When studying archaeology many years ago, a lecturer (atheist) taught that the Romans expanded their empire looking for wells from which “power” could be sourced; that straight lines channelled power - thus the grid-pattern of Roman castra and towns. His office was a bobbing sea of pyramids - even placed over students’ papers to “raise” their marks. This lecturer had not always been thus, but had had some “conversion”. As he was tenured (had concrete boots) it would have been necessary for the students, as a body, to complain. Being undergrads, the “lowest form of academic life”, none of us dared. I have no doubt that some students complied with his “dogma” when writing papers. The last time I heard of him, he was heading a large gathering of people (including a mathematician from the science department) who hoped to be “powered up” by standing at the end of the longest street in our city, holding lighted candles.

“My (Catholic) cousin believes we should do nothing about climate change because the state of the planet is in the hands of her god.”

Some religious people would argue that we have god-given brains and free-will, and climate change was a problem to be tackled ... They would not advocate doing nothing, nor just prayer.

I do not subscribe to Christian belief, so have not read John Shelby Spong’s work. But hasn’t he attempted to remove the irrational elements in this religion?

Also, it has to be admitted that scientists don’t necessarily agree on the findings and interpretation of empirical evidence.

Then there is theoretical physics ...

Goodthief,

<<Dawkins is also less annoyed with deism, but he still regards this non-interventionist creator-God as unprovable (because it’s supernatural) and the deist as therefore irrational.>>

And he would be right.

There is absolutely no rationality in assuming that the questions that science cannot answer, are automatically answered by saying: “God must have done it”. Nor is there any rationality in the supernatural, because stating that God cannot be explained because he is not of the physical world is simply an excuse not to think.

There is about as much rationality in the lack of thought, as there is life a dead corpse.

<<I'm very happy for religion, and theism generally, to be critiqued.>>

Then you would be in an extremely small minority.

<<My fellow Christians do it all the time, from inside. >>

As a former Christian myself, I can tell you that they don't really. Just take a look at the majority of Christians on OLO, and the fact that it doesn't matter how many times you prove them wrong, they just keep coming back with the same old arguments. This is also evidential in the so-called 'science' of Creationism.

Some try to critique Theism, but questioning something when your sense of reason is so fundamentally flawed is pointless.

<<The aggressive atheistic ideology I have in mind is communism. Not that they killed because they’re atheists: the point is, God was removed from the equation, and slaughter still occurred.>>

I've never heard any Atheist claim that removing God from the equation would suddenly bring about a peaceful utopia. But it's certainly evident that religion brings about a lot more violence in the world then there would be without it.

Good to see you're not implying that the atrocities committed by Communists were done in the name of Atheism though. All too often, Theists think they've pulled a trump card when they mention Stalin, Pol Pot and the likes when it's asked: “How many wars started in the name of Atheism?”. This of course, is patently false.

AJ Phillips, I don’t believe in God because of gaps in scientific knowledge. I simply believe in God, and I believe God made a natural world that can be apprehended by the senses.

Also, I’m not saying God can’t be explained, but that God can’t be explained scientifically. Which troubles you enormously, and doesn’t trouble me at all.

Bushbasher. If by “rational critique”, you mean “critique that only considers empirical proof”, then we don't agree. This is because I don’t see rationality as dependent simply on evidence. I would only accept that kind of critique if you convince me that empirically acquired knowledge is the only knowledge. As things stand, I don’t accept this, but occupy a broader position. If I evangelised, I would not try to prove anything in the scientific sense; it’s the same when, like here, I’m playing defence.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is only relevant if someone says that liberating oneself from the empiricist strait-jacket means one can believe absolutely anything without any explanation at all. This is not what I’m saying. I have reasons for believing in God: it’s just that my reasons are unimpressive to a scientist.

Reliance on the Bible is somewhat circular – “I believe in God because of the Bible, and I believe in the Bible because of God” – but it’s still very helpful, and anyway I believe God breaks the circle by “intruding” on my attention, in my case by Jesus leaping from the pages of the Gospels. Also, my belief in God “works”. Also, I love God, very dearly. I can't reproduce these experiences in a lab.

I also believe that theism has a lot of staying power, and that talk about religious wars, emotional crutches and speculative evolutionary explanations (of religion) are not enough to dismiss it. The main Dawkinsian reason for denying religion (prayer etc) is the “fact” that there’s no God to be religious about – but, this too is circular. If there’s no God, then of course religion and prayer are silly.

