For those who believe that Christianity is to be regarded as morally superior to the secular, then it is time to upgrade their understanding of other religions and elevate themselves to the level of the gentle TAOists.
Should they do so, there could well be an avalanche of defections in that direction.

Peter claims "There is no such thing as a rationality that stands on its own, independent of a tradition in which that rationality operates, in other words, rationality is not one thing, there are instead rationalities."

In this he is demonstrably wrong and not for the first time. The entire point of rational debate - and a statement is rational if it can be falsified - is to transcend contextual circumstances in favour of universal application. One can be sensitive to context, but that is quite different to being trapped by them, as Sellick seems to suggest.

I was curious about theology being the queen of science. I had always understood this to be philosophy. I also ponder the rationality of making the "glory of god" as a raison d'etre. My view of god's glory must include all the acts of irrational bastardry recorded against vengeful vain self centred gods in just about any religious text in any faith. I am not sure I want to do that.

Perhaps one may also include the degrading aspect of all prostitution of both sexes not just female.

A truly rational discourse has the capacity to question its own suppositions. It is entirely possible, for example, for football followers to question the "it is good to win" supposition, especially if it leads to actions that offend our sense of morality.

Dawkins, Dennett, Harris et al are questioning the existence of your God. Dawkins, in particular, claims that the probability that your God exists in vanishingly small. In addition, they are concerned that the "glorification" of god is leading to actions that offend our sense of morality. Suicide bombers for example.

In response, what evidence can you provide that supports the claim that the God you wish to glorify actually exists?

If you cannot provide convincing evidence whilst continuing to demand we take your claims seriously, then you are not engaged in a rational debate. Without evidence, your appeal to the "rationality of faith" may be dismissed as the post-modernist nonsense that many of us suspect it is.

As usual Sells does not really address anything fundamental.

By fundamental I mean what is really at the root of Western so called culture altogether. What is it that really drives our "culture"?

The truth of the matter is that there is a fundamental psychosis (or psychotic split) at the root of the entire Western "cultural" project.

This psychosis manifests as the drive to total power and control and is now being dramatised all over the planet as the war of all against all and everything.

It is also very much about the war against the body. How/why?
We relate to the entire world exactly as we relate to our bodies. The world is thus an extension of our bodies.

The world IS our body.

In one way or another each of these references are about the origins and consequences of this universal psychosis---the war against the body---the war of "spirit" vs "flesh"---a war now being dramatised all over the planet.

The politics of hell deep mortal fear.

1. http://dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2
2. http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html
3. http://www.adidamla.org/newsletters-newsletter-aprilmay2006.pdf
4. http://www.dabase.org/spacetim.htm

Plus as usual this site describes the state of the world body politic created in the image of this fear based psychosis.

1. http://www.ispeace723.org/youthepeople4.htm

The original form of this psychosis is the notion of god as the entirely other, and thus objectified deity. The mommy-daddy Parental deity who is in charge of everything and who will reward us when we are "good", and hit us with a big stick when we are naughty.

1. http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html

A quote from the same author.

" Therefore, the Great Other--whether It is called Nature or Nature's God---is your OPPONENT, not your Refuge, or help. And the very perception and conception of difference (or Otherness) is the Sign that the ego-"I", rather than the Truth, is the presumed basis of your existence."

All of which is another way of saying that the ego-"I" (including the religious ego) is infinitely godless and ALWAYS at war with the Divine.

"...they classify all religions to be the same and are blind to the many benefits that Christianity has given to the world."

They are not blind to the positive and negative impacts Christianity has had on the world, they just don't believe such impacts have merit in a discussion about the truth behind the faith. The impacts can be used to assess the values professed by a faith, but not the fundamental truth behind it.

"Harm reduction is the minimalist intervention that shows us that we do not have any idea of how to alleviate the problem."

Those who advocate harm minimisation would be more than open to ideas that eliminate the problem. It's about assessing things based on context and outcomes, not simply the isolated action. In a sense following the Christian ideals of helping each other rather than passing judgment.

"We have no idea because under the dispensation of liberalism, derived from the Age of Reason, no shared premises are permitted and therefore no rational argument may occur."

The idea that reason demands no shared premise is false. Reason simply calls for these shared premises to be based on reality, rather that dictated out of a dusty old tome.

"Unless we agree..."

Here you illustrate what many people find so despicable about those who argue with religious fervor; that their very human views and opinions are somehow above everyone else's and beyond reasoned debate. If you believe that all individuals have free will, then you cannot deny that they will all form their own views and opinions on issues including the very fundamentals of faith itself.

The age of reason is about sharing and discussing these differences in an attempt to best define a truth based in reality rather than a truth based in presumption. Reason doesn't dictate that the views of Christianity are wrong or worthless, but rather demands that they are justified and understood rather than just blindly accepted.

The conservatism and influence of Alasdair MacIntyre is very evident in this piece which again castigates the influence of the Enlightenment philosophers by reinstating the old notions of virtue based on divine authority - ie the Christian scriptures and magisterial authority of the Church. In a global village influenced by cultural and religious pluralism, universal values must be seen as a positive influence(as does the theologian Hans Kung in his appeal towards a universal ethic). Universal standards of ethical morality and defense of human freedom. Rationality must not be viewed as inimical to taking an intellectual position - and one must beware of a system of morality that seeks to find solutions to 21st century issues within the Thomistic concepts of the 13th century or earlier.

There is no spiritual content whatsoever in any of Sells writings.
In fact any "religion" which appeals to "reason" for it proofs is always arguing against any real Spiritual possibility and thus promotes an entirely dismal flatland world. And of course sex paranoid puritanism.

This explains why.

Both exoteric "religion and secular scientific materialism have, for many centuries (and, principally, in the Western domain of human socities) been actively "instructing" (or, propagandistically coercing) humankind to DISBELIEVE---or, without or apart from actual experience and the exercise of true discrimination, to dissociate from all modes of association with magical, and metaphysical, and even Spiritual, and, in general, ecstasy-producing ideas and activities.

The process of negative indoctrination to which humankind (and, especially the Western "world") has long been subjected by its sacred and secular "authorities" has, actually been a magic-paranoid political, social, econimic, and cultural effort to enforce a worldly, or gross "realist", or thoroughly materialist--and, altogether, anti-ecstatic, anti-magical, anti-metaphysical, and anti-Spiritual---model of human life upon all individuals and all collectives.

The entire effort to idealize the gross physical ego-"I" and, on that basis, to cause universal human worldliness (or a world-cu8lture based upon gross "realism" and reductionist materialism) has required the universal suppression of the actual INATE natural magical, metaphysical, and, ultimately, Spiritual, and, altogether, ecstatic potential of the human psycho-pysical structue---but, also, and profoundly more imporatantly, the anti-ecstatic, anti-magical, anti-metaphysical, anti-Spiritual, and, altogether, gross-materialist "realism" enterprise has deprived humankind of its NECESSARY access to the Inherently egoless Truth Itself---and even the possibility of such access.

