I guess it is more a matter of psychological predisposition than of an ability to understand); I can comment only on the knowledge of these things he DISPLAYS in his writings. Since I am not a biologist I cannot judge his qualities as a scientist, I can only admire his qualities as a writer of popularized biology and genetics.

John Polkinghorne, a physicist with a degree in theology, finds quantum physics easier to understand than 21st century theology. So do I.

“Sure, dumb it down for the masses, ... (and probably false)” I heard something similar said many times about mathematics by people who could not accept that there are things in mathematics they could not understand. There are many people whose knowledge of maths does not go beyond arithmetic and simple geometry, though I do not think they would like to be called “masses for whom maths has been dumbed down.”

That is a good example about calling black a colour: in physics you certainly would not assign a colour to the black box, because there is no radiation emanating from it; but when you e.g. buy a car you have a choice of several colours, including black. You see, it depends on the context, in our case it is the psychological context that we speak of.

George, even on a car, black is not a colour. And I am not surprised that theology is more complicated than quantum physics. That's because its a fictional story, like Star Trek. It just keeps on going and logical inconsistencies need to be explained by ever more elaborate stories, ultimately ending in "god did it", or a "Q". The bulldust just keeps getting piled higher and deeper until noone can understand or follow it anymore. That of course does not make it true, but you can believe what you want.