Hi George, nice to see you around again.

This comment of yours intrigued me:
"One thing 21st Christians are learning fast - where Muslims are still far behind - is not to get offended by anything, because offence, derision, ridicule etc. caries information about the offender not the object of the offence."

I agree with this, with the caveat that Christianity has more or less been forced to this position through centuries of Western enlightenment, for want of a better word. Such forbearance of counter views to Christianity has not always been thus.

More interestingly though, surely you would agree that certain ridicule of religion and the religious is warranted, deserved and indeed plays a useful role?

Example - the Danish cartoons. I have seen them all, did not think all were particularly funny, but the one that showed a frantic bearded man (Mohammed?) at the Muslim equivalent of the pearly gates, saying:
"Stop it! We've run out of virgins" was absolutely priceless.

Funny, accurate, merciless satire. Those that either believe or seek to convince others that the reward for mass murder via suicide bombing is 72 dark-eyed virgins, deserve to be pilloried. Don't they? And as such, derision and ridicule can reflect very well on the author and sharply skewer the maniacal and the hypocritical.

pelican,
“in the absence of any other evidence, all we can conclude...”. I think the crucial point here is that this “evidence” depends on the “we”.

Even under scientific evidence, or absence of it, one understood something different, say, 200 years go and today. Nevertheless, at a certain stage in history (within a certain paradigm, if you like Thomas Kuhn‘s terminology) scientists can more or less agree on what constitutes evidence. And by now at least the physicists have learned that “common sense” (that guides the naive believer as well as unbeliever), is not a good judge of what is and what is not irrefutable evidence.

However, this universal (though time dependent) acceptance of what evidence means is not so straightforward when a wider range of phenomena, cultural determinants, tradition and personal experiences, are involved: what is an acceptable evidence for me, with my set of insights, and personal experience, might not constitute evidence for you, from your point of view, with your life experience. And vice versa. So I can agree with you only if by “evidence” you mean “scientific evidence as understood by contemporary scientists.”

I personally believe that there will never be - could never be - scientific evidence for the existence of a God as modelled e.g. by Christian theology, but that is a different matter, a different belief.

I can more or less agree with the rest of what you wrote. I see my world view - which I think fits within what one could call Christian - as an extension, not a rejection of a serious areligious (secular) world view. When looking at a beautiful scenery I do not disagree with what a colour blind person tells me he/she can see. I am just aware of the extra experience that he/she cannot have. Nevertheless, I admit there can be conflicts between a religious outlook and an atheist or agnostic outlook: they are caused by a naive approach to religion (and/or science), both from within and from without, though in the latter case it is often intention rather than just naivete.

Hi stickman, nice of you to remember me.
“Christianity has more or less been forced to this position (of not getting easily offended) through centuries of Western enlightenment,“

You are confusing two things.

The Church (not Christianity) was forced to ACCEPT CRITICISM through Enlightenment, born out of Christianity’s own “womb”: the genes of most Enlightenment protagonists can be traced back to some pious mediaeval Christian forefather. Enlightenment is a correction to Christianity not forced on it from outside, from a different - say Chinese, Aztec or what - civilisation. Christianity, so to say, created its own antithesis, to interact with it, and in the process to arrive painfully at its own, healthier, synthesis. The process is far from completed. (This is different from biology, where intercourse with one’s own offspring, incest, usually does not lead to a healthy “synthesis”.) This is one thing.

Another thing is the so-called RIGHT TO OFFEND. This is nothing any healthy society, can sustain. I can enjoy all sorts of human rights, but abusing or making fun of your parents, your ethnic origin, your race, sexual orientation, religion etc., whatever YOU (not I) hold sacred, whatever offends YOU (irrespective of how funny I find it) cannot be one of my rights. So I do not agree “that certain ridicule of (these things including) religion ... is warranted,... plays a useful role.“ Criticism yes, ridicule, offence no. Given some strong reasons to criticise, to say something unpleasant about your family, race, sexual orientation, religion etc., I might try to present them to you. But never ridicule or express criticism with an intention to offend.

If somebody offends you, you can react in three ways:
(1) become aggressive, retaliate, offend back, or
(2) ignore the offender, or
(3) feel sorry for the attacker, or better, try to understand his mental state that forces him to act in that way.

The first reaction - that unfortunately some Christians and many Muslims are still stuck with - is irrational, the second one is rational and the third reaction, that we all should aim for, is charitable.

George, I hope you did not think I was arguing that we have a right to offend. I meant that sometimes arguing one point of view it is inevitable that some might be offended because, to be blunt, the presumption from both sides of the debate is that the other is deluded even if it is only implied. This does not mean that we cannot respect the other point of view and accept that as you said, people's experiences are different and this is what shapes our values and beliefs.

I hope I did not offend you inadvertently. I like the way you express yourself in an intelligent and charismatic way and do respect your opinions.

Thanks Apis, for backing and making more clear the importance of the need for Christian faith to be modified by reason, shown as you said by other Christian Saints besides Aquinas, and as is taught in most of our universities, anyhow.

It was much later in history that John Locke stressed its importance, as Immanuel Kant did much later, though himself a devout Christian, stressing the importance not so much of one personage or one nation under God for perpetual peace, but a federation of nations.

We are faced so much with similar problems today, especially in the Middle East where we have Islam much more fundamental than it became when influenced by the Reasoning that Golden Greek influence had brought to what is now Iran, Egypt, as well as Iraq.

While some blame the Ottomans for the change, others blame us former European barbarians who have overdone Hellenistic Reasoning so much we have forced Islam back into its own Dark Age.

As an Iranian woman judge made comment a couple of years ago. We do believe in democracy, which is indeed a Greek word, but we want our own democracy, not fashioned in the American Way.

Could suggest more of the wisdom and understanding so much acquired from the gifts of Greek Reasoning as well as from Christian faith is what we need so much of right now.

Regards - BB, WA.

Thanks Apis, for backing and making more clear the importance of the need for Christian faith to be modified by reason, shown as you said by other Christian Saints besides Aquinas, and as is taught in most of our universities, anyhow.
It was much later in history that John Locke stressed its importance, as Immanuel Kant did much later, though himself a devout Christian, stressing the importance not so much of one personage or one nation under God for perpetual peace, but a federation of nations.
We are faced so much with similar problems today, especially in the Middle East where we have Islam much more fundamental than it became when influenced by the Reasoning that Golden Greek influence had brought to what is now Iran, Egypt, as well as Iraq.
While some blame the Ottomans for the change, others blame us former European barbarians who have overdone Hellenistic Reasoning so much we have forced Islam back into its own Dark Age.
As an Iranian woman judge made comment a couple of years ago. We do believe In democracy, which is indeed a Greek word, but we want our own democracy, not fashioned in the American Way.
Could suggest more of the wisdom and understanding so much acquired from the gifts of Greek Reasoning as well as from Christian faith is what we need so much of right now.