Whem this situation is the common situation of all of us in our dreadful sanity, then we have "religionists" such as Sells prattling on about "reason" and presuming to use FLATLAND "reason" to prove the existence of the Divine Conscious Light, which paradoxically "reason" has well and truly KILLED.

Now let’s turn Sellick’s argument on its head. There are good pragmatic reasons for siding with an empirical tradition of enquiry. The claim is made that humans do not have innate knowledge. All knowledge about the external world is derived from observation and inductive reasoning.

Knowledge of inner feelings and emotions is gained by a process of introspection. I do not wish to imply that the rules of logic and deduction are invalid. Far from it just witness the success of mathematical reasoning. How ever, I do claim that in the final analysis the conclusions of mathematics have to be tested against empirical observations.

An engineer may calculate the stresses on a structure, but the definitive test is does the structure work? Is it functional?

In my rational world I see no need to postulate the existence of deity, ferries, daemons or what you will. There is just no empirical support for such entities.

You may say what of faith and/or revelation are these not paths to truth? No they are not. They are far too subjective. Faith based knowledge is inconsistent between individuals and demonstrates gross variation both between and within human societies.

Since the seventeenth century and probably earlier there has been a strong tradition of atheism.*

To those that say that scientific enquiry is the child of medieval Christianity. I humbly observe that one does not normally contemplate the skills of the scaffolder when enjoying great architecture.

As for the claim religion is the answer to a myriad of social problems. Really, the empirical evidence is that religious organisations are the worse offenders when it comes to such matters as child abuse, women’s rights etc. Let us not forget the misery of the inquisition, the burning of heretics and witches. In our own day honour killings, In to-days paper# a description of how to select the appropriate size of stone for execution for those guilty of adultery.

• Hitchens C. The Portable Atheist. Da Capo Press 2007
# The West Australian 16 Jan page 11

First of all, what rationality can there be in faith?

The same people who scoff about the possibility that man and apes may have had a common ancestor find no problem with the notion that man was formed from dirt, and those who delight in exposing the minutae of inaccuracies of the carbon dating process blindly accept the assumption of unnamed nomads sitting in a tent somewhere that the earth is only thousands of years old.

The notion that by default, we are all hell-bound miserable sinners because a long time ago, a talking snake told somebody to eat some fruit from a magic tree doesn’t exactly demonstrate sound judgement either.

Then we have - “…are blind to the many benefits that Christianity has given to the world.”
Historically it’s more a matter of the benefits that all religion gives to ITSELF and those that use it to gain power over others.

However, I agree with -“Christianity has as many forms as there are believers”.

Precisely! However they each consider their form to be the only true one and all others as misguided and THAT is the problem.

Not only are they morally and spiritually superior to non-believers, but they are also superior to other members of the “same” faith (ie each other).

My goodness, if this is the best Mr Sellick can do, no wonder the churches are in trouble.

"These authors flourish because of the fragmentation of Christianity into myriad pieces many of which are quite laughable. However, it must be born in mind that this fragmentation was largely due to the modern thinkers who proclaimed the new age of reason. If every man is his own orthodoxy this means that Christianity has as many forms as there are believers."

The fragmentation of christianity was due to modern (whatever the hell that means) thinkers? Couldn't have been an overly strong entity then could it? Surely the one true church could withstand such insults?

Seems to me a far more "rational" explanation to say that Christianity fragmented because it is a thoroughly human institution, and that's what human institutions do. Islam (Sunni v Shia) is no different.

Peter you write 'The only solution that we see for the moral problems that beset us is harm minimisation. Legalise the brothels and abortion, supply clean needles to drug addicts, teach minors about sexual health instead of giving them a healthy respect for what love demands. Harm reduction is the minimalist intervention that shows us that we do not have any idea of how to alleviate the problem.'

These are still the solutions of the humanist because they are generally to arrogant and unrepentant about their hopelessly flawed philosophies. The good news is that people are voting with their feet when it comes to education. Even those who hold to their secular dogmas insist on educating their children in an environment less likely to bear the fruits of humanism. Unfortunately the dogmas of humanism are still being played out on our indigenous communities and the fruit that goes with them. Jesus words and teachings are superior to any other and we don't need to apologise for that.

"The fatal mistake made by those who initiated the so called “Age of Reason” was that they did not understand that reason can only exist in a tradition that shares common premises and is directed towards certain goals." - Peter Selleck [Sells]

-- It is also true that contemporary scientific and other academic disciplines adopt traditions. The idea of a good thesis is challenge propositions, while hopefully not stepping altogether outside of the discipline. Herein, was it Dirac (?) who had to express an radical aletnative idea as a footnote to a text across eighteen versions of the text, before he felt he could rightfully place the idea in body of the text? That is, he felt right all along, but was aware of the protocols of advancing a disciple, slowly.

Contrarily, in undergraduate, masters and PhD studies in the past, I have been burnt crossing a borrowed, proven contruct from one discipline to another: Typically, the behavioural sciences or cultural-anthropology into business studies. Here, one can demonstrate that a construct in known, [tentatively] proved and [tentatively] accepted by another legitimate body of academia; yet, the other discipline -in focus- does not listen. Relatedly, sinologist, Joseph Needham, calculated it can take two hundred years to fuse disciplines.

In the above vein, I find that current adherentst Newtonian classical mechanical style science, resist say quantum mechanics; where things are a bit fuzzy

-Cont--

are a bit fuzzy...

Similarly, I feel that the faithful to their faith, wherein, perhaps familial influence is a stronger factor than a Holy Spirit. Also, any religion has much to learn from the history of its times, anthropology, ecology, politics and the behavioural sciences, as probing entities. Herein, for example, if wishes to reason though their belief in God, an early question should be, which God? The surely turns on evidence, not own society values and family values. Else, we have different answers to whom God is.

p.s. Dawkins, I find is like the preachers he criticises, in-so-much-as, he adopts preconceived ideas and targets the converted converted to Atheism. Bias is not good in Theism or Atheism. We should aim for knowledge discovery by broader evaluative means.

p.p.s. Without a scientific reasoning, we, in the West, might find ourselves like China across most dynasties, good at technology, yet, often without understanding the underlying principles.

Runner claims: "Jesus words and teachings are superior to any other and we don't need to apologise for that."

I would like to suggest to you Runner, as I almost certain that you haven't read it, that the example of Socrates in Plato's "Last Days of Socrates" are both morally and ethically superior and less ambigious. Not to mention written a few hundred years prior.

TAking Runners point one more step.... It's not so much that Jesus words and teaching were superior... though indeed they were to me... it was his works...

