(ctd) Today faith is much harder to understand for an outsider (“unbeliever”) - see e.g. the postings here by HarryG - not only because it is always difficult to communicate a state of mind, but also because of this lack of general agreement on what the underlying beliefs actually state.

One might argue that this ambiguity about the basic terms of the tenets of Christianity - which the “simple mind” understands intuitively - is a consequence of its “marrying” the Hellenic world. Nevertheless, I would agree with the Pope that this marriage contributed to Christianity maturing as a world view, capable of absorbing the Reformation as well as the corrections of Enlightenment, in spite of the fact that Christianity is primarily not about an intellectually sophisticated world view: Primum vivere, deinde philosophari applies to the teachings of Jesus perhaps more than to other teachings that lead to sophisticated world views.

Dan,

I think I need to expand on what I said about Information Theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I read what they've said about them at www.creationontheweb.com and they certainly do sound convincing – until, of course, you read-up on what both of these actually are.

I couldn't possibly fit this into 700 word so I'm going to have to provide a few links.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Here is a link to a page by a Christian Physicist (who is tired of his fellow Christians using the flawed arguments of Creationists and making fools of themselves) that explains the relationship (or lack there of) of the Second Law and evolution. He uses examples that make this complex law very easy to understand:

http://www.charleswood.ca/reading/evolution.php

After reading that, you should be able to more easily understand these brief responses to the Creationist claims about the Second Law and Entropy:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_4.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_1.html

And to blow the Creationist's arguments completely out of the water in more lengthy detail:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

Now read the following link and you'll be able to see the basic errors. Errors so basic in fact, that it makes you wonder how the author managed to achieve the letters after his name at all:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3727/

Information Theory

There is some lengthy and detailed reading of Information Theory and Creationism at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html

And here's a link that highlights the many flaws in Werner Gitt's version of Information Theory:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/gitt.html#Wrong

Happy reading. It took me hours!

Thanks for your response George,
I believe your mention of ‘state of mind’ becomes quite relevant when using the term or speaking of ‘faith’. Tillich was probably the first one who introduced me to the idea of existentialism where one could venture to say, faith is uncompromisingly existential. As Luther said, every one must do his own believing just as every one must do his own dying.

Tillich was sensitive to the problem of proselytism and believed Christianity should "negate" itself as a religion in order to let go of nonessential forms and thus be open to human communities and their rights to their own cultures even when adopting Christianity. His priori, if you like, was the "existential-historical" Jesus who, inter alia, had been not only a Jewish teacher and prophet, but also a turning point of all history, philosopher, king of kings, embodiment of mind and reason, perfect human, suffering servant, ascetic monk, and mystical bridegroom of the soul, poet and liberator of the oppressed etc. Tillich, rather than seeing a literal message from God was able to find substance with religious rite, symbol and myth – perhaps not unlike Jung of the more Gnostic tradition.

It is perhaps easy to see that metaphysics was to the Gnostic age what the scientific spirit is to us. Gnosticism was perhaps one of the greatest efforts ever made to satisfy the religious needs by seeking a religion which would conserve the maximum of the past and yet adjust itself to the contemporary outlook. It was the religious reaction of the syncretistic centuries to the intellectual forces of the time. Gnosticism, as with many other movements, however, declined in the third century and subsequently into puerility and whimsy - it parted company with reason, the pride of Hellenism.
cont’d…

cont’d…
It should be evident, a new religion cannot spread independent of its historic milieu, nor can it forge for itself at once new categories of thought and own psychology. This equally applies to early Christianity. This new religion spread in a world of Paganism with deep-rooted artistic-religious cravings, and not in the mother-soil of Judaism, which was indifferent to plastic and pictorial art – still a hangover within an iconic Roman Catholicism.

As another priori, the ‘middle’ and ‘dark’ ages presented a period where Greek science was dead and modern science not yet born: neither philosophy nor theology had yet parted company with mythology. There is perhaps a half-truth in Sir James G. Frazer’s remark, "The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, and to find a sound theory for absurd practices." Our Western civilization is an attempted, but as yet very imperfect, synthesis of three great heritages of the things of the spirit - Hellenism, Hebraism, and Christianity.

One can see ambiguity everywhere, including the R.C. religion. Father Fausto Marinetti, a missionary for 15 years in Brazil wrote a pleading letter to the current Pope, '.. Family, sexuality, defense of life, bioethics, etc.. etc.. everything is important, but if you want to own the "life from conception to its final outcome," you can not ignore, or treat us as "poverini" they deserve crumbs of compassion. We want dignity and justice.. [it is a] dogma declared even by pagans: "Primum live, deinde philosophari."'

relda,
>> metaphysics was to the Gnostic age what the scientific spirit is to us <<
I agree, except I do not see the scientific spirit as something that SUPERSEDED metaphysics, but as an EXTENSION of the way metaphysics looks at reality, which, I think, is a part of our Hellenic heritage, not restricted just to the Gnostic centuries.

Otherwise Amen to what you wrote, except perhaps for the last paragraph.

I do not know who is Father Marinetti, and how he came to the conclusion that Benedict XVI denied dignity and justice to his "poverini". He probably is hinting at the Pope's (and his predecessor's) dislike - or condemnation if you like, although it is less outspoken now after the fall of the Marx-leninist Empire than before - of liberation theology that in THEORY (theology, after all, is not a social program but a theory) wants to mix Christianity with Marxism, the principle of "love your neighbour" with the principle "fight your class enemy", whatever might be the PRACTICAL (political) reasons for fighting some groups for the sake of social justice.

Especially in (Central) Europe one has learned to be sensitive about mixing religion with politics: the horror of Stalin (that begun almost a decade before Hitler) made many, including some clergy, blinded in their toleration, even sympathy for any anti-communist nationalist movement, even the fascists and Nazis, until it was too late. So one should understand the Pope’s aversion to theological eagerness going the opposite direction, although, of course, not every Marxism must lead to Marx-Leninism or Stalinism, and not every nationalism must end in fascism or Nazism.

I agree George, there can be a pervading Marxist element in “loving your neighbor” when applied to a perception of class within society – undoubtedly, these boundaries exist, but all too often are a reflection of the envy contained and the dissatisfaction found in one’s life. The determinate of this discontent is readily fueled by the materialistic idea, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” – Marx.

A real and lasting social revolution can only ever be attained through the emergence of an inner consciousness, and not any outer existence. As we find, our vastly improved social conditions (outer existence), prevalent in much of the West, do not alter our ‘faulty’ interior one bit. But, on this point at least, I’ll agree with Fausto Marinette where the “poverini” deserve a compassion that attends their dignity and provides justice – this I’d regard as truly Christian in its ideal, where ‘liberation’ becomes reality (for giver and receiver), rather than a false premise for socialist doctrine. For now, I’ll not judge his (Fausto’s) motive but perhaps assume his compassion as genuine – from his words.