Phil Matimein,

Thanks.

I was beginning to think that I was the only one who'd noticed the 'elephant in the room' - the fact that human beings practiced moral and ethical behaviour, philosophy and as a part of other religions long before Christianity decided it knew what was best for us.

Getting back to Aquinas along with Immanuel Kant, one wonders with their acceptance of Reason whether they were still not sure about Faith.

Having lost my loving wife over two years ago, after nearly 65 years of marriage, while some of my friends tell me I must have faith to meet her again in an afterlife, my philosophical studies only tell me to hope for it.

Finally, to have no hope left at all, still seems as if one should give thanks for nearly 65 years of a wonderful human partnership.

Regards, BB - WA.

Do not take this as a cop-out Frank, but, just as I understand evolution to have begun with the irreducibly simple and branch out into a hierarchy of the startlingly complex, so too it is with religion – this is not to say a simple mind is beyond its grasp and there are also far greater minds than mine.. But still, perception needs an observer. Our senses are automatically working, but our evaluation is not, and it depends on our knowledge of a perception which, according to William James, is always in the inverse ratio to our senses.

The idea of God can be about as baffling as QM where the observed is affected by the observer. Man goes "haywire" when he forgets to dream and has nothing to observe. The fascists of history have thrived in times of cultural decline or decadence, seeking to achieve national rebirth through its narrow Weltanschauung of ‘purity’. This is not the religion I know, espousing diversity or tolerance, but is its antithesis thereof.

Where our legends were once simple our myths continue – from which our modern science has grown, putting to rest our superstition. Getting what ‘sophisticated’ theology is, or comprehending what ‘sophisticated’ theologians think or believe isn’t the same as a ‘non-belief’ nor is it a superstition, far from it - it takes some serious work, time and effort - far more than a blog post, or two, or a hundred...

BB,
As with you, I tend to live in a ‘Kantian’ hope where God and the afterlife are not possible objects of sensible experience. "The speculative man becomes entangled in mysticism where his reason does not understand itself and what it wants..." My trust isn't in my own limit of understanding.

Fractelle,
I was beginning to think that I was the only one who'd noticed the 'elephant in the room' - the fact that other creatures practiced many things humans do, and some of them had over 90% of human DNA, long before humans decided that, just because of the few extra genes, they are more intelligent and carry more responsibility for the fate of this planet of ours than their predecessors in evolution.

The times have gone when people were ashamed of “coming from apes“, and Christians ignored the anthropological, historical and cultural roots of their religion.

CJ Morgan,
>>desperately trying to assert that their religious beliefs are somehow the equivalent of science, by using increasingly convoluted reasoning and argumentation<<
I do not know who on this thread was asserting that religious beliefs are the equivalent of science, but I am certainly glad I never had you as a student in my maths classes (or any classes where some very abstract and hard to grasp ideas are being taught) if this is your reaction to sincere attempts to explain things to you, to broaden your perspective (which does not mean wanting to convert you).

You seem to be living in the reverse of Galileo‘s times - when the scientific perspective was seen as threatening the Christian perspective - by thinking that it is the other way around.

Gday Bushbasher; I am sympathetic to your great loss; and in regards to some Philosophy, it is their interpretations and put to language perhaps best known to themselves.
There are literally hundreds of Philosophers other than the basic mainstream ones so well known; dissecting their words, you may become well rehearsed in the reasons why: (No Pun Intended) ha

Anyway I have supplied a link to a lesser know philosopher, but more powerful in words and they are not a bag of worms to add the old proverbial.
Happy reading, and check out the main site;
Santayana, George, 1863-1952
•
&#61607; The Life of Reason (English)
&#61607; Some Turns of Thought in Modern Philosophy
Five Essays (English)
&#61607; Winds Of Doctrine
Studies in Contemporary Opinion (English)

Ps. relda , I do not know why you would doubt your tallents- they seem to be quite advanced.

Bugger , the link did not work ; Ill try the main site; http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/

Happy reading , and Give Arthur Schopenhauer (Spelling ? ) a going over.

Hi George - I would certainly liked to have had someone like you as my maths lecturer or tutor when I was an undergraduate doing a Science degree with a double major in Maths and Psychology back in the early 80s. My reading of your comments at OLO over time are such that I respect your opinions and your way of putting them. Clearly, you are an unusually intelligent and rational religionist.

My point about equivalence is that Sellick and those who agree with him seem to be arguing that their interpretations of (and belief in) various Christian texts are as salient and valid an apprehension of reality as are those of the corpus of scientific literature. I disagree - rather, I think that they are perfectly valid as frameworks by which people attach meaning to what are often otherwise variously nasty, brutish , short, boring or otherwise unpleasant or alienating lves. But that doesn't in itself adequately describe the real world, where belief isn't necessary for things to happen.

There's another gorilla in the OLO room here - and that's the one where what might appear to be simply an affirmation of a purported essential "spiritual" dimension to humanity jumps out of its cage and becomes an impediment to more secular aspects of life that include, for example, issues like abortion, euthanasia, censorship, immigration, drug laws etc etc. Even climate change - for example, you rarely get a Christian perspective here at OLO that actively supports climate change mitigation policies, or even acknowledges the reality of AGW.

Quite simply, I'd rather that such issues were approached from a perspective where empirical evidence and rational, humanist thought outweighs often dogmatic, invariably superstitious, appeal to purported wisdom and guidance handed down from some divine source.

Clearly, the Christians disagree. As they would.

It's like the X-Files - "I want to believe" - isn't it?