-Sight to the blind,
-Hearing to the deaf,
-Cripples walking,
-Demon possessed set free
-Storms calmed, winds obeying him
-Walking on water,
-Water into wine..
-Raising the dead...

Does one need to continue ? It was these things which pointed to His messiahship... and that's the central issue.
We don't need to re-think the role of the Church, it's the same as it has always been.. "proclaim the Kingdom of God, and call men to repentance and faith in Christ"

Luke24:46 <<He told them, "Thus it is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.>>

For we who have heard the message.. -one thing remains.. repentance and faith.

BOAZ, then we should also judge the Persian figures Mithra by his works:

* Being born from a rock
* Slaying a bull to produce vines, wheat, and each type of useful animal
* Protecting men from darkness and evil spirits
* Accompanying souls to paradise
* Rising from the dead

Similar lists can be provided for Horus, Krishna, and even Buddha, depending on what sources you refer to (many of them are almost certainly the mythological basis for Jesus).

Were someone able to demonstrate before me the ability to grant sight to the blind, hearing to deaf, and turn water into wine, and no evidence of fraud or deception could be found, and careful examination showed me to be of sound mind and not hallucinating, then (and only then) I would seriously consider his "messiahship".
As long as all you have to go on are multiply-translated and oft-contradictory second and third-hand accounts from 2000 years ago, then your "evidence" is singularly unimpressive.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I suspect many miss the point - if Rationality is so great how come the world is in such a mess? Clearly the religion of the Rational is no better than the one it claims to replace.

However - in thinking about Christianity it seems not to have kicked as many own goals.

Oh dear! How ironic that an article that mentions “rationality” so much, shows absolutely none of it whatsoever - along with a flawed definition of “rationality”, just to top it off.

There's not much more I can add to the majority of sensible posts on this thread, so I thought I might go through some of the so-called 'rationality' that I used in my days as a Christian, to prevent myself from asking questions:

- The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.
- Science can't explain how matter came to be: God must have made it all.
- You can't conclusively dis-prove the existence of God: He must exist.
- The Bible has some good morals to live by: It must be true.
- I can't explain [insert contradiction/logical error here]: Let's just say that God cannot be explained.
- I can't explain why that happened: Let's just say that God works in mysterious ways.
- God didn't answer my prayers: I mustn't have had enough faith or listened hard enough.

I could go on forever. But the above list should be enough for anyone with a shred of intelligence, reason and rational thought to seriously question the dogma of 'Faith'. It's a very narrow, blinding and infantile state-of-mind to be in.

“The rationality of faith”

In my interpretation of English, such a title represent a classic oxymoron.

A value based on “rationality” suggest a source based in reason and logic.

A value based on “faith” suggest something which does not have any basis in reason and logic

Whilst a person may express support for both faith values and rationality values, such bases cannot “co-habit” in a single value.

My own view is to be suspect of anyone who confuses faith and logic, their mind (both reasoning and emotional sides) is either addled or perverse (and that represents the underlying suspicion I hold most theologians and priests in)

However, Mozart was inspired to create such beauty that I believe there must be some "divine" force.
Although I doubt anyone will find such a force in any congregation which requires people to subordinate themselves to a priest class/caste.

Of interest and relevant to this topic, is the 2008 Backhouse Lecture delivered recently in Melbourne at the Australian Yearly Meeting of The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Titled Faith, hope and doubt in times of uncertainty: combining the realms of scientific and spiritual inquiry, it was delivered by George Ellis and is available by emailing sales@quakers.org.au <sales@quakers.org.au>. It costs $11 + p&p.

George Ellis is a Quaker and is Professor Emeritus of Applied Mathematics, University of Cape Town, South Africa. He is a cosmologist and his books include The large scale structure of space time which he co-authored with Stephen Hawking. He was the 2004 Templeton Prize winner. So, all in all, a significant speaker with regard to reason and faith.

Boazy: "... it was his works...

-Sight to the blind,
-Hearing to the deaf,
-Cripples walking,
-Demon possessed set free
-Storms calmed, winds obeying him
-Walking on water,
-Water into wine..
-Raising the dead...

Does one need to continue ?"

Indeed not. You've demonstrated quite nicely that you don't distinguish between mythology and rationality.

Great response, wizofaus :)

I suspect that the article is yet another of Sellick's recycled and self-indulgent sermons. Tell us, Peter - does anybody actually stay awake when you deliver these abstruse monologues in church?

Yuri.
I had heard and was surprised that Kung was taking up an interest in universal ethics although I have not had a chance to investigate further. I would say that such a quest is bound to fail in a similar way that the emphasis on human rights has failed. Certainly there are ethical positions that we can all agree on and many that are borderline. But I do not think that this sort of exercise does a lot of good. For example the UN can pass all kinds of resolutions about human rights, indeed they seem to multiply like rabbits, and that will not stop the tyrant murdering. Human rights were invented after the Enlightenment did away with God and when they got completely out of control we invented responsibilities to keep them in check. The result looks like Hobbes’ social contract. This has little to do with human behaviour apart from the sanctions provided by law.

Christianity is not primarily an ethical system but rather speaks about the truth of the human derived after extended meditation on history. It is this truth that bears the name of God as Father (past) Son (present) and Spirit (future). God is what we see in the acts of the man Jesus that opens a new future for us. Enlightenment, for Christianity is the revelation of the truth about ourselves. Yes, we do have it in us to cry with the others “crucify him” and no talk of human rights will change that. What we need to live in peace is a change of heart that will remove that cry from us. This is about the education of the heart not about an intellectual attempt to grasp what is right and wrong which will always fail to some extent.

Continued..

There is a pervasive overconfidence in human reason illustrated by the other article on this page “Parliament is not a church”. We are told that all we have to do is to be reasonable and all will work out alright. But when this proposition is examined we find the emperor with new, and invisible clothes. No one is arguing that government must not exercise practical reason to a high level. But that is not enough, as Howard found out in the last election. Shear pragmatism and management is not enough, it suffocates the soul of the nation. Sure, parliament is not a church but a parliament that does not listen to the church is in real danger of robbing us of what is essentially human.

I find it interesting that Alasdair MacIntyre converted to the faith after he had written After Virtue. Even a brilliant mind, striving to arrive at a notion of virtue, finally sees that it is a lost cause and the only way forward is the faith. The end point of Western philosophy is Frederick Nietzsche. In him we see the best and the worst and also a warning that reason is limited.

Peter Sellick

The rationality of lack of faith is the one of the best proofs of rationality for faith. The pathetic attempts by corrupt humans to discredit the Son of God and His miracles are incredible. The lack of faith by many is purely an excuse to continue their ungodly lifestyles and to think throwing in a good work here or there somehow justifies themselves. Their reasoning is foolishness. So true when Jesus spoke of the Light coming to the world but men loving their darkness more than light. Thankfully God is merciful up to a man's dying day wishing that none would perish but that all would come to everlasting life.