Pax,

Goodtheif,

<<I don’t believe in God because of gaps in scientific knowledge. I simply believe in God, and I believe God made a natural world that can be apprehended by the senses.>>

Yes, you've made that very clear.

But how do you know you're worshiping the right God? There are many God's, each one with their own set of followers who are just as certain as you that their God is the real God.

Believers of other faiths, 'know' as much as you 'know', and feel it the same as you feel it.

Had you been born in ancient Scandinavia, you'd be sure that Thor exists.

But the only reason I mentioned the 'gaps', is because the topic of rationally has been raised, and that is some of the 'rationality' used by Theists quite often.

<<Also, I’m not saying God can’t be explained, but that God can’t be explained scientifically.>>

But isn't that just too easy?

<<Which troubles you enormously, and doesn’t trouble me at all.>>

The only reason it 'troubles' me, is because it suppresses our naturally curious minds, and people are willing to do all sorts of crazy things in the name of God. When, let's face it, there's no way anyone can know for sure if God does or does not exist. Even the 'feelings' and 'senses' can be easily explained by what little we know about psychology and the human brain.

Surely at some point, one's sense of logic should kick-in when one considers how flawed the Bible is, and how many other (non-speculative) scientific and logical explanations there are for what the religious believe.

Surely one can only cherry-pick the Bible so much before one's sense of reason kicks-in, and the excuses of the 'metaphysical' God, and the 'metaphorical' Holy Book don't do it anymore.

Surely we've all reached this point now. Especially when you consider that Gods were used by more primitive people to explain the unexplainable.

But if it works for you, and you get something out of it, without forcing any of it on to anyone else, then I guess that's alright.

AJ Philips, a few brief points in case you return to this string:-

There is only room for one God. My apprehension of that one God is from my vantage point. The “other Gods” you mention either don’t exist, or are the same God from a different vantage point.

My knowledge of God is similar to your knowledge (or, at least, the empiricist’s knowledge) that empiricism is the only path to knowledge. So, you need to add empiricism to the list of gods that are “known”.

Science is not the only pathway for curiosity. In any event, I have no objection to scientific curiosity being pursued with all the energy that can be mustered. The Christians I know feel the same way. Faith is not a denial of science: it co-exists with science. Arguably, belief in a God who has made our senses reasonably reliable and has set things up so that the scientist can extrapolate from observed (experimental) events to unobserved generalisations is as good a foundation for science as you can get.

I don’t cherry pick from the Bible. I rejoice in what I understand, puzzle over what I don’t understand and struggle with what troubles me.

Pax,

Goodthief,

<<Science is not the only pathway for curiosity.>>

No, but it's the most reliable method we have for learning about the world around us. Any answers that religion is thought to provide are undermined by the fact that they rely on the assumption that there really is a God.

<<I have no objection to scientific curiosity being pursued with all the energy that can be mustered. The Christians I know feel the same way. Faith is not a denial of science: it co-exists with science...>>

The Christians you know, sound like a very select bunch of Christians then. Yo DO know that I'm referring specifically to Biological/Evolutionary science, don't you? Not any other kind of science. In fact, I'm currently debating a Christian here on OLO at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784&page=0 who denies the science of Evolution.

Although, there were other kinds of science that were stifled by religion in the past. Remember the scientific theories, hundreds of years ago, that could have seen scientists facing charges of Heresy?

One thing's for sure though, Secularism has helped inject a lot of sanity into religion. Honestly, where would the church be without Secularism to help guide them and help pull them out of the dark ages? Really brings into question the value of religion though, and whether or not religion really does hold answers to the questions that science can't necessarily answer - yet.

<<I don’t cherry pick from the Bible. I rejoice in what I understand, puzzle over what I don’t understand and struggle with what troubles me.>>

You must really be struggling with chapters such as Leviticus and Deuteronomy then. And saying that the teachings of Jesus make the Old Testament irrelevant (or parts of it) IS cherry-picking.

But if you were to resort to simply saying that the cruelty of the Old Testament could've been symbolic, well, that just goes back to one of the points in my last post about chopping and changing the interpretation of the Bible, and how the need to do this brings it into question.