Thomas Aquinas saw the true light when prompted by Peter Abelard he took the message from early Moslems about religous faith needing to be tempered by Socratic Reasoning - commonsense being possibly the main intellectual gain from it.

Thus Aquinas has been declared not only the only true doctor of the Church, but was also declared a Saint, as well as beginning what is now our Schools of Humanities et al.

It is also so strange that many of our OLO contributors will not accept the above history, making them similar to Bush Dubya who some say would never have had the brains to be a Uni' gaduate anyhow?

Sells,

I find it odd how so many Christians like yourself completely miss the 'Good Word' that Christ preached. Jesus' message was one of liberation and obligation. By absolving humanity's sins through his death he liberated us from the obligations we had to God, his earthly representatives and the old laws they preached. It was a message of freedom and free will. But just as the saying "With great power, comes great responsibility", Jesus' message was also about the obligation this freedom imposed on us not to god but to each other, those who could be affect by our choices. It was a message that given God is everywhere and talks to all of us, we must listen to him (through ourselves) to judge right from wrong. In effect, it's up to us as individuals to determine our own morality, and not let it be based on some rules in an old tome written by a human.

I don't personally believe that Jesus was of divine nature, but rather just a great philosopher. I think that his references to immortality and eternal life, and the duality of his humanity are about how he as a person would die but his teachings would live on forever through others.

If there's some form of universal truth in his teachings then that his philosophies allow one to lead a life that is morally right, socially responsibly and individually beneficial. Which is aptly summarised by the words "Love thy neighbour". His teachings were that our morality should be based on the very real impact we have on our neighbours and no based on some abstract notion of absolutes. However, whether there is a universal truth to his teachings has no affect on his divinity.

Essentially I find a certain truth in Ghandi's words: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.". Does that make him a God too?

Thomas Aquinas saw the true light when prompted by Peter Abelard he took the message from early Moslems about religous faith needing to be tempered by Socratic Reasoning - commonsense being possibly the main intellectual gain from it. - BB

Is not Aquinas more doctrinaire than Abelard. Sic? Non? Sic!

That is, the Christain churches seem to have build much doctine on the thoughts of Aquinas. The Church is the Master of the knowledge handed [preached] down to the lay. Alternatively, Abelard stood in opposition to Greek dialogues, wherein the Master led the other [ignorant] party to the difinitive ah-ha conclusion/solution.

Albelard, I posit, was less inclined to accept authority [and paid dearly for it, preventing from sitting on ecclesiastical council] and did not have he same affinity towards a high degree of closure regrading the finality of understanding, as did Aquinas [and the Christian churches].

[p.s. Sells: I am on the mend. Still at least six months treatment.]

"Our focus can no longer be on the survival of the Church, but on how the Church, weak as it is, can work towards the survival of society."

HELL'S BELLS: PELL FELL

Peter, I once pressed Cardinal Pell very hard to pressure ony Tony Abbott for not responding/releasing details of a report [July, 2007] into the purchase of more PET scanners as Abbott promised he would. Several medical oncolgists said the findings were of significant importance. Some medical doctors have even blocked by Government to finding out the recommendations via FOI. Pell, so often ready to open his trap on matters of breaching Church and State, would not give his pal, Tony, a quick call on a less contentious of the temporal survival of members of society.

SOCIETAL ACHIEVEMENTS

Democratision of society is at a different pole to institutionisation via Churches and Monarchy. The People must administer themselves, rather than be ruled. In recent centuries we have come to learn the People represent the dog and not the tail: But the People have to resist great powers to protect our individualism and our enlightenment.

The CERN particle accelerator is about to collide two particles each travelling at greater than 0.99 c. So, soon, we mightlearn more about the early universe. In one hundred years might we create one [a universe]? The society posited by a Luther or Aquinas could not support such an accompliment

Sells

What a strange article!

The Church is not a 'system of rationality' precisely because its members are committed to a 'belief' in its basic premises. For a system to be truly rational the dubiety of its premises must be acknowledged.

To expound, for example, the rationality of 'Love thy Neighbour' is to miss the point.

As you point out liberalism is what you get when you allow the Church's premises to be doubted. You obviously regard this as a bad thing. I simply cannot but question those premises and therefore I am liberal and not ashamed of it. If theology is faith seeking understanding then how can it be anything but liberal. It must question that faith which it seeks to understand. If, in being questioned, that faith is transformed or even lost then so be it. Some forms of faith are best discarded.

Sells,

Where does the British Monarch sit? Is it rational that there be a Defender of the Faith based on birth, rather than scholarship? Should we serve a Monarch and salute a flag?

Regards,

O.

Waterboy.
If theology is not some kind of rational discourse it is not discourse at all but a collection of experiences or feelings. Certainly theology is faith seeking understanding, which means that we begin from acceptance rather than scepticism. Liberalism begins with scepticism and demands that the atomistic self is the judge of all things. Faith thus becomes impossible. Christian theology is liberal in the sense that it is open to any questions and its authority is what is left after all of the questions are answered. But in all of this we must be willing to be led by the hand into the thought of the Church trusting and questioning at the same time.

Some forms of faith should be disregarded. For example I think that there is something very wrong with the theology of creation that makes God the generator of the physical world instead of the one who calls us into life. Theology is constantly in need of reform.

Oliver.
I regard the queen as the head of the Anglican communion to be a historical accident that cannot be condoned

Sells,

"Certainly theology is faith seeking understanding, which means that we begin from acceptance rather than scepticism."

"Theology is constantly in need of reform."

What happens when rational thought leads us to a need to reform that which we began with acceptance of?

"I regard the queen as the head of the Anglican communion to be a historical accident that cannot be condoned"

One can take the same view of the pope and Catholicism.

"I regard the queen as the head of the Anglican communion to be a historical accident that cannot be condoned." - Sells

I agree. Yet she, maintains the pretending. It would nice if all could inherit our ancestors awards. Charles, I have heard once considered the idea of Defender of the Faiths [plural]. Or, was that just a media beat-up?

Hankins notes the French Revolution [1789], as the exercise of the liberalism, occurred after many key philosphers had died {e.g., Diderot, d'lemebrt, Condiallac, Voltaire, Rousseau and --Turgot--.

The choas did not co-incide with the overthrow.

Anne Robert Jacque Turgot of "Discourse sur les progres succesifs esprit humain," famein council to Louis XVI on parliament [parlement],
when parliament was principally about judicial bases for taxes and not people:

The clergy, the nobility, and the parliaments are "jealously guarded prerogatives", which seek to extend their powers with little thought for the state".

"The course of evil, Sire, goes back to the fact that your nation is a society comprised of different orders badly united, and of a people in which there are but very few social ties betwen the members. In consequence, each individual is occupied only with his own interest ... " {1774, Trans. Hankins in Hankins 1985}

The cause of this bastardised individualism would seem rest with social, religious and political institution that derived power from "historical rights and intrests" not natural rights. Herein, I feel, the Enlightenment [Endarkenment to you and religious folk] sought break-down the power of authorities, Kings & Church Leaders, "by examining what our ancestors did in times of ignorance and barbarism". {1774, Trans. Hankins in Hankins 1985}

Turgot is accredited with introducing the term, "social science", which post the revolutionary period slowly gave us a "better" individualism and put Church and State rightfully their place - under us. But it is not over, yet. The Pope still claims infalliability and their is a House Lords in England. My money is on the Pontifs outlasting the nobles' house.

We see two "individualisms", before and after the Enlightenment. Ours I suggest the superior.

Sells?

-re- Oliver, Monday, 21 January 2008 6:15:39 PM. What do you think? Individualism before and after the Enlightenment?

-oops- there not their.

- As usual a good topic for debate/discourse.

Cheers.

O.

"An uncritical and positive view of the Enlightenment is orthodoxy at Australian secular universities to the extent that few have departments of theology even though the history of the West is unintelligible without such knowledge. Even so, history departments throughout the land teach Medieval history in the absence of any teaching that carries a sympathetic view of the central place of Christian theology in the societies studied." - Sells from anoth Article

Not necessararily so. Some historians would say the Pope moderated in the conflicts between Monarchs: The Church having religious power familial mafias/royalty. Maybe, not well but the Pope was above an Emperor, an Emperor above a King and King above Prince. The heirachary, far from perfect, perhaps, more consolidation than today's UN?

The Enlightenment brought Attic Greek [thought] to the West [via Byzantium/Spain]. It was powerfully good, because it ultimately showed to learn, how to learn. Theory captained practice, rather than trial and error. Interpretation of political, scientific and religious matter become public property not governed by the few as Turgot (above] notes. It advanced the Renaissance.

Faith and Disbelief ar both commitments. "Binary classifiers" suggest either position is first approached via null hypothesis of the person belief held

Sells and others;

Source for definitions: OED [Unabridged)

REASON:

--c1374 CHAUCER Boeth. IV. pr. vi. 104 (Camb. MS.)" "To vnwrappen the hyd causes of thinges and to discouere me the resouns couered with dyrknesses."

ENLIGHTENMENT:

DICKENS Lett. (1880) I. 398: "I should be ready to receive enlightenment from any source."

INDIVIDUALISM:

1851 MILL in Westm. Rev. LVI. 87: "Socialism as long as it attacks the existing individualism, is easily triumphant. 1884 J. RAE Contemp. Socialism 209 Socialism and individualism are merely two contrary general principles, ideals, or methods, which may be employed to regulate the constitution of economical society."

REASON:

--c1374 CHAUCER Boeth. IV. pr. vi. 104 (Camb. MS.)" "To vnwrappen the hyd causes of thinges and to discouere me the resouns couered with dyrknesses."

ENLIGHTENMENT:

---DICKENS Lett. (1880) I. 398: "I should be ready to receive enlightenment from any source."

~The above can be reviewed from before and after the Enlighenment. Perhap's Dicken's perspective is most challenging to steadfast doctrine and institions [not only the Churches] which lecture others. Before the Enlightenment did the Elite [Gr.Ekletos]or the Masses [Hoi polloi.]

RC's asise, I find it hard to see why many Churches praise the Renaisscence {C14-C16}, yet condemn the Enlightenment. The Renaisscence took Scripture from The Pope to the Church House, The Enlightenment permited interpretation of scription by the individuals, whom sount knowledge and "enlightenment from any source" {Dickens 1880, ditto]. Before the Enlightenment the individual's was shackled to the reasoning of others. We are now free choose our own path, including religionism [the collective socialism of the Church group] , free will, beit, a divine gift or a happenstance of nature.

Note, Chaucer saw reasoning involving knowledge discover from all quarters, as removing his Endarkenment in c. 1374. Long before the tradional Enlightenment.

Cheers.

Sells,

Like me, you are probably very busy now. When you have some time your comment would be valued. Thanks.

O.

Sells

We seem to agree that Faith transcends rationality. Jesus was a story-teller and not a mathematician. The Church might, in practice, have become a 'system of rationality' but I would argue that 'to the extent to which it has become a system of rationality' it reflects its nature as a human institution rather than its nature as the 'gathered faithful' or the 'Body of Christ'.

It seems to me that theology can be apologetic, confessional or sceptical. In its apologetic form it has little interest for me. In its confessional form it seems to me to be exploratory of the infinite possibilities of experienced faith. Its rational form is sceptical and, for me, the real purpose of sceptical theology is to challenge and deconstruct faith. Sceptical theology is a refining fire which reduces its derivative faith to that which reason simply cannot confute or destroy. Sceptical theology is very personal and is not for everyone!

The proper theological domain of the church is confessional and ought to be constructive and facilitative of faith. This is best achieved through narrative and myth rather than through rational discourse. Therefore I say that the church as the gathered faithful is a confessional, story-telling community rather than a 'system of rationality'. Reason is reductive and exclusive whereas narrative is expansive and inclusive.

I think we seem to be at odds because we are using different understandings of rationality. You say that rationality is reductive, certainly the form that dominated the Enlightenment was. Logical positivism strips down to the bare essentials and refuses to give credence to anything that cannot be demonstrated. However, stories are rational in their own right, if they are not then we deem them bad stories, like the story of modernity. There is no such thing as an irrational story, that is a contradiction, even bad stories make some sense.

Christians would say that the Christian story of the world allows us to make sense of our lives. Our experience is the experience of the truth of that story. That can never be irrational.

I am studying Trinitarian theology at the moment and there is a sense that in the threefold name the infinity of history is bracketed and made sense of just as the bible brackets world history between creation and eschaton. The number three comes from the three points in time, past, present and future, the one we encounter in the past (Father) in the present (Son) and the one who comes to us in the future (Spirit). This is not an irrational construction, it is tied to the nature of the Christian story as being set within history and how time is. Even paradoxical statements like “Those who would have their lives will lose them” are not irrational.

I am not sure what you mean by “In its confessional form it seems to me to be exploratory of the infinite possibilities of experienced faith.” This seems too broad for me. Surely, if God is what happens between Christ and us, then our experience of faith is very particular.

Oliver, unfortunately you have raised some interesting points.

I say unfortunately because in my experience, Sells totally ignores such contributions.

He isn't interested in discussion, only in the sound of his own voice. If you look back over his contributions, the only people with whom he chooses to discourse are firmly in the category of i) a fellow theologian and ii) broadly in agreement with his witterings.

He will talk with waterboy, for example, in order to discuss "theology as a discourse". But please, don't ask intelligent questions of him. You are on a different wavelength, and therefore in his eyes, unworthy of consideration.

waterboy, I'm fascinated by your deconstruction of faith into the classifications of apologetic, confessional and sceptical.

I can understand you being too confident to indulge in apologetics. I can also appreciate that being confessional might be a nice cosy place to be. But I'm disappointed that you consider that "[s]ceptical theology is very personal and is not for everyone!"

That would, on the face of it, appear to be an act of some cowardice. Would it not be more convincing, satisfying and generally more... genuine, to subject your theology to a "refining fire which reduces its derivative faith to that which reason simply cannot confute or destroy" in public, and in front of witnesses?

That way, no-one could accuse you of fudging it.

Pericles,

"Oliver, unfortunately you have raised some interesting points."

Thank you. My hope -sometimes unrealised- is we can learn from each in the OLO Forum.

Sells and others,

I put some of the above again, now in a simplified form:

1. Are there two types of individualism? One before the Enlightenment: The other after the Enlightenment. The former draws its values from the scholarly, whom are the guardians the Holy of Holies and interpret the Secrets of Secrets for the less educated ignorant masses. The latter allows person decisions based on evidence as each see it.

2. Why do Protestant communions accept the Rennaiscence and Reformation, yet condemn the Enlightenment? Both are highly leverage on and value personal interpretation of affairs.

Also, added,

3. Does in-fighting among churches [Reformation]create Schicisms; whereas out-fighting by Churches against Science and History create a call to consolidation to defend, rather than debate? Rather like Chinese factions/enemies consolidating fight Japan.

4. Who is Anglican communion's greatest adversery The Pope or Richard Dawkins. The former has made his choice from reading scripture extensively and the latter a geneticist whom may have a mere superficial knowledge of scripture - compared to a Master Theologian?

Peri

Personal is not the same thing as private. Personal means unique to a person as each persons faith is unique to that person. Not everyone has the time or inclination to deconstruct their own faith in this way... though I would say it is worthwhile for everyone who chooses to undertake the endeavour.

Sells

If you are extending the meaning of 'rational' beyond the realm of propositional logic then yes narrative may have its'own logic'.Even so I would regard this as a highly truncated assessment of narrative in general and narrative theology in particular.

Narrative manipulates perspective often with the specific purpose of disrupting conventional, rational perception. It may have 'its own logic' but it need not be rational in the usual sense.Your 'bad story' might be my epiphany. The story of Jesus death on the Cross for example is a story of love not logic.You could, of course, rationalise the story in terms of the sacrifice which confers benefits on others but,as I said before, this interpretation truncates and diminishes the story. In this story the possibility of self sacrifice is a Divine perspective which challenges our perfectly justifiable logic of self-preservation.Through it we might experience the Love of God and find faith.Alternatively we might argue and cogently that to follow Jesus example would lead inexorably to the extinction of Christianity and to what purpose.

Faith 'transcends' reason and cannot be thoroughly explored through the mechanism of reason alone. Trinitarian theology is a classic example of my point. Essentially the stories of God the creator, Jesus the saviour and the Spirit as the immediate presence of the Divine are three separate stories each of which we can accept as truthful but propositional logic simply cannot resolve these three stories taken together. Each of the stories is told by the Church for its constructive and facilitative effect for faith. This is confessional theology and is the proper work of the Church. Attempts to rationalise trinitarian doctrine have largely been counterproductive in terms of nurturing faith and have led to many terrible misconceptions regarding the nature of God and faith

Sells and Pericles,

The Vatican astronomers whom examined Gallileo's telescope had faith in Earth being the centre of the universe, and, moreover Earth, over which Man has domain, is "nature/al" and space [as we know ot today] was "supernatural". The religious astronomers had faith that space was the releam of the supernatural.

Moreover, these guys would not look the telescope saying [based on faith], that any confirmation of other Earths [if you like] would be an illusion of the Devil. Based on the faith the religionists we, can now go to heaven and return safely to nature or alternatively interplanetary travel is an illusion.

As much as it hurts me to advance this thesis I am obliged to say that the Vatican astronomers and others that refused to look through Galileo’s telescope were demonstrating common sense.

In the seventeenth century nobody understood how the telescope worked. It was known from observing terrestrial objects with the telescope of the time that the image was distorted and full of artefacts.

The image was upside down and subject to what we now call spherical and chromatic aberrations. It would be interesting for experts on seventeen century science and optics to comment further on the limitations of the Galileo instrument. I also believe that is was known at the time that Galileo himself had defective vision.

Surely, distrust of the telescope at that time had some justification.

Anti-Green,

Thanks for your comments.

EARTH & SPACE

“The Copernican system displaced the earth from its central position, reduced it to the status of a planet, and wrecked the consoling Aristotelian--and medieval Christian--belief in the contrast between the transcendental, immutable, and eternal heavens, the home of the blest, on the one hand, and the sublunary sphere of the earth, the scene of birth, change, decay, and death on the other. “ - Source: The Renaissance: Its Nature and Origins. Contributors: George Clarke Sellery (1950).

TELESCOPE

Galilleo improved on the faulty Flemish telescope. It was initially used to look at trading vessels returning to port, to view the waterline of the cargo ships. A mercantile rather than a scientific instrument.

The telescope used by Gallileo was a refraction telescope, no inverted image.

My understanding is that Galilleo went blind, while under house arrest after his trial. I don't know whether it was a slow process [starting before the trial] or sudden. Anyway, the astronomers presumably could see okay. The real reason for their reluctance was theistic.

The Church was faced with a similar issue with orbits and epi-cycles, accepting the latter, because the former -if real- would break the crystal! Hailing Stewart from heaven :-)?

Amazing what Christians believe. The Chinese astronomers tries set them straight, but the Church [Jesuits] ignored them.

Waterboy.
I agree that the rationalisation of the story, in this case the passion narrative, has the potential to remove its unsettling aspects from our live and to domesticate it for our purposes. One has only to look at the Medieval theory of atonement to see that that is the case. This is why it is the narrative that is read in church and not any theological treatment of it. However, theology must be written with the narrative as the central concern and the understanding that any such writing will be provisional, like any scientific theory. Preaching may be the impossible task but that does not mean that it is not essential for the Word to go forth into the world. All of this must make sense. We cannot hide in the mystical or the experiential or the apophatic, the Word must be proclaimed as clearly as possible in the knowledge that all has not been said.

I must take issue at your suggestion that the Trinity may be divided into three separate stories with involving the three “persons”. It is the dogma of the church that any act of God involves all three persons simultaneously, otherwise we project pantheism, three gods doing their own thing. The proper name of God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not creator, redeemer, presence. The later is a travesty of Trinitarian theology that produces modalism. I think that Trinity can be understood and that if it is not then it will cease to play a part in the belief of ordinary Christians leavning the Church open to paganism.

That this has been the outcome in Western Christianity is obvious, Arius has won the day. So long as this is the case the Church will be crippled with an inadequate theology and open to the criticisms of the new atheists (which are not that new). The best book I have read on this is Robert Jenson’s “The Triune Identity.”

I tend to use “rationality” simply to mean the rules of logic, as applied to whatever factual premises happen to be on hand. If A is true then B is true. A is true. Therefore, B is true. And so on.

In that sense, I would have thought we were all on common ground, so the "irrational" label is misconceived.

The key difference I see between the theist and the atheist is in how we apprehend the factual premises. The atheists involved in debate tend to insist on empirical proof before they will allow themselves to accept something as a fact. So, if God happens to exist, they will fail to apprehend Him. My fact-apprehending equipment begins with faith in God. It includes the senses, of course, but is not limited to them.

We both use logic with equal enthusiasm. We disagree and argue because we have such different approaches to facts.

We may even be wasting our time. I cannot persuade an empiricist to leave the empiricist box; and they can’t persuade me to jump in and lock myself inside it.

Our time might be better spent putting the issue aside and working out what we agree about and what common action we can take to make the world a little better than it is at present.

Pax,

Sells,

Where in the NT is the Trinity explicity defined?

[The OT has a different godhead, consistent with tribal cultures. So, we can disregard the latter, perhaps. Serapis had a very similar godhead to that defined by Nicaea.]

Offline for a few months from Wednesday. Packing.

O

Could you perhaps expand on this a little, goodthief?

>>The atheists involved in debate tend to insist on empirical proof before they will allow themselves to accept something as a fact. So, if God happens to exist, they will fail to apprehend Him<<

How do you reach the conclusion that I would fail to apprehend God, if he "happens to exist"?

This seems nothing more than a convenient sidestep, in order to avoid the necessity to provide any form of proof at all.

I don't "insist on empirical proof" for myself. Only when people use their religion as a weapon against those of a different religious persuasion do I feel the urge to ask them for some justification.

>>My fact-apprehending equipment begins with faith in God. It includes the senses, of course, but is not limited to them<<

This makes your faith entirely circular - which is the most honest self-assessment I have heard from any religious person. Since you start from the position that God exists, you absolve yourself of the requirement to question your faith in the slightest degree.

A position of some personal comfort to you, I suspect. Unfortunately the other side of the coin is that it effectively cuts you off from the true excitement of being alive in this world, right now, and knowing that you have only a few short years to experience it in its fullness and diversity.

Your approach to life would appear to be a little like looking at the world wearing mental blinkers. Your blind faith - for that is precisely what it is, given your own definition - provides a sadly narrow view of our existence here.

Sells wears the same blinkers, but his are the result of too long in academe. Anyone who can write a sentence like this needs to get out more:

>>That this has been the outcome in Western Christianity is obvious, Arius has won the day.<

Why would Arius winning the day have been a bad thing, Sells?

I have a private bet with myself that you cannot explain without indulging in theological doublespeak.

Sells

You said
I must take issue at your suggestion that the Trinity may be divided into three separate stories with involving the three“persons”.

I do not'divide the Trinity'.You could only possibly draw this conclusion from your own dogmatic,"Trinity-centric"perspective.I merely point out that Christianity begins with the stories of Creation, Redemption and Immanence.The Trinitarian formula is a fairly sophisticated theological development of these Biblical narratives.It is not,as Oliver points out,what one might call primary revelation but rather an apologetic construct.Its primary purpose is to assert the monotheistic basis of Christianity over against those Christological proposals which seemed to divide the Godhead while maintaining some sense of the Divinity ofthe man Jesus of Nazareth. In the Christological debate over the nature of Christ itis surely the best solution but as you say itis"not all there is".

Your accusation of Arianism seems a knee-jerk reaction to'defend'your Trinitarian dogma but you must surely acknowledge that of the many different literary genres present in the Bible,narrative dominates and this is particularly true in the NT while systematic Theology is quite poorly represented.Pauls letters are occassional and hardly systematic.

The Bible works because narrative touches us deeply and has the power to reveal. How many people even read Calvins"Institues"or Augustines"City".They havent the same affective or pistogenic power as the story of the innocent suffering God.

By the way, your assertion that paganism is the only alternative to acceptance of Trinitarian dogma is likely to offend the Unitarian churches, Salvation Army, Jews and others. It is a desperate, some would say offensive, argument which is quite unsustainable. It derives, of course,from the arrogant conviction of the 'mainstream' churches that they have a monopoly on divine revelation.

One also needs to understand the difference between apophatic and metaphorical Theologies.Metaphor and narrative point to the Divine in a very positive way even if they do not assert particular propositions pertaining to God.To go further than this is surely hubris,if not actually blasphemous.Jesus revealed the nature of God through the parables he told and by his own direct actions.Does the Anglican Church know something that Jesus didn't?

As soon as I saw the “perhaps”, the “a little” and the question mark, I knew it was you Pericles. So gentle.

You’re a sly boots, using “justification” when you mean “empirical proof”. I don’t agree with you that empirical proof is the only justification.

If God is not amenable to empirical scrutiny, God will not be apprehended by a person whose fact-apprehending equipment is limited to the empirical. That’s all I meant – I don’t see anything remarkable in it.

I use my senses. If I’m blind, then so is every empiricist. So, all the “fulness and diversity” of the world that can be experienced by an empiricist can be experienced by me as well. It’s just that I have some additional fullness and diversity to experience.

I wouldn’t say I’ve absolved myself from the requirement to question my faith. May depend what is meant by “requirement”. Before believing in God, I disbelieved – or at least ignored, it’s hard to say. Certainly, I’m am angry with God often (with the anger resulting sometimes in a walkout and a period of ignoring Him), but so far I have not stopped believing in God’s existence.

Nor have I noticed empiricists questioning their attachment to empiricism as the starting point of their thinking. Arguably, all presuppositions – God, empiricism, whatever – make all thinking circular. I know we’ve had this conversation before, and I still say it comes down to comparing presuppositions.

As far as I’m aware, I don’t use my religion as a weapon against others. Nor am I especially comfortable: losing one’s authority over one’s life is inconvenient. If I could choose whether or not God existed, or what kind of God it might be, I’m really not sure which way I’d jump. The cosy little empiricist box seems pretty comfortable by comparison.

Pax,

Waterboy.
The doctrine of the Trinity is certainly no “apologetic construct” but a faithful interpretation of the spirit of both the Old and New Testament witness to how God reveals himself. That is, the Trinity describes how God actually is as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is axiomatic for an understanding of God experienced in human history. It is to do with the structure of salvation history, there is the given from the past, the experience of the present and the promise that lies in the future. Thus the doctrine describes all human experience and is thus universal. So I have no trouble with offending certain groups who do not subscribe to the Trinity, all I would ask is the opportunity to explain it aright.

Hi Sells,

Above when I mention Trinity in the NT, I mean direct reference to the Godhead, terms like Father and Son being use separately. Where does the NT explain or make direct reference to the Trinity.

"I do not'divide the Trinity'." - Sells

The Bible does: The only unforgivable seen is a against the Holy Spirit/Ghost:

Matthew 12:30-32 "He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathers not with me scatters. For this reason I say unto you, Every sin and injurious speaking shall be forgiven to men, but speaking injuriously of the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men. And whosoever shall have spoken a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the coming one."

If we test the NT for the Nicaean godhead, I, at least don't find, it, explicity. The OT has the El godhead, of the Cannanite Baal. The closest I can find the Eyptian Serapis godhead.

Please support your position from scripture. Thanks.

Cheers,

O.

c.c. David [invited from another thread.]

The language of the Trinitarian formula is clearly metaphorical. So regarded, it is has its place in the cluster of narratives, metaphors and symbols around which Christianity is organised. While it may be axiomatic for the Roman and Anglican Churches it is not in itself an article of faith. My Salvation Army friends are assuredly not pagans. Your willingness to offend those who do not share your opinions is undignified and it is difficult to see how it is informed by... say... The Parable of the Good Samaritan or the principle of Love which Jesus identifies as the highest principle of Faith.
Given the circumstances in which the formula was forged it is hardly surprising that it should serve to identify and exclude but how much more powerful it might have been as a sign of the life-giving inclusivity of Faith as exemplified in the Life of Jesus Himself.
As you have so clearly demonstrated by the vehemenace of your 'defence' of Trinitarian dogma its purpose is to defend, explain and justify a particular Christology in the context of a monotheistic religion. Surely that is aplogetics. Your use of the dogma to identify and exclude is also entirely consistent with the general thrust of apologetic theology and its 'system of rationality'.
As long as your Church holds to such a 'system of rationality' it remains just another 'football' club and falls short of being the Body of Christ. How can it hope to fulfil its metanoic purpose from such a weakened state.

Waterboy.
I was reading my old article on creation when your latest post came through. I had not known that you had commented on it and saddened that you showed the same old sacrifice of crucial theological considerations in order to please groups that did not agree. This shilly shallying over essential concepts in order to please all is a mark of liberalism with which I have no sympathy. Surely these people are strong enough to stand some rigorous debate

Sells,

There are also significant issues regarding a comon ousia, if the Holy Spirit is singled out. The only direct reference to a godhead in the Bible to my knowledge is in Pslam 82 and that reads polytheistic.

Cheers,

O.

You clearly misunderstood my point, goodthief, since I am sure you wouldn't stoop to obfuscation.

>>You’re a sly boots, using “justification” when you mean “empirical proof”. I don’t agree with you that empirical proof is the only justification.<<

No, I meant justification. I wouldn't dream of asking for empirical proof, since I know from many years experience that such answers are not forthcoming.

The context was, I thought, clear on this. I said that "I don't 'insist on empirical proof' for myself. Only when people use their religion as a weapon against those of a different religious persuasion do I feel the urge to ask them for some justification."

What happens is that i) a self-proclaimed Christian gets stuck into someone else's religion, usually Islam and ii) I ask why their religion - based as it is on pure belief and faith - should be any more valid that the next one, which has the same foundation.

Proof, I don't need. But some justification for the apparent double standards would be nice.

>>I wouldn’t say I’ve absolved myself from the requirement to question my faith<<

But you give every appearance of having done so.

In every other field of endeavour, a human being will set out to understand as much as they possibly can. It is how progress is made, how the wheel, the steam engine and the Gameboy were invented.

By creating a circular path around your belief, it becomes untouchable. No amount of reason or logic can disturb it. You are therefore happy to leave it untouched, since its beginning and end are identical.

This is fundamentally different from saying yes, this is how it is perceived now, but if I think about it just a little bit more...

So whether or not you believe that the empiricist creates the same circularity, the outcome is fundamentally, one hundred and eighty degrees, different. This might just give you a clue as to why I think that asking for, or looking for, empirical proofs is a process, not a presupposition.

Pericles,

On re-reading the posts, you still seem to me to use “empirical proof” and “justification” interchangeably – at least when you are irked by some theist claiming a God monopoly.

Anyhow, I see the issue of “faith” as our main beef. I apply to empiricism all the things you say about religious faith. As far as I’m aware, a science library is full of books, all (or almost all) premised on empiricism. Particular lines of empirical inquiry are critiqued or developed, but empiricism itself is taken for granted. A Christian theological library is similar: critique and development of specific lines of scriptural interpretation or theological discourse, but usually premised on the existence of a personal God and, slightly less often, the divinity of Jesus. Some would stock Dawkins et al, others wouldn't.

I have found that, for empiricists, empiricism is untouchable. I have found them to be as securely bound to it as I am to God/Jesus. That’s why I call it a faith, but presupposition will do.

I seldom talk about other religions. Often, as you would imagine, the discussion centres on the divinity of Jesus. However, I’m not sure how your position is strengthened by the existence of different views about God.

The analogy might not be sound (I haven’t given it much thought), but scientists disagree about things, don’t they? Even in the one era. Is it so different? Especially if they’re in different “camps” or "schools", that is.

Regardless, I have to disagree with any denial of Jesus’ divinity – so long as I hold to it – whether the denial comes from an atheist or a Muslim. “Logically have to”, I mean.

If it matters, my natural tendency is to question, especially any idea that feels like it’s imposed. Even so, I have had no reason to disbelieve in Jesus’ divinity. And I’ve been listening to non-Christians and anti-Christians all my adult life. Listening carefully. That's why I read Dawkins: it's not my fault he didn't touch the sides.

Pax,

Sells

I am liberal. I do stand for all those things you rail against in this forum and I am much encouraged by your resort to condescension.

With typically Anglican arrogance you ascribe to me motives which makes no sense whatsoever and dismiss as pagan many faithful Christians simply because they do not conform to your rigid theological prescriptions.

Notwithstanding all of that I do thoroughly enjoy the vigorous and candid debate that frequently ensues from your efforts in publishing on such a wide range of specifically Christian subjects. Keep up the good work!

Peace be with you.... until the next thread!

All,

To iterate: "Matthew 12:30-32 "He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathers not with me scatters. For this reason I say unto you, Every sin and injurious speaking shall be forgiven to men, but speaking injuriously of the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men. And whosoever shall have spoken a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the coming one."

Doesn't the above have significant implications for a unified ousia with regards the Trinity?

If Sells is unsure of a response, perhaps someone else might have a go.

Off line for a while, but will check back.

Cheers and good will to all.

O.